First Man [2018]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (A-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


First Man [2018] (directed by Damian Chazelle, screenplay by Josh Singer based on the book [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by  [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) continues a trend in contemporary (here and now) film-making:

If "back in the day" (my youth ;-) NASA portrayed itself as an almost super-heroically serene, supremely competent can-do agency -- "Houston, we have a problem" was literally the phrase used by the Apollo 13 crew to report back to NASA mission control that some sort of an _explosion_ occurred in the Service Module of the spacecraft as it approached the moon.  Over the course of the next several days, NASA, chock full of experts, who performed _all kinds of simulations_ on the ground, instructed the crew as to what to do, to get themselves safely back to earth.  All this was, of course, immortalized in Ron Howard's, Tom Hanks starring film Apollo 13 [1995].

In the current film, the opening scene portrayed Neil Armstrong [wikip] [IMDb] (played _largely_ still with unknowable superhuman stoicism by Ryan Gosling) piloting the US Air Force's experimental X-15 rocket-plane in a test that put him, then, in 1961, outside the atmosphere, and ... as he sought to bring the plane back down it ... apparently BOUNCED OFF THE ATMOSPHERE ... sending him and his craft, apparently drifting out into near orbit space.  What to do?  Well, he begins by calmly hitting levers and buttons, and ... NOTHING SEEMS TO BE WORKING and FIFTEEN / THIRTY SECONDS INTO becoming UNWILLINGLY "the first man in space" HE BEGINS TO DO WHAT _EVERYONE OF US_ WOULD DO IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS: He begins TO POUND on EVERY BUTTON / LEVEL IN SIGHT UNTIL ... _SOMETHING CLICKS_ / SOME MOTOR STARTS AND ... he begins to bring the rocket plane down to earth ;-)

THAT opening scene, did its job for me.  I was hooked for the rest of the film ;-)  [Neil Armstrong, we learn, never flew in the military.  He was a civilian engineer.  BUT BOY DID HE GET RESPECT FOR WHAT HE DID ON THAT DAY.  "He brought an X-15 that was drifting out into space down to earth and lived to tell about it," an admiring military test pilot program commander explained when someone asked WHY Armstrong was picked for the NASA Space Program over presumably some other military test pilot].

And this opening scene was emblematic of the difference between the contemporary sci-fi film-making and that of a generation ago.  In the past, everything was portrayed as calm, even frighteningly / monstrously calm -- think of the calm voice of the HAL computer in Stanley Kuberick's 2001: A Space Odyssey [1968], or the tag-line in Ridley Scott's first Alien [1979] movie "In Space no one can hear you scream!" ;-).  In the current film, the launch sequence of Apollo 11 was NOT done with Strauss' "Blue Danube" waltz playing in the background.  INSTEAD, EVERYTHING SHOOK and at least _inside_ the Apollo 11 capsule THE LAUNCH WAS _LOUD_.  Using largely _shaking_ hand-held cameras, the effect to the viewer was experiencing the launch of Apollo 11 as at least _in part_ how it was: like going into space / being attached to the largest fire-cracker / sky-rocket ever built ;-).

Much has been said (usually negatively) of recent attempts to literally "shake-up" / "energize" previous thoughtful / even cerebral storytelling -- one thinks here of the "reboots" of the original Star Trek series or even of the Sherlock Holmes stories.  Yet, I suppose here, in the case of Neil Armstrong and the Apollo 11 mission, the "correction" is perhaps, well, "the most correct."  THIS WAS an incredibly dangerous mission with ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT COULD HAVE GONE WRONG.  There's an excellent scene in the film showing Armstrong "practicing" the landing of a "best guess" mock-up lunar module somewhere in the Mohave Desert.  Let's just say it doesn't go well and one is reminded very well that they were still using 1960s technology that wasn't nearly as digitized, reproducible as technology today.

So I left _really impressed_ by the film, and of the qualities that were being asked of the astronauts in those days.  These were _not_ scarves around their necks photogenic prima donna "flyboys."  They were literally risking their lives and selected precisely for their ability to keep tremendous internal pressure (to scream, to fly off the handle, to give up) under wraps.

My hat off to the film-makers and the people they portrayed!


< 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 Wife [2018]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (K. Rife) review


The Wife [2018] (directed by Björn Runge, screenplay by Jane Anderson based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Meg Wolitzer [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a very well written, well executed drama about an older "power couple" (of the more traditional sense), Joe and Joan Castleman (played in the present by Jonathan Pryce and Glenn Close, and in their younger years by Harry Lloyd and Annie Starke). 

Near the beginning of the film, Joe is informed through a gushing early morning phone call from Stockholm by a representative of the Nobel Prize Committee that he is going to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature that year.  Of course both are ecstatic, initially, but ... all is not what it seems.

The story that ensues is on one hand somewhat predictable but certainly poignant in the current (and hopefully this time lasting) #Metoo movement.  Yet, the film is crisp / extremely well executed and leaves Viewers with some very interesting questions about the nature of marriage / a couple / a common project and even of "prizehood" itself.  While the story presented here gives actually an extreme (though still quite interesting) case, can ANYONE really declare about ANY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT that he/she did it all "My Way"?

< 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! :-) >>

Fahrenheit 11/9 [2018]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB ()  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (R. Abele) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Fahrenheit 11/9 [2018] (written and directed by Michael Moore) is typically in the style of the writer-director's movies if perhaps one of his more uneven ones.  The film gives Moore opportunity to vent his anger at the Democrats because he did, indeed, "see it coming," Trump's election that is.  And it's clear that he's supporting (with reason) the new generation of Democrats who've had enough of the Republican-light Clinton (and even Obama) variety.

A particularly strong condemnation was of former President Obama, who Moore showed going to his hometown of Flint, Michigan in the midst of its literally (lead) poisoned water crisis, where OBAMA _feinted_ drinking a glass of the water there during a speech whose _sole purpose_ was to declare the water to be finally, at last, again safe.  Moore noted that _that single_ botched / fake / cynical gesture could have lost the Democrats Michigan in 2016 and hence the Presidential election.

And there was Moore's thesis: What good are the establishment Democrats if they don't stand for / "compromise" on traditional Democratic values -- most poignantly portrayed here, public health, but also defending people who need decent health care, decent wage jobs, freedom from having to fear that they're going to be gunned down by some idiot with a legally purchased AR-15, etc.

So Moore puts his hopes on the young, new Democrats who're not afraid of speaking on behalf of health care, unions, gun control, all issues that he maintains clear majorities of Americans support if only some politicians would support.

And here it ought to be noted that these values -- universal access to affordable health care, unions, gun control -- are all supported by over a century of Catholic Social Teaching.   Yes, the Catholic Church has never supported (and almost certainly never will support) abortion or gay marriage.  But precisely because it is pro-Life it has always been pro-universal access to affordable health care, pro-union (allowing workers to organize themselves) and always against unrestrained "gun rights."

Anyway, most viewers will come to the film with their own views and leave with them largely unchanged.  Yet, Moore's point that parties, here the Democrats, have to _stand for something_ (and hopefully stand for something that is _good_) is well taken.

I would add here, that we've a wasted a generation in which the only movement has seemed to be with regards to abortion and tax cuts, and I'd like to ask: WHAT GOOD IS THIS TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS who're far more concerned about their wages being stagnant and their medical bills going through the roof? 

The "marqui issues" of both the GOP and the Democrats don't effect _positively_ the concerns of the vast majority of the populace and haven't for a generation.

So yes, Michael Moore, who did, in fact, "see Trump coming" is angry.  So should most of us be 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! :-) >>

Peppermint [2018]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  RogerEbert.com (1 Star)  AVClub (C-)  Fr. Dennis (0 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Abrams) review
AVClub (G. Garner) review


Peppermint [2018] (directed by Pierre Morel, screenplay by Chad St. John) is a film that's very violent and that will offend a fair number of viewers notably Latinos who will identify, QUICKLY, the film's most obvious villains -- tattoo covered members of a MS13 style LATINO drug gang -- who kill the film's heroine's (Riley, played in the film by Jennifer Garner) husband and cute as a button 8 year old daughter on the eight year old's birthday.

'Course its a little more complicated than that.  There are also bought-off / corrupt cops, attorneys and judges, all of whom are white, who make the normal / legal / non-spray them all with bullets path toward justice _impossible_ for Riley.  Indeed, they wanted to put her away into a nut-house when she tried to testify against her family's murderers, but ... she ESCAPED, drops off the radar and COMES BACK five years later to the day of her family's murders AND ... you get the picture.

A clear problem with this picture TODAY is that it almost seems like the film that Quentin Tarantino had Goebbels make for Hitler in Inglourious Basterds [2009] only here for ... To call this film a dog whistle would diminish ... dog-whistles.

And yet, the film does express a frustration of many of those who did vote for Donald Trump -- honest, hardworking white people struggling to make ends meet who do feel frustrated at all levels by the system, dominated by rich folks (also generally white people, but who don't seem to care about them).  And then throw in TATTOO COVERED, UTTERLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE "ALIENS" well, it's enough to get one REALLY, REALLY SURVIVALIST WITH AN AR-15 / UNLIMITED SPRAY OF BULLETS MAD.

To those Readers who are still Reading here ;-), the film reminds me of a conversation I had with group of lovely Puerto Rican born parents when I was stationed at a heavily Puerto Rican parish, St. Catherine of Siena, in Kissimmee, FL.  I asked them why they didn't seem go to the movies much.  And they responded: "Fr. Dennis, we're church going people trying to raise our kids right.  Why should we go and support movies which almost always portray us as EXACTLY what we don't want our kids to become?"

And films like this make their point ... 0 Stars.


< 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! :-) >>