2.0 [2018]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
FiBt listing
RogerEbert.com (S. Abrams) review


2.0 [2018] [IMDb] [FiBt] (directed and tamil dialogue cowritten by S. Shankar [IMDb] [FiBt], along with Jayamohan [IMDb] and Lakshmi Saravanakumar [IMDb], hindi dialogue written by Abbas Tyrewala [IMDb]) is a fun if apparently wildly expensive Indian (Tamil) Sci-Fi film about "The Day the Cell Phones Disappeared."

What happened?  They just all "flew away," right out of people's hands all over the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu, one day.  Why?

Well, they seem to have been "called together" by the soul of a tormented environmental activist named Pakshi Rajan (played by Akshay Kumar [IMDb] [FiBt]) who had been convinced that microwaves from cell phones were killing birds (by frying their brains).  So in despair, he had hung himself from a cell-tower in protest and ... his soul apparently got sucked into the microwave ether where ... he became able to call all the cell phones from all over the state to form a shape changing "flock" of cell phones that sometimes even took the form of a GIGANTIC bird of prey that would attack random "people of interest" (usually promoters of cell phone and other "anti-bird" technology) throughout Tamil Nadu.

Enter a geeky scientist named Dr. Vaseegaran (played by Rajinikanth [IMDb] [FiBt]),  He too was (mildly) bitter.  He had previously created a marvelous all-purpose (but particularly adept at law-enforcement) robot named ... Chitti (also played by Rajinikanth [IMDb] [FiBt]).  But the good doctor had been forced previously (at the end of a previous film... Endhiran [2010] [IMDb] [FiBt]) to terminate his research by a government not particularly interested in robotic technology (in a country with so many PEOPLE desperate for work / livelihoods).  Sooo ... pouting a bit ... he contented himself with creating a simultaneously hot yet sensible looking / super intelligent robotic personal assistant named Nila (played by Amy Jackson [IMDb] [FiBt]) to "accompany him" in his "waning years."  Honestly Asimov would have been awe-struck by (and perhaps tormented over) Nila.  She was truly EVERYTHING but ... free (but, of course, programmed not to mind...).

But now the country was in peril.  So the Government FINALLY gives him the permission to "unleash" his original creation, Chitti, into the fray to battle this otherworldly cellphone dominating Monster.  Much often very, very funny ensues... in good part because "Chitti" is not exactly "robocop" but rather a rather chatty, again, truly all-purpose robot ;-).  Anyway, much ensues ...

A fair question could be asked:  Does the plot make sense?  BUT does it have to?  Did ANY of the plots of Sharknado movies ever make sense?  What about the Spielberg, Belushi, Aykroyd "flop" 1941?  There are SO MANY sight gags, one liners, two liners in this film that to complain about "plot integrity" would be to WILDLY MISS THE POINT ;-).  A truly fun / great job ;-)


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

Ralph Breaks the Internet [2018]

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

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


Ralph Breaks the Internet [2018] (codirected by Phil Johnston and Rich Moore, screenplay cowritten by Phil Johnston and Pamela Ribon, story cowritten by Rich Moore, Phil Johnston, Jim Reardon, Pamela Ribon and Josie Trinidad additional material by Kelly Younger) is a film that I honestly liked better before I set out to write about it as I do believe there are some aspects of the film that I do believe were not particularly well thought out.

The film begins where the surprise children's animated hit Wreck-it Ralph [2012] left-off.  So, like the original it is set among the community of characters living inside the video games of a Video Arcade.  Each night after the arcade shuts down the characters gather together -- traveling up and down the electric cords that power their machines and connect them together -- to catch-up on the day's events.

We find that Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly) has generally found his peace with having been literally programmed in the video game featuring him to be game's "villain" (the one who breaks things, that another character in the game then tries to fix...).  He's learned that after clocking out for the for the night that he can literally "leave his job behind" and "become his own person" among the other characters from his / the other games.  (There's an amusing scene near the end of the current film where Ralph and some of the other "villain characters" from some of the other video games are "discussing Dostoyevsky" in the support group that they have formed ;-).

But among the various characters from the other games, Ralph's come to be particularly close (in, one hopes..., a generally "foster father / "mentor" sort of way...) to another, significantly younger sounding character, named Vanellope (voiced by Sarah Silverman).  She's a character, at one point nicknamed "Glitch" because she wasn't perfect, from a young girl-oriented car racing arcade game named "Sugar Rush" that in the previous film, he felt sorry for / helped.  Indeed, trying to keep her happy -- Vanellope was _mildly_ complaining that she's been getting rather bored as she's been riding the same courses in her video game name for years -- Ralph uses his "wreck-things" ability to try to carve out a new course for Vanellope in her game.

HOWEVER, when the next morning the first human beings, two young girls, come in to play the "Sugar Rush" game, because the new course was so new / challenging they accidentally rip the steering wheel off of the arcade game.  Since a replacement steering wheel for, let's face it, a rather old arcade game would run over $200, the owner of the Arcade decides to just "unplug" the "Sugar Rush" game and makes plans to send it to the scrap heap.

What to do?  Well it turns out that the Arcade Owner had plugged in a new gadget in the recent days called a "Wifi-Server" ;-) and ... even though initially the characters from the various Arcade games found "the Server" "kinda boring", they soon learn that "if only" ... Ralph and Vanellope could (1) get to Ebay.com over the internet ;-), they could buy the replacement steering wheel for the "Sugar Rush" game and (2) make some money on the internet to pay for it, they could fix the game themselves so that the Owner wouldn't have to get rid of it.  And so, Ralph and Vanellope set off to surf (inside) the Internet and ... much ensues ;-).

Among that which ensues is that the effervescent Vanellope finds a far cooler (if somewhat more violent) auto race game there called "Slaughter Race" that she finds she ... kinda likes.  It's so different from the bouncy / happy "Sugar Rush" game that she's literally "always known," and she also makes friends with a rather gruff if kind female race car driver from that game named Shank (voiced by Gal Godot).

While on the Internet, Vanellope also runs into the "Disney Princesses" and ... and is forced to confront the question(s): (1) Is she first / foremost "a princess" herself _or_ "a race car driver, " and (2) what's exactly "a princess" (a nice / good behaved girl) supposed to be anyway.  And as Vanellope tries to figure herself out, the _other_ Disney Princesses begin to re-evaluate their own understandings of themselves.  SERIOUSLY the "Princess" scenes here are fascinating.

In the midst of this Ralph becomes somewhat confused: He's been trying to come up with ways to make some money on the internet so that he could buy that replacement steering wheel for his friend / charge Vanellope so that she could come back with him to the Video Arcade BUT even he's starting to see that Vanellope is really "finding life" / "new challenges / opportunities" _elsewhere_ ... inside this boundless universe of the Internet.  SO ... what to do?

That's thematically the rest of the film.  Honestly, the questions asked in the film are interesting.  I just wish there wasn't such an age difference between Ralph and Vanallope.  They have, I suppose a "step father / step daughter" or "mentor / mentee" relationship but it's not clear and honestly after a point I've started to be somewhat creeped-out by it.

So, honestly, as good as the film is on one one hand, on the other it's really more for the adults, the "Ralphs" of this world than for the Vanallopes / children of the world.  And this is why I give it a lower rating than I initially would have.


<< 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! :-) >>

AFI Fest 2018

Of the films which played at the 2018 American Film Institute (AFI) Film Festival, I was able to view and review the following: 

 

Sir [2018] [IMDb] [FiBt](written and directed by Rohena Gera [IMDb] [FiBt]) scheduled for release in the United States in December 2018 is an INDIAN FILM which tells the story of Ratna (played by Tillotama Shome [IMDb] [FiBt]) a mid-to-late 30-something widow from the villages who took a job in Mumbai as a maid for a late 20-early 30-something engineer / son of a developer (played by Vivek Gomber [IMDb] [FiBt]) who, though obviously he has a name, through most of the film she simply calls "Sir."   Since the story essentially begins with Ashwim, "Sir," coming home from overseas, distracted / angry because _he_ had just called off his wedding to someone he simply came to the conclusion he did not love, the first 15-20 minutes of the film are somewhat painful to watch because this chiseled / pampered pretty boy really treated Ratna quite rudely (in good part because he was "distracted" BUT ...).  Still as he slowly goes through his personal drama, he of course, "lightens up."  And the rest of the story proceeds from there reminding us all that one really can't "judge a book by its cover" and yet THOSE "COVERS" ARE THERE ... The story becomes a powerful reminder of the multitude of barriers that separated us.  EXCELLENT FILM and I'm SO GLAD that this film apparently will make it to American theaters later in the year.  IT'S WORTH THE VIEW (4+ Stars) 

Amateurs (orig. Amatörer) [IMDb] [CEu] (directed and cowritten by Gabriela Pichler [IMDb] [CEu] along with Jonas Hassen Khemiri [IMDb] [CEu]) is a SWEDISH film playing out in a fictionalized  town called Lafors, somewhere in the middle of the Swedish countryside.  After getting word that a German firm was looking to put-up a "Superbilly" Walmart-like "big-box" store in Lafors, the city-council decides to come-up with a "promotional video" to sell the town.  But how to do so?  

With no budget, a still rather young (and Arab-born...) city councilman named Musse (played by Fredrick Dahl [IMDb] [CEu]) comes up with the idea of going to the local high school to ask the teens to put together a film for them.  What could go wrong?  Right?  Well ... ;-) ...

Did I mention that this was a "sleepy little town"?  

So ... a number of boys in the school decide to "spice things up" by producing a (still amateurly produced, they're 15 year olds after all) _hip-hopping_ clip that looked like a trailer to an inner-city drug-gang crime drama (yup EXACTLY what one would want to show a bunch of out-of-town executives considering building A BIG BOX STORE in their town ;-).  

Then there was a fifteen year old classically Nordic (ethnically Swedish) girl who produced an Ingmar Bergman inspired SOLO piece in which her sad existential angst-filled voice-over says: "This town is SOO boring, I have no friends, nobody understands me, I just want to ..." and the town council ends viewing her clip as it shows her heading toward the bridge at the edge of town to ... the final joke being that even if she were to fling herself off of said bridge BOTH the bridge was so low and the river so shallow that NOTHING would have happened to her anyway ;-) ;-).  

FINALLY, there was the submission of two immigrant girls Aida (played by Zahraa Aldoujaili) and Dana (played by Yara Aliadotter) that seems to capture the honest spirit of the town BUT ... there still were problems: They portrayed a town that was still "kinda boring."  One of the shots in their submission showed one of the two girls' moms mopping the floor at night at the local city hall (but ... THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR MOTHERS' JOBS).  And then of the two girls, one was "a little too dark" and the other "a little too fat" with even a little bit of a gender-bending lezy vibe (but they were _just fifteen_...) to their friendship, to promote the lively, fit and classically SWEDISH "image" that the town's council wanted to portray.  BUT (eye roll) ... "HEY, you asked us for an honest film about the town!  What's wrong with our clip!  We didn't show anything bad!  We just showed real / normal people (including us) during real / normal things!"

And this then becomes main question in the film (about the making of a film): Does one portray (and _embrace_) reality?  Or does one decide to strive for some _false_, _unattainable_ and even _racist_ "ideal"?   One heck of a story ;-) -- 4+ Stars ;-).


* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using Google's Chrome Browser.

< 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! :-) >>

Silent Night (orig. Cicha Noc) [2017]

MPAA (NR would be R) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Filmweb.pl listing*


 Silent Night (orig. Cicha Noc) [2017] [IMdb] [FW.pl]*(directed and screenplay cowritten by Piotr Domalewski [IMDb] [FW.pl]* along with Helena Szoda-Wozniak [IMDb]), which swept last year's Polish Eagle (Poland's equivalent of the Oscars) Awards and played here recently at the 2018 Polish Film Festival in Los Angeles, tells a contemporary immigration story that almost all immigrant families could relate to.

The film begins with Adam (played wonderfully with a mix of still wide-eyed youthfulness and appropriate not completely upfront shiftiness by Dawid Ogrodnik [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) on the bus, near the end of his 20 hour ride from Holland, on his way home to rural Poland for Christmas.  At the last larger provincial town before arriving at his parents' family's farm/stead somewhere in the lovely, if, it's December after all, now largely frozen Polish countryside, he gets off the bus and ... rents a car, a big one, to, of course, impress his parents when he arrives.  He's of course video recording everything along the way because ... (1) that's what young people do nowadays ;-), capturing everything that they're doing and (2) he's gotten word from his wife / girl-friend (unclear) but in any case "significant other" Asia (largely off screen but played briefly by Milena Staszuk [IMDb]) that she was expecting and so ... talking to the picture of the ultrasound that she had sent him, Adam wanted his new child to see what he was doing to prepare for his/her arrival.

He arrives with the big (rented) car.  The parents (ma' played by Agnieszka Suchora [IMDb] [FW.pl]*, pa' played by Arkadiusz Jakubik [IMDb] [FW.pl]* ask, "is this your ride nowadays," he responds "tak (yes)."  They shrug.  It's _almost as big_ as some other neighbor son's car that they saw a number of weeks back ;-).  "Welcome home son... BTW why has it taken you so long to come back to visit us again?" ;-)

Well, Adam isn't coming home altruistically, he has "a plan."  He's gotten it into his head that "if the family just sold grandpa's house" and _gave him the money_, he could "start a business" out there in Holland and "when it started paying money" he'd pay everybody back. ;-).  Besides, he's "becoming a father" he's _trying to be_ "responsible."  What could go wrong? ;-)

Well, the first problem is that ... grandpa , ever drunk though he may be and with a touch of the cancer (played gleefully in ever-smiling clueless fashion by Paweł Nowisz [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) _isn't dead_ yet ;-).  Secondly, Adam's younger brother Paweł (played by Tomasz Ziętek [IMDb] [FW.pl]*), with whom Adam never got along, had his own plans for dying, but still not dead, amiable grandpa's house: He was going to use it to setup a barber shop inside (yes, out there in the placid Polish countryside, where next to no one would come by... ;-).  Pa' who like Adam, spent much of his adult life "working abroad" sympathizes, somewhat, with Adam's plan but tells him: Convince Paweł and your older (and married...) sister Jolka (Maria Dębska [IMDb] [FW.pl]*)  that your plan's a good one and I won't stand in your way.  Jolka's husband Jacek (played Mateusz Więcławek [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) pointing to the impressive wedding ring on his finger, of course, has "a few things to say..."

Amusingly, there's younger 12-13 y.o. sister named Kasia (played with wonderful not really knowing what's going on innocence by Amelia Tyszkiewicz [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) who like grandpa "doesn't really matter" here.  The expression of pa' for whom Kasia was "the apple of his eye" when Kasia picks-up the violin to begin playing "Silent Night" (it's all playing out during Christmas after-all) and then ... as she continues ... is absolutely priceless ;-).

Ma' for her part is frustrated in her role of (once again) managing the needs / egos of all these men -- her husband, her two sons, her daughter's husband and even "grandpa" (her father or father-in-law,  unclear, though it _is_ clear that she's ultimately "the caregiver" there) -- all of whom she clearly seems to understand, at the end of the day, to be losers anyway.  She appeared to be _not_ particularly happy to see Adam "drop in" from Holland for Christmas.  His unexpected visit seemed to simply add (and as far as she could see, _unpredictably_) to her burdens of cooking for and then getting through the family's Christmas Eve (oplatkis and all).

There are some fun twists in the story.  And as I wrote at the beginning of my review here, pretty much EVERY IMMIGRANT FAMILY could relate to its characters.

As Tiny Tim ends Dickens' Christmas Carol: "God bless them, everyone."  They / we certainly need it ;-)


* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using Google's Chrome Browser.

<< 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 Old Man and the Gun [2018]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB ()  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)


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

 The Old Man and the Gun [2018] (directed and screenplay by , based on the New Yorker article "The Last Heist" by David Grann) seems like an appropriate swansong for legendary actor Robert Redford who, of course, plays the lead, Forrest Tucker [wikip] [IMDb].  After all, Redford's career was made, early, by his roles playing smiling, good looking / sympathetic outlaws in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid [1969] and The Sting [1973], and ... as apparently a juror said of the ever well dressed, smiling and polite Tucker at his last trial, "You have to hand it to him, the man has style."  Again, it'd be a nice way to "go out" ;-), that's if one really believes that this will be Redford's last film (as he's promised it is). 

The film tells the story of Forrest Tucker who was known for doing two things (1) robbing banks, politely, and (2) escaping prison, repeatedly (apparently 18 times!), throughout the whole of his life!  Yup, there was clearly "a story" indeed "a movie" in that kind of life.

Now from the Catholic Church's perspective, there has always been the concern that film-making (or storytelling in general) _not_ make it seem that "crime does pay."  And so, looking at this film, this was a concern that I did have.  Yes, Tucker was remarkably skilled at those two things that he devoted his life to, but did he not _clearly_ waste his life pursuing "excellence" in, well, evil skills?  Yes, Tucker seemed "nice" about things.  He didn't seem to have ever fired his gun during any of the robberies that he was involved in or the chases that followed, but ... what if he needed to?  Yes, he was known to be "polite," but ... perhaps he was simply "lucky" to never have to be "not polite" in getting out of a jam, a bank robbery that "ran afoul."

So while storytelling is often subversive (that's what often makes it interesting, allowing us the Readers, Viewers or Hearers to imagine being in the shoes of said supremely "competent" outlaw), it's good to remember all the other things that _could have happened_: If there was even a single person who would have been shot or hurt as a result of one of his bank robberies, a single one ... Tucker would have become a much less sympathetic person than he is remembered today.

Let's face it folks, we he was simply ... lucky.

But it still makes for a remarkable (if subversive and not exactly moral) story.


< 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! :-) >>

A Star is Born [2018]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

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


A Star is Born [2018] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Bradley Cooper along with Eric Roth and Will Fetters based on the 1954 and 1976 screenplays by Moss Hart and John Gregory Donne, Joan Didion and Frank Pierson respectively, based on the story by William A. Wellman and Robert Carson) continues and IMPROVES UPON a Hollywood-spun Cinderella story where where "the Prince" who lifts her up is tragically flawed and yet, does something right.

So here country music but hard drinking superstar Jackson Maine (played wonderfully by Bradley Cooper himself) stumbles upon a sweet if utter unconfident singer named Ally (played by Lady Gaga who proves here THAT SHE CAN ACT) and lifts her up to Grammy-level stardom.

As a Christian, indeed CATHOLIC, how can I not love this story?  It reminds us that ALL OF US are more than just our sins (even though those sins exist, and yes, WE PAY FOR THEM).  Still, all of us are capable of doing something good, and leaving a legacy that is kind.

And so even as we, along with Jack's friends watch him tragically self-destruct, we also see Ally literally GAIN HER VOICE and succeed.  And in her kindness she does understand all along that it was Jackson who first believed in her even when she didn't yet believe in herself.

What a story / film at a time when perhaps in a new way we're being told that _the only way_ to "the top" is "by our own bootstraps."  No.  All of us owe a lot to those who surround us.


< 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! :-) >>

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! :-) >>

A Simple Favor [2018]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (K. Rife) review


A Simple Favor [2018] (directed by Paul Feig, screenplay by Jessica Scharzer based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Darcey Bell [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]), APPROPRIATELY R-Rated (there's an "intimate portrait" of Blake Lively's character hanging in the living room of her house that, let's just say, reveals WAY, WAY, WAY "too much" ;-), is a delightful, _extremely well-written_ (IMHO, it certainly deserves a "Best Adapted Screenplay" nomination though it probably won't get it) mash-up of "Gossip Girl" artsy French pop (one thinks of all that a stylish recent French film called The Lady in the Car with Sunglasses and a Gun [2015] could have been) and "Glee." 

Single (widowed) homemaking (and video-blogging about homemaking) ever smiling Connecticut suburban mom, Stephanie (played wonderfully in her trademark bouncy, effervescent, gosh, how can you not love her, style by Anna Kendrick) meets ice-cold dry/hard martini pounding cut-throat "director of public relations" at a Manhattan based fashion firm, business-woman Emily (played by Blake Lively) who's certainly decided to "take life by the ..." and ... the two become "best friends." 

HOW?  Well, mostly because their two 1st or 2nd grade sons want a "play date" ;-).  Well both become kinda fascinated by each other: Stephanie by Emily's attitude "all you really need to make a great ice cold gin martini is ... ice cold gin and a martini glass" ;-) and Emily by Stephanie's "if I really think about it (which I don't) my life's kinda sucked until now, but I'm going to make the absolute best of it" ever-positive sweetness.  And well, Emily finds Stephanie's "ever willing to help" sweetness... useful.

So ... one day, five weeks after they've met and become BFFs, Emily calls Stephanie for a favor ... to take 1st-2nd grade her son after school over to her (Stephanie's) house while she (Emily) stays late at work to "put out a fire at the office" and ... Emily NEVER COMES BACK.

WT ... happened?  Yea ... But then leave it to ever bouncy, ever positive (and quite resourceful, 'cause gosh darn it, EVERY PROBLEM HAS A SOLUTION) _video-blogging_ Stephanie to figure it out ;-). 

And so Stephanie's once simple / cute "home-making tips" video-blog becomes a different kind of "tips" vlog and we get to watch a cute amateur/videobloggin Martha Stewart [wikip] [IMDb] dare one dream wannabe morph into a "tough as nails" (even as she bakes cookies) "amateur" cold-case solving Nancy Grace [wikip] [IMDb] vlogger ;-).

Folks, this is a very fun film, with some really well drawn characters.  I've focused here on the ones played by Kendrick and Lively as they are the leads.  But others, including the other "moms" (and now requisite "house-dad") at the school, as well as Emily's husband (played by recent Crazy Rich Asians starring Henry Golding) and others are priceless.  There's even the nice touch of having the 1st or 2nd grade teacher in the story depicted as a cute / sweet _hijab wearing_ (hence Muslim) woman.

Overall the performances were fun.  But honestly, the whole scenario was spectacularly well crafted / imagined.  Hence, I'd really like to see the film get some attention in the screenplay and possibly direction category.

< 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! :-) >>

Operation Finale [2018]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review

Jerusalem Post (A. Spiro) article
Haaretz.com background / coverage


Operation Finale [2018] (directed by Chris Weitz, screenplay by Matthew Orton) is a historical drama that tries to tell the story of Israel's intelligence service Mossad's 1960 capture and then transporting of Adolf Eichmann [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film by Ben Kingsley) from literally "off the street" to a safe house and eventually to Israel for trial.

It's a spectacular story, arguably one of Mossad's finest hours.  A full length historical drama such as this released across the world will reach countless people that "a good book" or even "a excellent documentary" would not.  So there's certainly a great deal of value in the project.  It's just the "good book" / "sober, just the facts, documentary" would probably do _this story_ more justice than a drama always in danger of falling into "Hollywood cliché."

And at least on two counts, IMHO this film does fall into cliché:

(1) After capturing Eichmann literally "off the street" at the outskirts of Buenas Aires, literally half the film is spent on the somewhat absurd _device_ of getting Eichmann (tied up there in a safe house) "to sign."  Sign what?  Literally a paper saying that he was going from Argentina of his own free will to Israel for trial.

According to the film, apparently, Israel's STATE OPERATED airline El Al, was insistent on this technicality fearing repercussions for involving itself otherwise with an abduction.  STILL ... (!%!&) ... THEY HAD EICHMANN the Architect of the Holocaust perhaps the highest ranking Nazi to have eluded death or capture after the War.  And now MOSSAD (the Israelis) HAD HIM.  It just seems absurd to believe that ANYONE in Israel's shoes WOULD HAVE GIVEN A DAMN about this ridiculous triviality.  THEY HAD THE GUY WHO MURDERED SIX MILLION FELLOW JEWS.  And whether "he signed" or not, there's no freaking way that MOSSAD was going to leave him in Argentina after going through the huge trouble of capturing him.

(2) The decision then to spend so much of the film's time on the (at the end of the day rather trivial) plot point of "getting Eichmann to sign" reduced the film to essentially Ben Kingsley playing Adolf Eichmann as Hannibal Lector of The Silence of the Lambs [1991].   Yes, the real-life Adolf Eichmann was EASILY as creepy and EVIL as the fictional Hannibal Lector, but ...

That said, if this film gets people to go to the library or to Amazon to buy a good book on Mossad's capture of Eichmann or to watch a good documentary on it, then this would be great and the film would have fulfilled its purpose.

So while this film doesn't score particularly high in "technical merit" --  I honestly wish that the writers of the Bourne films and/or the last several Mission Impossible films had been chosen to work this story up -- I still have to give the story high marks for the subject itself.  I think it's incredibly important that the world know that Justice was done here.  Mossad here, really did "get its man."

As such, not a bad film all around, still could have been a lot better.


< 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! :-) >>

BlacKkKlansman [2018]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


BlacKkKlansman [2018] (directed and, screenplay cowritten by Spike Lee along with Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz and Kevin Willmott based on the book [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Ron Stallworth [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is in the tradition of writer/director Spike Lee's other films, indeed his whole career, a "different kind of film" from mainstream Hollywood fare.

That characterization may in itself discourage many potential viewers from going to see the film.  "What do you mean different?"  "Why should I be challenged or disturbed in any way when I go to the movies?"  Well, there are others of us who don't mind being challenged and _appreciate_ well articulated perspectives coming from another from others, other people, with whom we share this world, perspectives that we could not possibly know, or understand as well, if we did not hear them from those who've lived them.

Now yes, this film is about certainly, the at least in part _amusing_ story of how Ron Stallworth (played in the film by John David Washington) the FIRST African American member of random midsized American city Colorado Springs, CO's police department (its "Jackie Robinson" as he was called) got involved in, indeed initiated, an investigation into the local Ku Klux Klan.

But the film is above all about appreciating the fundamental oddity and PAIN of Ron Stallworth's position.  YES HE WAS CSPD's "Jackie Robinson."   Yes, most of us know who Jackie Robinson was, who Rosa Parks was, who Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr was.  But here was simply Ron Stallworth, a random African American guy who, again, lived in an utterly random midsized American city of the 1970s, who like many other cops of all colors and ethnicities had decided that the best way for him to do his part in this world was to serve as a law enforcement officer.  Yet here was an utterly random guy who ALSO found himself to be "the Jackie Robinson" of his world.

And it wasn't easy.  First, the other officers in CSPD didn't necessarily know initially what to do with him, and yes, SOME couldn't get past his skin color (while to Spike Lee's consistent credit throughout his whole career, he makes sure that Viewers know that OTHERS did).  AND members of his own African American  milieu didn't necessarily see him always as "one of them" either.   Ron Stallworth _became_ very useful to CSPD, because he would discreetly attend / monitor functions of local Colorado State University's Black Student Union: "Hey, are you a spy?"  Well partly yes, but also in good part no.  It's honestly better for society (and law enforcement) know what's going on in smaller groups before things get out of hand.

And it is Ron Stallworth who comes across a surprisingly deep involvement of the KKK way out there in the "sleepy Colorado plains."

So this is really an excellent film and allows ALL its viewers to enter into the world of Ron Stallworth and ask the questions: "Why did this man have to become 'a Jackie Robinson' at all? Why could he have not been seen as 'good enough' from the get go?"

Finally, this film is a very strong reminder to all of us why calls for "Making America great again" are so hated and feared by this country's communities of color.  To an African American, America WASN'T "great" when his/her ancestors came to this country _in chains_.  And it WASN'T GREAT when for even 100 years after the nominal end of slavery, African Americans could stand to be lynched at the whim of a white population intent on keeping people of color "in their place."

< 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 Spy Who Dumped Me [2018]

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

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


The Spy Who Dumped Me [2018] (directed and cowritten by Susanna Fogel along with David Iserson) is a fun if at times trashy "spy chick flick."  Directed, cowritten and principally starring women, it makes for a joyful "turn about" to the generally "women as eye-candy" or "ice cold bad-A" conventions of the genre. 

Random / average NY 30-something Audrey (played by Mila Kunis) begins the film absolutely furious because her suddenly strangely absent boyfriend Drew (played by Justin Theroux) appeared to dump her by text.  Turns out he's absent because he's a spy, turns out he dumped her because he wants to keep her out what he's gotten himself involved in -- searching for a tiny flash drive that contains all kinds of super important / super nefarious information on it, that half the world's spies are looking for.  Well, like it or not, Audrey finds herself sucked into this intrigue anyway when she finds herself abducted, straight off of a NY street) for a while by an MI-6 agent named Sebastian (played by Sam Heughan) doing so, again, "to protect her." 

Protect her from what?  Well Audrey and her BFF Morgan (played wonderfully in her bouncing off the walls / "I have nothing but caffeine in my veins" utterly unpredictable manner by Kate McKinnon) decide to go to Europe to find this flash drive that everybody is looking for (and some think that she somehow has already anyway).

And the rest of the story unspools from there ... 

Part of the joy of the movie for me was that the movie plays out across Europe, pretty much ALL OF EUROPE and so (I thank Ukrainian descended Mila Kunis or Kunišová for this) Eastern Europe -- Lithuania, Hungary, the Czech Republic is not given the short shrift.  Yes, we get to see an amusing scene with Audrey and Morgan trying to figure out how to pronounce where all the trains nominally departing a Viennese train station are going to -- but just try to pronounce a random Hungarian place name, or for that matter a Czech one (if you don't know how to do it ;-).

But then there are some real gems here.  The part of the film that plays out in the Prague is introduced WITH AN AUTHENTIC 1960s CZECH COVER of the Nancy Sinatra song "These Boots are Made for Walking" (the Czech cover was called "Boty proti Lásce" or "Boots against Love" basically the same idea ...).  Again THANKS MILA!!  This was part of the reason why Czechoslovakia was invaded by the Soviets in 1968: the whole culture was taking its cues from the West rather than from the East. 

Anyway, the story trots across back and forth across the whole of continental Europe and Audrey / Morgan, though entering this world / "spy game" as neophytes at the beginning quickly learn, and improvising (having their own networks of friends and families, as well as skills that "regular spies" would never have thought of) soon hold their own.  Indeed, there's a "fight scene" in a staid Viennese cafe where by the end, these two women will have used every implement / instrument in that whole cafe _as a weapon_  It's brilliant and funny ;-).

So overall, while at time raunchy (the R-rating is probably deserved) it makes for a fun woman/girl-centric spy-buddy movie.  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! :-) >>

Crazy Rich Asians [2018]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Castillo) review
AVClub (C. Siede) review


Crazy Rich Asians [2018] (directed by Jon M. Chu, screenplay by Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Kevin Kwan [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a fun all Asian cast romantic comedy that tells a story that anyone who's attended a major university in the United States in the last generation or two (or, heck, gone to see even _one_ true "Bollywood" movie in one's lifetime) would know -- there ARE plenty of _crazy rich Asians_ in this world.

Sure, there are also plenty of poor Asians as well (as there are poor North Americans / Latin Americans, Africans, etc).  But one of the joys of this movie has been that it's A NORTH AMERICAN MOVIE about ASIA that _doesn't_ focus on "Calcutta" or "the mean streets" of Manila, Shanghai, Tokyo or Hong Kong).  This film unabashedly declares -- hey, a lot of us Asians today do actually have _a lot_ of money.

Now we Christians aren't supposed to be focused so much on money.  On the other hand, if Western Christians continue to pretend that "the only people with money are North Americans or Europeans" then we simply choose to walk away from reality.

Indeed, the film begins with a fascinating quote attributed to Napoleon: "Let China sleep, because when she wakes up, she'll roar" and then after a bitingly funny first scene that sets up the story, the opening credits roll to a great (and absolutely true to contemporary global culture) Chinese cover of the Barrett Strong song "Money, that's what I want" ;-).

To the film ... Rachel Chu (played by Constance Wu) a young, clever first generation American / NYU economics professor is invited by her economist approaching two years boyfriend Nick Young (played by Henry Golding) to attend his best friend's wedding "back in Singapore."  Her first guess of what she's in for is when the two board the plane and instead of finding their seats (where the rest of us would sit) "somewhere back in coach" they're escorted to a first class suite that most of us would only have heard rumors about (but do exist on ... mostly Asian airlines).  "Sooo, you're rich ...?" "We're comfortable." "THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SUPER RICH PEOPLE WOULD SAY."  

And the rest of the story unspools from there... ;-)

The display of wealth (and competence, every member of Nick's family seems to be running something major / big) could perhaps begin to get irritating after a while ... But what then to say of all those, indeed _generations_ of "Jane Austen" inspired movies?

So, recognizing certainly that there are hundreds of millions, arguably BILLIONS of people living in poverty in Asia, why not remind ourselves that there are also millions, tens of millions of Asians who are "quite wealthy thank you" indeed, "SUPER wealthy, thank you" as well.  Otherwise we'd remain with a 19th Century "Rule Britannia" mindset that's simply no longer true ...

Now if we could ALL learn to share ...


< 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! :-) >>