The Giver [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  ChicagoTribune (2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


The Giver [2014] (directed by Phillip Noyce, screenplay by Michael Mitnick and Robert B. Weide, based on the novel by Lois Lowry [IMDb]) plays like a somewhat updated and somewhat softened (suburbanized) version of George Orwell's 1984: Human attempts at "Climate Control" have instead totally devastated world.  A remnant of civilization has survived by, in fact, radically "doubling down" on this program of "Precision" and "Control" to the point that truly everything in the remnant society from language to even perception has come to be controlled by a self-perpetuating group of "experts" that specially breeds and forms its successors.  Essentially, society has become a well-manicured "ant-hill" where every "ant" knows (and is actually quite content in) his/her place.

And it doesn't necessarily look bad.  All looks quite clean and in order in society (everybody appears to do his/her job, and apparently does said job _well_).  It's just that everything is also quite bland.  All members of the society are required to take medications assigned to them each day, which among other things eliminate even the perception of color.  So we are presented with a society living in what looks like a very well-manicured suburb, but everything is grey (think here of Pleasantville [1998]).

Growing-up in this society are Jonas (played by Brenton Thwaites) and his friends Fiona (played by Odeya Rush) and Asher (played by Cameron Monaghan) who are finishing their equivalent of their "high school years" and are about to be "sorted" (think here of the recent film Divergent [2014]).

The annual "sorting ceremony" of "graduates" both into and out of life is quite dramatic.  The somewhat "ancient looking" if also somewhat "wise-looking" _Matriarchical_ (think here interestingly of the recent children's animated film Mars Needs Moms [2011]) Chief Elder (played by Meryl Streep in a truly unforgettable whig) arrives _remotely_ to the ceremony in the form of a GIGANTIC HOLOGRAM (is she even alive??).  And at the ceremony, the young approaching maturity are "given their tasks" (and assigned specialized training ... think of both university and of "ants" again), the old arriving at retirement age are "released to elsewhere" (wherever "elsewhere" may be ...).  

At the ceremony, all are the young approaching maturity are given their tasks ... Fiona is assigned to essentially nursing school/child care training, Asher to military flight training (practical/functional fields...).  Only Jonas doesn't seem to be assigned initially to anything.

Oh dear, what does that mean? (shades of Divergent [2014] again).   Actually, in the society at hand, having not been selected for any of the more immediately practical/functional tasks is not necessarily a bad thing: Jason's been chosen for a far more _special task_.  Told that he's been determined to have the aptitude "to see beyond," he's assigned to specialized training to become a "receiver of memory" (societal memory) under the special tutelage of the current "Receiver of Memory" (played by Jeff Bridges) who then becomes "The Giver" of such Memory to Jonas. 

Make no mistake, in a totalitarian society (and that is what is being portrayed here), Jonas' is an appointment to an elite position.  As a "receiver of memory" in training, Jonas is introduced to memory of that which existed BEFORE the (totalitarian) society came into being.  Thus he is INTRODUCED by "The Giver" to such experiences as TASTE, COLOR, EMOTION including PAIN.  And here Jonas comes to the crossroads that the previous "Receiver of Memory" ("The Giver" training him) arrived at when he was being prepared for his position ... should a society perhaps "safe" and in a sense "perfect" be allowed to continue if the cost of its continued existence is SO HIGH.  Jason's mentor had clearly proven to frightened/weak to change things.  But Jason doesn't have to choose the same way as his mentor ("The Giver") did ...

The rest of the story follows ... it's honestly not a bad story, and offers viewers / readers much, much to think about.  To some extent, the current film has been adopted by the American Right but truth be told,  at least the current installment (it's based on part one of a quartet of books) is far more independent than that.  Good 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! :-) >>

If I Stay [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (L)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C-)  Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

As I watched, If I Stay [2014] (directed by R.J. Cutler, screenplay by Shauna Cross, based on the novel by Gayle Forman [Amzn] [IMDb]) my mind wandered in many directions, among them I thought of how both the publishing industry and the Catholic Church in the United States panders society with their uses of the apparently quite elastic term "young adults." 

When I was, IMHO _actually_ a young adult, that is, in my mid-20s, I thought that the Catholic Church had it right: Young Adulthood was a period when the schooling was basically done, when one was taking-up actual responsibilities (moving out on one's own, getting a real job, etc) and discerning one's true life direction (discerning who to marry or as in my case whether to enter into religious life).  In my day, it was actually rather "cool" to be a young adult, either in Los Angeles (where I was in went to grad school before I entered the Servites) or back in Chicago (where I was originally from).  Perhaps it was too cool, because since coming back to Chicago, I've found that a lot of formerly young adults of my generation continued meeting as "YOUNG ADULTS" even as it became increasingly difficult to justify the stretching of the definition to include "those under 35" and even "those under 40."  Don't get me wrong, I UNDERSTAND THE CAMARADERIE.  It was FUN being part of a Catholic Young Adult group when I was in my 20s.  IT REMAINS FUN BEING WITH THE SAME PEOPLE NOW THAT I'M 50.  Just please, let's be honest, we're NOT "young adults" any more and haven't been for a long long time.

So the reader here could appreciate my bemusement with the American Publishing industry's pandering its audience in the other direction.  LET'S BE HONEST, the American Publishing industry has redefined TEENS as "Young Adult Readers."  And let's also be honest about why this was done: Situations and subject matters that would seem _wildly inappropriate_ if clearly TARGETED TO TEENS (most of whom ARE MINORS!) become "possible" when the target audience is "redifined" as (wink, wink) "young adults."

Case and point with the story that plays-out in the current film based on a "Young Adult" novel.  The story is about a somewhat geeky, cello playing, teenage girl named Mia (played in the film by Chloë Grace Moretz) growing-up in Portland, Oregon, her parents being nice, salt of the earth, somewhat counter-culture-ish ex-hippy/punk/granola/grunge people (played by Joshua Leonard and Mireille Enos).  She also had a younger brother, who didn't have a particularly large role in the story, except to round the family size to four.  The key shtick in the setup of the story was that Mia's parents were perhaps more open/liberal, certainly more extroverted than the shy, somewhat frightened, somewhat more conservative Mia herself.

Enter the one-year-older teenager from the same high school, Adam (played by Jamie Blackley), a guitarist in a small-time rock band who becomes Mia's love interest in the story. 

Now it would have been interesting actually to keep things honest.  Where would a seventeen year old rocker-to-be play?  The number of venues would have been limited to garages, perhaps a parish festival or two.  But that's kinda limiting to a story.  So his band is portrayed as more successful than would probably be expected.  And so his band is portrayed as playing in bars (again, at 17 ...).  Then, perhaps even more improbably, Mia's soon joining him (as Adam's girlfriend) in the bars as well.  IT'S ALL POSSIBLE but CERTAINLY FAR MORE COMPLICATED THAN PORTRAYED.

Then, honest portrayal of the romance between the rather shy, initially sophomore, later junior in high school Mia and her one year older boyfriend Adam would most likely be "rather boring."  So it too had to be ginned-up.  Thus we have a rather improbable scene in the film with Adam and Mia sharing presumably post-coital "sweet nothings" to each other, naked if covered, in Mia's bed in her home with presumably Mia's parents being somehow "cool with it."  Come on.  Imagine the dialogue: "Mom, Adam's here and we're going to go upstairs to do some math homework and then to make sweet love to each other before he goes home."  "Ok dears, have a nice time..." (WOULD ANYBODY IN THE U.S., EVEN TODAY, BELIEVE A SCENARIO LIKE THAT...?). 

Thus this is a young adult story that would work if the protagonists were college students or otherwise ACTUAL YOUNG ADULTS (in their 20s).  But as 15-17 year olds?  Come on.  And this then is the problem.

Okay, sure, there's plenty of other drama.  Mia's and her family have a terrible car accident and so forth.  But the fundamental setup of the story is simply not credible.

Finally, honestly parents, just because a book is labeled "Young Adult" does not mean that it is suitable FOR A TEEN.  The "Young Adult" label is a word-game ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For [2014]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  ChicagoTribune (2 Stars)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars w. Expl.)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

To understand Sin City: A Dame to Kill For [2014] (screenplay and codirected by Frank Miller [IMDb] along with Robert Rodriguez based on Frank Miller's [IMDb] "Sin City" graphic novels) one has to, strangely enough, link it with another unfortunately "overdone" sequel, 300: Rise of an Empire [2014] associated with Frank Miller's [IMDb] work:

Unquestionably technically superior to the graphic novel inspired Sin City [2005] original, the current film suffers from the same badly chosen over-the-top violent excesses of above-mentioned sequel to the 300 series' 2006 original.   And it's a shame, because the needlessly brutal and ultimately off-putting violence of the film obscures the technical triumphs of the film -- WATCHING THE FILM, ONE FEELS LIKE ONE IS TRANSPORTED INTO THE LARGELY BLACK-AND-WHITE WORLD (color present ONLY SPARINGLY and OBVIOUSLY to ENHANCE THE IMPACT OF THE STORY) of the comic book (er, graphic novel).  If only the similar wisdom was used in the employment of violence in the story as well!

As I've written several times in this blog, I myself do not mind the use of graphic imagery -- violent or sexual -- as long as such imagery does serve the story (For an example, see my review of The Wolf of Wall Street [2013]).

I do think that viewers see more of actress Eva Green (who plays Ava, the film's "Dame to Kill for") than they really need to.  However, I'D BE WILLING TO GIVE THIS A PASS, as we see what we see of her IN HIGHLY STYLIZED, HIGH-CONTRAST B&W AND _WITH THE POINT_ OF UNDERLINING WHO SHE PLAYS IN THE STORY: A REALLY, REALLY DANGEROUS SULTRY-AS-CAN-BE "FEMME FATALE" who commands by her sexuality ANY SITUATION that she finds herself in.  For a PG (and "far more clothed") version of the same Archetype, consider Milla Jovovich's portrayal of the Milady De Winter character in the most recent cinematic incarnation of The Three Musketeers [2011], a character who had her own mind / agenda and honestly NO ONE (or, more to the point, NO MAN) could trust ;-).  Then Cameron Diaz plays a similar character in The Counselor [2013] with utterly _perfectly manicured_ STAINLESS STEEL COLORED NAILS and a LONG, LONG "leopard spot" TATTOO beginning at her heck and meandering down, spot by spot, back-and-forth, across her back, all the way to her a...  I'd put Eva Green's portrayal of Ava in this film, and even of her portrayal of the fierce, "out for revenge" Greek "turn coat" leader of the Persian fleet Artemesia in 300: Rise of an Empire [2014] in the same league.  We're talking about Archetypes here and I do think that Ms Green plays the Archetype of the fiercely independent woman and thus utterly uncontrollable by men very, very well.  Call the Archetype a female patriot, a "Malcolm X" with a "V" ;-) : "by any means necessary."  And yes, like the Archetype personified by the historical Malcolm X such a female version would scare the daylights out of a lot of people.

That said, the portrayal of the rest of the women and then of the violence in the film is far less justified: Okay, Ava's character is perhaps "special" and perhaps the organizing principle around which the rest of the story was built.  BUT DOES EVERY WOMAN in the admittedly FALLEN CITY portrayed HAVE TO BE A VICTIM OR A PROSTITUTE (and sometimes both)?  Similarly, with the violence.  Okay, one of the characters in the first film, Manute (played by Dennis Haysbert), had a "glass eye."  Was it really necessary (SPOILER ALERT) to see in IN THIS FILM, IN ABSOLUTE GRAPHIC DETAIL, HOW HE CAME TO LOSE SAID EYE?

It's the stupid excess of the violence in this sequel that will make this film unwatchable to most readers of this blog (and most viewers in general).  Yes, I understand that "conventional wisdom" DICTATES that a sequel MUST INCREASE that which makes the first film memorable and PART of what made the first film memorable was its visceral portrayal of "life in a corrupt/fallen city."  But I wish that this sequel had kept to the level of violence of the first film and simply chose to highlight the new film's FAR IMPROVED VISUAL TECHNIQUE.

If not for the film's stupidly excessive over-the-top violence, this film could have been a contender for such technical awards as best editing, best cinematography, even (perhaps) best animated film.   The film could have been used as an example of a fascinating blurring in recent years of the boundary between animated and live-acted films.  Now such a discussion could be done only with a large number of the discussion's participants holding their noses.

So bottom-line, the current film offers film-makers much to consider in terms of visual / story-telling technique.  I just wish the film didn't sink into pointless, truly gratuitous violence.  A far more compelling product could have resulted here if only the film's makers had not chosen to dial up the violence "to eleven."


<< 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! :-) >>

What If [2013]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


While I would have rated the film R for content (the film really is for the college age to mid-twenties crowd, not for young teens) the lovely, well written and superbly acted Rom-Com What If [2013] (directed by Michael Dowse, screenplay by Elan Mastai, based on the stage play by T.J. Dawe and Michael Rinaldi) offers a surprisingly good message regarding friendship, relationships and the value of marriage (yes, "even in our day" ...).

Why?  Well both of the film's central protagonists Wallace (played by former "Harry Potter" Daniel Radcliffe) and Chantry (played by one of my favorite young actresses Zoe Kazan, I loved her in Ruby Sparks [2012]) experienced during the course of the film the pitfalls of being "involved with someone" without getting married:

Wallace finds himself rather brutally dumped at the beginning of the film by a girlfriend, Nicole (played by Mackenzie Davis), who in her mind apparently thought herself to be "trading up."  Chantry, on the other hand, spends _most of the duration of the film_ living "together" (for 5 years apparently) with her boyfriend Ben (played by Rafe Spall) who it becomes increasingly obvious loves, above all, his job:

There's a scene in the film where the Chantry and Ben are together in a restaurant where he begins talking about how long they've been together and "grown together" ... and so on and so forth.  Yet, when he practically drops on his knees, it's NOT to propose, but to tell her that he got a _really good job offer for a 6 month assignment in _another part of the world_ (in Dublin, Ireland though they live and the film plays out mostly in Toronto, Canada).  She herself, an cartoon animator, had turned down a promotion if only she would be willing to relocate FOR THE SAKE OF THE RELATIONSHIP.  But Ben takes a different path ...

This is "a flag" folks ...

So while Ben goes off to Dublin, Wallace and Chantry, who previously met at a party and despite obviously hitting it off very well, agree to remain "just friends."  Yet how long can the two be just friends when it is obvious that they are each other's true Significant Others?  One doesn't have an S.O. and the other's "S.O." is an ocean away "pursuing HIS thing ..."

Folks the one irritant that I do have in this film is the "faux fidelity" that's being defended here, for a while, until it collapses under its own weight.  Chantry and Ben WERE NOT MARRIED.  It was more or less obvious that Ben WASN'T INTERESTED IN GETTING MARRIED.  So ... honestly THERE WAS NO "FIDELITY" TO HONOR / DEFEND.  Living together is NOT "just like marriage."  It isn't.  By it's nature it is still temporary and largely consequence-LESS.  If one or the other decides to "pick-up sticks" and leave, THE OTHER HAS NO RECOURSE but to take it.

So women ... if you're living with a guy in HIS HOUSE, APARTMENT OR FLAT and HE DECIDES HE'S DONE WITH YOU, yes, YOU STAND TO BE OUT ON THE STREET and THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU CAN REALLY DO ABOUT IT.  On the other hand, if you're serious enough to buy property together, for goodness sake, would it not be just easier to get married?  At minimum, YOU'D SAVE THE NEEDLESS / EXTRA LAWYER FEES...

There was actually an excellent recent Czech film (that probably no one in the States will now see, as it toured through here this summer and is now gone) called Like Never (orig. Jako Nikdy) [2013] that was largely about exactly this: A woman in her 40s who had been living for many years with a significantly OLDER artist but had never gotten married to him was now watching him die and realizing that when he dies, she's going end up on the street, because EVERYTHING SUBSTANTIAL (the house in particular) was IN HIS NAME and he had no intention of changing this EVEN AS HE WAS DYING.  (And legally, there was NOTHING that she could do about it).

The current movie offers a similar message giving YOUNG PEOPLE a great reminder that (1) relationships OUGHT TO BEGIN AS FRIENDSHIPS (or else what do you really have in common TO BUILD ON?) and (2) THERE IS SIMPLY NO (_EASY_) SUBSTITUTE TO MARRIAGE. Until one is married one's relationship with another is by definition precarious and based on good will.  And if it falls apart, one has no legal recourse but to suck it up, pack one's bags and move on.

In marriage one _does_ have legal rights that have to be respected EVEN IF THE MARRIAGE FALLS APART.  (And this is actually _exactly_ why homosexuals have been petitioning for the right to marry as well).  Outside of marriage there are no protections if one's partner decides FOR WHATEVER REASON to (in his/her mind) "get a better deal elsewhere."

Great and sobering film (even amidst the laughs)!


<< 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 Hundred Foot Journey [2014]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Chicago Tribune (2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune/Variety (J. Chang) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

The Hundred Foot Journey [2014] (directed by Lasse Hallström, screenplay by Steven Knight, based on the novel by Richard C. Morais [IMDb]) is a lovely, feel-good movie about the blessings that come with ethnic / cultural diversity.  It is a film that cheerfully proclaims to all who would listen that we do "complete each other" (the writers of Jerry Maguire [1996] didn't invent that line.  That sentiment is expressed in pretty much all the universal religions and philosophies including Judeo-Christianity c.f. Gen 1:26-31, 1 Cor 12:12-26, Rom 5:3-8, Col 1:24, Rev 7:9-14, Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Non-Christian Religions "Nostra Aetate" [1965]).

Alas, the story begins, sadly enough, in the still largely sectarian/divided/fallen world of today (Yes, the world's religions and philosophies many proclaim a "Brotherhood of Man" but often enough THEIR (or our...) particular "Brotherhood..."): A good humored/innocuous Muslim family from Mumbai, India finds itself driven out of their home/business after these are burned down in a sectarian riot. 

Where do they go?  Widowed as a result of the anti-Muslim pogrom, Papa (played with magnificent comic timing by Om Puri) takes the family to England first.  But "the karma's" just not right ;-).  Explaining as they're at the border crossing at the famous Chunnel between England and France why they are leaving England for France, eldest son and culinary prodigy Hassan (played by Mashan Dayan) explains to a bemused (presumably) English border official that the vegetables in England "just don't have life."  His headscarf-wearing late-teenage sister Mahira (played again magnificently by Farzana Dua Elahe) explains to another (presumably) French border official that, no, she's not being taken across the border "against her will" for an "arranged marriage" explaining "Believe me, nothing in our family is particularly well arranged" ;-)

And so it is, this moderately sized Muslim family -- widowed Papa and his 5 children ranging in age from early 20s to 8-10 (with Mother guiding them from above) -- originally from Mumbai now all packed into a rickety European minivan, cross into France from England in search of a place to set down roots.  And they literally crash into a small provincial French town in the foothills of the Alps. 

There they find a place at the edge of town start a restaurant.  But alas, it's across the street from ANOTHER, and very well respected French restaurant run by (also a widow) Madame Mallory (played by Helen Mirren) with stately precision in honor of her late husband. 

Is a lovely / picturesque provincial French town with much history/beauty ready for "an invasion" of an, again, lovely Indian Muslim family, coming from a culture also with much history and color, as well as its own music, dress and spices?   That's, of course, the question of the film.  And if the story of the film sounds a lot like Chocolat [2000], it's probably not an accident as both films were made by the same director.  However, I would note that this current film is much, much, much gentler.

Now some of the critical opinion above laments some of the schmaltziness of the current film.  The film's set-up for multiple _family friendly_ romantic trajectories.  Besides the inevitable one involving the widowed Papa of the family and Madame Mallory, there's also a cheerful if also serious "sous chef" named Margerite (played masterfully by Charlotte Le Bon) working for Madame Mallory, who also happens to be Hassan's age.

But I honestly loved this film through and through, and readers of my blog would know that I have really big soft spot for "schmaltizness" ;-).  The film's producers included both Steven Spielberg [IMDb] and Oprah Winfrey [IMDb].  I understand why they wanted to get involved and I simply have to applaud the result.  This film shows us _what is possible_ if we open ourselves to the possibility of learning from others.

Again, all the great saints, mystics and philosophers across the ages have understood the message here.  I come from a Catholic / Christian tradition, so I wish to simply add here that in our best days we (Catholics) definitely agree.

"No one is so rich as to have nothing to learn from others, and no one is so poor as to have nothing to offer to others" -- St. Pope John Paul II


 << 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! :-) >>

Magic in the Moonlight [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review

Fans or at least followers of Woody Allen films will find in Magic in the Moonlight [2014] (written and directed by Allen) a typically well-crafted, well-acted film, musing about and perhaps cumulatively building upon typical concerns of his -- Is there a God?  Is there a Here-After?  And how to make-do in life if one finds oneself having great difficulty in believing in them.  A believer could choose to be OFFENDED (How dare W.A. and his moneyed/richer than God, swinging from the chandeliers, hedonistic Hollywood backers ask these questions?), DISMISSIVE (most of us know more about W.A.'s personal baggage than that of our friends and neighbors' ...) or perhaps INDULGE HIM, perhaps sigh/roll one's eyes, but let him tell his story and perhaps honestly take some notes, because we _all_ have amiable friends and relatives with similar problems / concerns when it comes to faith.

So W.A. begins his tale set in the 1920s Europe with Stanley (played by Colin Firth) a very British "The Sun Never Sets on Our Empire" magician (illusionist) who prefers to perform his "good fun" performances in "Asian face" (painted slanty eyes, pig-tail, pasted Confucius style goatee beard...) as "Wei Ling Soo" Why?  Perhaps in his very certain mind, no self-respecting post-Enlightenment Britisher would indulge in such things except, of course, "in jest"... (Honestly, Colin Firth plays Stanley, this film's Woody Allen-stand-in, to a magnificently pompous extreme .. I'd like to imagine Stanley as having a portrait of Bertrand Russell hanging over his bed ;-) 

But even all-knowing / utterly-ever-certain Stanley appears to understand the sad awfulness of his situation: Having eliminated the possibility of any truth (let alone God or a Here-After) existing outside of the bounds of a (his...) strictly rationalist system, he's consigned himself to a prison of meaninglessness and a rather fleeting one at that. (A GREAT visual reflection on the central Buddhist concept of "impermanence" of all things is the recent film Samsara [2012])

But no matter, at least one's smarter (while one's faculties hold-up) than others ... So as a "side interest" though indulged by him in his true, very "English face" and in his true name, STANLEY (one really can't get much more "British Colonial" than embracing the moniker of (Lord) Stanley...), he devotes his life to "debunking frauds" in his own words "from the Vatican to spiritualists." ;-)

Enter then an old friend, fellow Enlightened/sporting/bored illusionist Howard Burkan (played by Simon McBurney) who comes to Stanley with a problem/challenge: There appeared to be a young Kalamazoo, Michigan ("nowhere's-ville") born spiritualist named "Sophie" (played  with wide-eyed, small town huckster magnificence by Emma Stone) who's been making the rounds among moneyed English Expats summering on the French Riviera and though "she had to be a fraud," good ole Howard found himself "stumped."  So good ole Howard arrived at Stanley's London brownstone doorstep with the request to go down to Southern France with him to debunk her once and for all.

So Stanley does ... go down to Southern France to do just that, and ... it all "gets complicated" ;-).  And it's not necessarily that Stanley comes to a conclusion that he could be wrong about his very rationalist conception of the world / reality.  It just becomes patently obvious, even to him, that there's a cruelness to insisting on being Right all the time.  Stanley's Aunt Vanessa (played by Eileen Atkins) who knew Stanley in his childhood BEFORE he became "such a tired bore..," helps him out in this regard.

IMHO this is a very fun, well-filmed period piece.  The cars, the houses, the clothes, and the views of the sea (the French don't call the Riviera the Côte d'Azur - "the Coast of Blue" for nothing ;-) are all very beautiful.  And the film does have a very nice point: There is a deflating and dehumanizing cost to killing the Life / Hope of others and insisting on being Right all the time (indeed, insisting on being "one's own God").


<< 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! :-) >>

Guardians of the Galaxy [2014] / And So it Goes [2014]

As part of my contribution in our parish's participation in the Archdiocese of Chicago's Campaign "To Teach Who Christ Is," I've decided to forgo seeing (and therefore reviewing here) one or two movies a weekend and instead contribute the money I would have spent to the campaign.

I'm trying to be strategic about this, picking movies that would "hurt somewhat" to miss, that is, films that are not "so bad" that I wouldn't see them anyway nor movies that I really would need to see/review or else my blogging effort would cease to be worthwhile.

As per my custom, I will try to provide links to usual line-up of reviews that I also consider as I write my own.

This week I chose to not see ...

Guardians of the Galaxy [2014] - MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (3 stars)  AVClub (B)

And So it Goes [2014] - MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C)

Both films have had modestly good reviews.  And So it Goes [2014], starring Michael Douglas and Diane Keaton aims to be something of a romantic comedy for "viewers of a certain age," while Guardians of the Galaxy [2014] starring Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana has proven to be a surprising delight for many/most reviewers as it's both something of a send-up of the "Space Opera" / Superhero genre and yet as a Marvel Comics product offering the possibility that some of the Guardians may end up appearing in other (can one say "more serious"? ;-) projects in the future.

But I have to draw the line somewhere and so I chose to sacrifice these two films, figuring that if they proved important later on (as in taking some of the characters/performances into account in my end-of-year Denny Awards) I can check them out on video.


 << 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! :-) >>

Get On Up [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (D+)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing

Ebony (M. Allen) review
RollingStone (P. Travers) review

ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review 
RE.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

Crosswalk.com (S. Ellingburg) review

BET coverage
Ebony articles
Essence.com articles
TheSource articles

Get On Up [2014] (directed by Tate Taylor, screenplay by Jez / John Henry Butterworth story by Steven Baigelman and Jez / John Henry Butterworth), which seeks to tell the story of Legendary, One-of-a-Kind, Trail-Blazing, Seemingly Ever-Smiling (even if EVERYONE knew that he had a temper) Mad,Mad,Mad GENIUS African American singer/entertainer/businessman James Brown, who by acclamation carried the moniker "The Hardest Working Man in Show-Business" for an entire generation (and honestly, who could challenge that?), is a certainly a tall order.

Does the film measure up?  I do believe that the two communities that would have the most credible say in the matter would be the African American community and the Pop Music community and the reviewers for both Ebony and Rolling Stone magazines try hard to not be scathing... both recognizing the challenge to ANY director / team of screenwriters to do justice to such a complex man, but ...

How does one tell the story of someone who was a perfectionist and a wife-beater, who spent time in jail for stupid drug and weapons charges, even as he was a truly PULLED-HIMSELF-UP-BY-THE-BOOTSTRAPS SELF-MADE MULTIMILLIONAIRE (with a 6th grade education) PATRIOT who HELPED KEPT THE PEACE IN BOSTON (while MUCH OF THE REST OF THE COUNTRY _BURNED_) AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR by KEEPING TO HIS SCHEDULE and HOLDING HIS SCHEDULED CONCERT IN BOSTON GARDEN THE NIGHT AFTER MLK's ASSASSINATION and having THE ENTIRE CROWD SING TOGETHER "Say it LOUD, I'm BLACK AND I'M PROUD."   (This is a REMARKABLE STORY and is immortalized in several documentaries including The Night James Brown Saved Boston [2008] [IMDb] [Amazon Instant Video] and the concert itself James Brown Live at Boston Garden [1968] IMDb] [DVD-Amazon.com]). 
 
Who can honestly forget his showmanship (and by all accounts _sincerity_) in singing the rambunctious "Living in America" in the Silvester Stallone film Rocky IV [1985].  (Yes, I know that there are 10,000 other examples I could give but I choose this one because James Brown born dirt poor in the heart of the Jim Crow South and abandoned as a child by both his parents could have been a veritable poster-child for Revolution (in Malcolm X's famous words "by any means necessary") but instead Brown chose to be a Patriot, flying out to Vietnam to play for the troops in the summer of 1968 and he supported both Nixon and Reagan in his time).  A very, very complex man.

So how the heck to you put that complexity on screen?  The film-makers _chose_ to make the film's chronology disjointed.  The film flies backwards and forwards in time.  At times, the film-makers have James Brown (played in the film by Chadwick Boseman) pull himself out of the scene and "break the fourth wall" to talk directly to viewers about one point or another. 

The use of these devices can make for a jarring experience for viewers, but I think they were chosen intentionally to express the complexity and even contradiction in the man.  To tell his story, one would perhaps have to go backwards and forwards in time and perhaps need him to explain himself directly to the audience to make sense of it all.

There's also a suggestion in the use of these techniques that the film-makers thought James Brown to be, at least in part, crazy.  Yet, well ... the line between genius and madness can be thin.  Still it's doubtful if he couldn't have achieved all that he achieved (he wasn't _just_ a singer / entertainer, he was also a businessman) if he was "simply nuts."  And yet precisely his manic activity in so many directions caused him troubles (those stupid drug and weapons convictions and though he was never actually charged with tax evasion, he did have the IRS's attention...).  But then he grew-up dirt poor in a situation where virtually absolutely nothing in his life was stable (again, both his parents abandoned him, and in the film he was largely raised by an aunt "Honey" who ran a brothel) so "he learned to survive..."  (In the film mom is played by Viola Davis, dad by Lennie James, and auntie by Octavia Spencer).

But then, HOW does one survive growing out of such an environment and even become famous / thrive? 

Well, the film clearly shows that James Brown did have the fortune of coming to have some very good friends including life-long band mate Bobby Byrd (played by Nelsan Ellis), manager Ben Bart (played magnificently if also certainly with some comic flair by Dan Aykroyd) and his (second) wife DeeDee Brown (played by Jill Scott).  But the film also suggested these friendships were often one-sided -- These people (and others) did care for James Brown.  But did / could James Brown really care for them?  This question then becomes the heart of the movie.  Yes, Brown became a success, but would the wounds from his childhood (above all THE TRUST ISSUES) eventually conspire to bring him down?  Well, what would you think?

This is not a perfect movie, but it does try (in as much as one can in two hours) to present the life of a very complex, gifted and challenged man.  Does it succeed?  In my opinion, if you like music, and do have a heart, it's worth the price of admission.

Finally, though the film is rated PG-13, I find that rating absurd.  Granted, the film is not necessarily a hard R.  The language is generally clean, and the drug use / sexual situations are kept more or less off screen.  But we do see him, from the back, having very, very _consensual_ sex as a young man "with a preacher's daughter...") AND THE GUY GREW UP IN "AUNTIE'S BROTHEL..."  So I honestly don't understand the PG-13 rating.   From a personal life standpoint, he certainly was no role model.  

But he was (like most of us) more than just the sum of his failings and sins.  When he sang, NO ONE could deny that he sounded "good, so good" and he "got us all" to feel good as well. ;-)

Despite his various (and perhaps multitude) of sins and failings, I always liked James Brown.


 << 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! :-) >>

Like Never Before (orig. Jako Nikdy) [2013]

MPAA (UR would be R)  IndieFilm.cz (3 1/2 Stars)  Novinky.cz (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CSFD listing*
FDB.cz listing*

Lidovky.cz (M. Kabát) review*
IndieFilm.cz (J. Jiřiště) review*
Novinky.cz (S. Dvořák) review*

Czech that Film [official site] [2014 line-up at GSFC in Chicago]


Like Never Before (orig. Jako Nikdy) [2013] [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]* (directed by Zdeněk Tyc [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*, screenplay by Markéta Bidlasová [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) is a two Czech Lion (the Czech equivalent of the Oscars) winning and six Czech Lion nominated film that played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago as part of 2014 Czech That Film Tour cosponsored by the Czech Diplomatic Mission to the United States.

The title of the film itself is interesting and open to several manners of interpretation / translation from Czech into English.   "Jako Nikdy" literally translates to "As If" "Never."  Since due to Slavic use of declensions, Czech word order is more flexible than English word order, the title could be translated as as something of a condemnation "Like Never Before" of the current (moral) state of things, or if understood as simply the beginning of a sentence "Jako Nikdy... " could be understood as "As if [he] never..." giving a possible understanding of the title as "Jako Nikdy [Neexistoval]" / "As if [he] Never [Existed]" (suggesting a theme of "Oblivion").    

I do believe that both interpretations of the title are interesting/valid because the film tells the story of the dying days of a (invented for the sake of the story) Czech painter named Vladimír (played by Jiří Schmitzer [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) an atheist, and in past better days, a hedonist.  And he was NOT dying a tranquil, "happy death."

Why?  Well, his personal life was a complete mess.  Caring for him were two women:

The first is Karla (played by Petra Špalková [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) also an artist, about 25 years his junior has lived with him for the last 20 or so years, but who's now realizing that (1) Vladimír's old and dying while she's still in her early 40s tops (with a LOT of Life left in her), and (2) since VLADIMIR NEVER MARRIED HER and had NO INTENTION of doing so now when he does she stands to inherit NOTHING of his (arguably THEIRS) and it's quite possible that after he's gone, she could end up on the street. 

The second woman, Jaruna (played by Taťjana Medvecká [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) in her late 50s/60s and though MARRIED to someone else, is more "age appropriate" for Vladimír.  Her claim to Vladimír's attentions now was simply that earlier on in life they had a very, very brief fling together while they were both teaching at the same secondary school, BUT NOW that Vladimir was dying and Karla was so self-evidently UNINTERESTED in taking care of him, she, AGAIN DESPITE BEING MARRIED TO SOMEONE ELSE, now hovers around Vladimír to take care of him in his dying days, perhaps because ONCE MORE, DESPITE BEING MARRIED TO SOMEONE ELSE, good ole Vladimir _had been_ the most exciting thing that had happened in her life.

For her part, Karla is AS HAPPY AS PIE when Jaruna comes around, because she can ditch the house and go "drinking" / "play darts" and "whatever..." with GUYS her own age (again married or not) by the local pub.

What does Vladimir think of all this?  HE DOESN'T CARE.  He's on morphine most of the time and when not in pain from the terminal cancer spreading all through his otherwise shrinking body, he's ANGRY.  Why?  BECAUSE HE'S DYING.  In one scene, he's shown tearing up the pictures that he's painted before.  Why?  BECAUSE HE'S DYING.  On one hand, he doesn't believe them good enough for his ideal.  On the other hand, HE DOESN'T WANT THEM TO BE SHARED (PROFITED WITH) AFTER HE'S GONE.   If HE can't go with them, then he doesn't want ANYONE to have them.

And so it is...

Does he have ANY FAMILY / RELATIVES?  Well, there's a son Tomáš (played by Marek Němec [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) ... who hates him.  Why?  Well, Vladimir dumped Tomáš' mother and him when Tomáš was a boy (long before Vladimir eventually shacked-up with Karla... Indeed, Tomáš' and Karla appear to be close to the same age...).  Tomáš had been out of Vladimir's life (by mutual consent) FOR DECADES.  Vlad had no particular interest in his offspring, PARTICULARLY if he felt them "untalented" ... and Tomáš apparently couldn't hold a paint-brush particularly well (when? when he was SIX???)  And Tomáš had long dismissed his father as an a-hole.

But Tomáš becomes necessary to Karla / Jaruna (and above all his dad) at one point because though Karla had lived with Vladimir for 20 odd years, SINCE SHE WAS NOT MARRIED TO HIM, she had no status.  One time when Jaruna was at Vladimir's home changing his diapers (while Karla was out drinking beers and playing darts "with the guys" ...) Vladimir got so sick that she had to call the ambulance.  "But Vladimir wants to die AT HOME," the still sobering-up Karla yells at Jaruna when she eventually staggers home after a night of partying.  But Karla, let alone Jaruna, HAD NO STATUS, to petition the hospital to allow Vladimir to go home (against the wishes of the doctor).  So they HAD TO FIND Tomáš to ask him to help them bring Vladimir home ...

Tomáš would just assume let him rot his last few days "v ustavu" (in an institution...) BUT he has a girl-friend who'd actually like to meet the father of her fiance' ... so ...

Wonderful, Vladimir comes home, and proceeds to be as "pleasant" to Tomáš fiancee' Šárka (played by Jana Pidrmanová [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) as he's been to everybody else around him, making Tomáš fiancee' leave before he even has a chance to tell her "See ... I told you so."

So there's Vladimir, dying of cancer with his 25 years his junior lover Karla of 20 years who realizes that as soon as he dies she's screwed.  There's Jaruna who's hovering around for no particularly clear reason except that Vlad was probably (once) the best ever-so-brief fling that she ever had, and Tomáš his son, who hates his dad, but realizes that "Wait, actually when my dad croaks, this house and its contents could actually come to me."  Besides he comes look at the soon to be financially desperate Karla as perhaps even being "part of the package."

Yuck.

INTO THIS MESS, Jaruna actually comes to ask Vlad, if perhaps he'd like TO HAVE A PRIEST COME TO TALK TO HIM.  Why would she be asking that?  Well, she may have a horribly morally problematic "back-story" as well, but she's sincerely trying to be helpful and "nice" to the "best lover she ever had."  Vlad's not interested.  "Oh I know, the local priest here's an idiot, but there's a priest in a neighboring town that I've seen, besides he also has a PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE and HE helped me.  Maybe he can help you too."  Well, at least Vlad's not openly hostile now (perhaps the morphine's kicked in again ...).  So she calls the priest.

The priest (played by Štefan Capko [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) does come.  Here honestly the film does an excellent (if in its own way depressing job).  How does the au courrant priest-with-his-psychology-degree arrive?  ON BIKE as a cyclist in a nice BLACK spandex cyclist suit with a nice white stripe going down the middle of it.  He's a bit overweight, so looks a bit ridiculous.  But it's an interesting way of trying to "wear clerics" even if one's not (or perhaps even "trying to wear clerics" "in a different age" (So it may be sincere on his part, but it still looks odd). 

So he arrives to talk to Vlad (in Czech it'd actually be Vlád'a).  Vlad, of course, has no interest in talking to him.  So the priest soon leaves.  On his way out, Jaruna meets him at the door.  She apologizes for Vlad's wasting the priest's time.  The priest responds.  "No it's never a waste of time."  "But he wouldn't talk to you, so it didn't do him any good." "Yes, but it may have done you some good."  (And in any case, the priest got himself a little "workout" having cycled-in and now back home to/from a neighboring town ...).

Eventually, of course, Vlad dies.  He didn't want a funeral and no one, 'cept possibly Yaruna would have attended anyway.  So they call the hearse.  The undertakers arrive to take the body away.  Presumably he'd be cremated, and his ashes, if no one picked them up, eventually dumped ... somewhere by somebody, presumably the State.

The last scene has Tomáš hitting-on Karla as they walk by a nearby pond.  It's "as if [Vlad] never [existed] ..."

What then to make of a film like this?  Well, the Czech Republic, which by various accounts has the highest percentage of professed atheists in Europe, knows a bit about the depressing nature of atheism as a lived reality.  I've long found it fascinating that THE ARTISTIC COMMUNITY in the Czech Republic has REPEATEDLY taken-on the role of the "moral voice" in the Czech nation. 

As depressing as this film was, IT WAS INTENTIONALLY SO.  The obvious point of this movie was to ask viewers: DO YOU REALLY WANT LIFE (YOUR LIFE) TO BE LIKE THIS?

This is a society that MAY NOT BELIEVE, BUT WOULD HONESTLY WANT TO.  There are historic reasons for the Czechs' atheism and even more specific problems with the Catholic Church. The more ancient historical crime was the Church's burning of the turn-of-the 15th century (!) Czech theologian John Hus [en.wikip] [cz.wikip]* as a heretic, a betrayal from which the Czech nation has never really recovered (in part because the Catholic Church, in a doctrinal box regarding infallibility, has never been able to truly apologize). 

More recent problems have involved passionate arguments over restoration of Catholic Church property that was confiscated (STOLEN) from the Church by the Communists during the Communist era.  YES, _that_ was also a crime.  But the Communists were also smart.  They converted a lot of stolen Convents into various nursing homes and so forth.  As a result, the Church arguing for the return (at least of the deeds) to such properties comes across as "wanting to take away the security of old (often also FORMER COMMUNIST) folks."   YES IT WAS A CRIME TO STEAL THESE PROPERTIES FROM THE CHURCH, but's ALSO a PUBLIC RELATIONS "NO WIN" SITUATION and IT DISTRACTS from proclaiming a Message of Hope to a people that DOES REALIZE THAT WITHOUT _SOME RELIGION_ (GOD / THE GOSPEL) THERE IS NO HOPE.

Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.  (John 6:67-68)

So this film makes for an interesting conversation piece back in the CR and _can offer_ the publics outside the Czech Republic an opportunity to reflect on the abyss that awaits them too when a society has largely lost Hope.


 * Reasonably good (sense) translations of non-English webpages can be found by viewing them through 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! :-) >>

Stand Clear of the Closing Doors [2013]

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

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune / Variety (R. Scheib) review
RE.com (M. Zoller-Seitz) review
AVClub (D. Ehrlich) review

Stand Clear of the Closing Doors [2013] (directed by Sam Fleischner, story by and screenplay cowritten by Rose Lichter Marck along with Micah Bloomberg) is a well-crafted, personalist drama about a Hispanic family living in New York City (Rockaway Beach) with a 13-year-old son with autism spectrum disorder.  The film played recently in Chicago at Facets Multimedia.

Mom, Mariana (played by Andrea Suarez Paz), works as a housekeeper.  Dad, Ricardo, Sr (played by Tenoch Huerta), generally works upstate in construction.  It appears that one or both are undocumented.  Together, they have a 15 year old daughter Carla (played by Azul Zorrilla) and Ricky, Jr (played by Jesus Sanchez-Velez) who has autism.

Since dad is rarely at home, working somewhere "upstate" (which in New York's conception could mean anywhere from "just north of the City in Westchester County" up the entire Hudson / Mohawk River valleys to the shores of Lakes Eire / Ontario and to the Canadian border), and mom works pretty much from sunrise-to-sunset if closer then still "away," 15-year-old Carla is generally left to look after (keep track of) 13-year-old (why's your brother so weird?) Ricky to inevitable (and understandable) teenage friction.  After all, she has friends, dreams of "having a life" and yet she's largely responsible for her 13 year old brother who's just borderline to not require a completely special school, but still causes chronic irritating frustrations at both home and at school.

So perhaps inevitably, one afternoon, Carla just rolls-eyes and says "whatever..." when Ricky (once again ...) doesn't seem to want to follow directions (from his sister ...) and walk home with her and her friends after school ... and the rest of the movie follows ...

Ricky, of course, doesn't come home.   Where did he go?  Well, he's 13, "in his own world," but it's not a completely unfunctioning world.  He gets distracted, or more to the point, fixated on things.  Some guy walked by with a random but perhaps somewhat striking emblem on the back of his jacket and Ricky, fixating on the emblem, decides to follow him.  The guy goes to the subway station and Ricky follows him there.  When the guy enters to pay his fare to get past the turn-styles and head then to the trains, Ricky REACHES INTO A POCKET IN HIS OWN BACKPACK, gets out the required change, pays his own fare and follows him down to the platform.

Then, in the midst of all the people, of course, he loses the guy.  BUT now he's in a subway station WITH ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE and ALL KINDS OF RANDOM THINGS TO TURN ONE'S ATTENTION TO.  AND so Ricky gets on a random subway train, heading off in a random direction, following something new that attracted him, until he forgot about it again, and found something else to focus on ...  AND ALL THE WHILE, TO ANYONE TRAVELING THE SUBWAY BESIDE HIM, he's just another random, perhaps after a while, somewhat tired, 13-year-old traveling _somewhere_ on the train.

So Ricky doesn't come home.  What to do?  Mom goes searching for him, first in the neighborhood.  She goes to the beach.  He used to like the beach, the waves, the sounds, the occasional seagull, etc.  He wasn't there.  She walks down the street, checking various stores in the neighborhood, stores that he'd previously like (there's a corner shoe-store that he had previously liked for all the random colored sneakers ...).  He's not there.  She spends the night looking for him, can't find him.

The next day, she realizes that she has to call the police.  She doesn't particularly want to, presumably because either she or her husband were illegal.  It doesn't matter really because the police tell her that they won't do anything for the FIRST SEVENTY TWO HOURS because the kid could just be going to his father or perhaps to some other relative.  They usually turn up, after SEVENTY TWO HOURS (three days (!)) they'd truly be missing.

Seventy two hours pass ... then Hurricane Sandy starts to roll in ... What happened?

Excellent story and one that could happen TO ANY FAMILY with a special needs child in a big city.


<< 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! :-) >>

As it is in Heaven [2014]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13 / R)  ChicagoSunTimes (3 Stars)  RE.com (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoSunTimes (B. Stamets) review
RE.com (S. Abrams) review


As it is in Heaven [2014] (directed by Joshua Oberbay screenplay by Virginia Oberbay) is a reasonably well crafted if somewhat tendentious low-budget indie film / cautionary tale about a small Christian-messianic sect/cult/community.  It played recently at Chicago's Facets multimedia.   

It all begins innocuously at the (sect/cult/community) leader's farm somewhere in rural Kentucky.  Though already "a bit off the beaten track," one would imagine that even if one were to happen upon it, one would not necessarily see anything "strange" about it.  There's a farm house, there's some pasture, some of which is cultivated into a field or two, some woods, a small stream running by.  Only if one spent some time observing could one have discerned that there seemed to be more than one family living in said farm-house.  HOWEVER even then, the sect/cult/community was NOT that large -- perhaps 10 maybe 15 people, no more.  And the deed to the land, if one were to have the interest to look it up, would have probably list the sect/cult/community leader as its owner as it probably was in his family perhaps for generations.

The locals would probably know the group's leader, Edward was his name (played by John Lina), as a preacher.  The group did apparently have something of a church or "mission" at a strip-mall at the outskirts of town.  The locals would probably know that "some from the congregation" apparently have taken-up residence on his farm, but they probably would not have made anything of it.  He was "preachin' the word," his group was "helpin' the homeless" "baptizin' the previously lost" and doing so in a way that would be UTTERLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from ANY NUMBER OF "LITTLE STORE FRONT CHURCHES" both in the hinterlands (and in the inner cities) across the U.S.A. today.

Let me add one more bit of information, Edward himself was probably NOT EVIL.  He had devoted his life to Jesus.  He had opened his doors to the poor.  He had given a little community that sprang up around him hope and some joy.  They WERE living in their little corner of our Earth "As it is in Heaven" (Matt 6:9-15).

So what went wrong?

Well, for whatever reason and _not unlike_ a lot of fundamentalist preachers (at least at some point in their lives) Edward became convinced (and quite suddenly) that the world was, indeed, going to end and ... end quite shortly.  We hear him telling his group, at a nice, matter-of-fact "community meeting" or perhaps "Bible study" that "Who would have guessed that Jesus was going to return in just 30 days?"

Now if nothing else happened, 30 days would have passed and ... nothing would have happened ;-) ... and Edward and his little community would have happily gone on, writing off those "30 days of End Times" as a "misjudgement" on the part of their leader.  And if he insisted on pushing the matter further, then the group would have probably broken up.
 
But that didn't happen here.  Why?  Well, some hours after announcing quite calmly to the group that the world was going to end in 30 days, he himself has heart-attack... BUT ... he does not die right away.

Instead, he lives long enough (hours more) to "anoint" a member of the group, David (played by Chris Nelson), as his successor.  More troublingly, he _burdens_ David with the responsibility of "getting the group ready" for Christ's coming in 30 days.  Remember, Edward found himself _suddenly_ on his death bed.  He didn't have a lot of time to give David instruction.  He just tells him, "YOU HAVE TO GET THEM READY.  I DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME.  NOW IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO YOU. ... IF THEY ARE NOT READY, CHRIST WON'T COME FOR THEM."   And these turned out to be Edward's last words to ANYBODY.  A few moments afterwards, Edward slips into unconsciousness and dies shortly thereafter.

Now David was a relative neophyte.  In the opening sequence in the film, we saw him being baptized and entering the group only one year earlier.  Now became clear that Edward saw in him qualities that he didn't see in HIS OWN SON named Eamon (played by Luke Beavers) who was also David's (mid/late-twenties) age.  Now Edward left David in charge.

But ... there are some rather obvious problems here:  (1) How prepared is David, still something of a wide-eyed 20-something neophyte, TO LEAD the group?  and (2) Because David is a relative neophyte, will the rest of the group, including Edward's own family (especially Edward's oldest son, but presumably also Edward's widow, the mother of Edward's oldest son) going to accept David as Edward's anointed successor?  Remember, this is not a large group, 10-15 people of which Edward's family (his widow, his children, even Eamon's presumed wife or girlfriend, with a baby) still makes up a substantial part.  And remember the whole group is even still living on Edward's (family's) presumed farm.

BUT ...Edward's last instructions to them were, first (to the group) that Jesus was coming in 30 days, and second (to David) that David needed to "get them ready."  SO ... if the clock weren't "ticking," perhaps some of the groups problems would have naturally resolved themselves.  Now, since there were only 30 days left anyway, arguing over actually who "owns the farm" on which the group lived probably seemed rather "beside the point."

SO ... the group seemed to largely give David (as Edward's successor) the benefit of the doubt.  What's 30 days, right?

BUT ... How exactly does one PREPARE for Christ's coming in a way that would be substantially different from how the group had already lived?  (Remember that Edward told David that the group _wasn't_ ready and that DAVID had to MAKE THEM READY in those 30 days).

Seems like "drastic actions" were called for ... So wide-eyed, in over-his-head but sincere 20-something David ... calls for a 30 day Fast.  That would get the group ready and heck "Fasts" were even Biblical.  Right?

Well, but there's also a baby in their midst ..., there _is_ under-the-immediate-surface division in the group and, finally, Edward was venerated by the group as not merely a Prophet but ALSO "a nice guy" ... HE never called a fast ... but then HE told David that David needed to get them ready ...

The rest of the film ensues ...

I found the film fascinating, and yes, it can serve as a cautionary tale about "messianism" and "apocalyptic" thinking.

But I also think that there were a number of circumstances written into the story here that drove its outcome.   If Edward had not died in the circumstances that he did, then the rest of the story would have played out very differently.  It the group did not have to simultaneously deal with both Edward's somewhat surprising choice of successor AND "prepare for the imminent end of the world," then the story would have played out very differently.  

The film's main message becomes "bad things happen when decisions are made in a pressure cooker,"  which is absolutely true.  The way out of making "bad decisions in a pressure cooker" is to look for ways to "slow things down" so as to _deescalate_ the situation.  And that would have worked for this little Christian community living in the rolling hinterlands of Kentucky, just as it did work out for the whole world during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis ... 


<< 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! :-) >>

Hercules [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (1 Star)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

As derivative as Hercules [2014] (directed by Brett Ratner, screenplay by Ryan J. Condal and Evan Spiliotopoulos, based on the Radical Comic [wikip] "Hercules: The Thracian Wars" by Steve Moore [IMDb]) may seem -- the film's basically the Schwarzenegger starring Conan the Barbarian [1982] crossed with 300 [2006], with homages to The Gladiator [1986], the Liam Neeson costarring Clash of the Titans [2010] remake and the "band of brothers in arms" of the recent Marvel Comics' inspired Thor [2011] thrown into the mix -- I found it to be a fun speculative (and certainly revisionist...) inquiry into the origins of the Hercules legend ;-).

For the film plays with / hangs on a great question: How would the story of a hero like Hercules begin?  There would have to have been SOME fighter/hero that would first catch a storyteller's (and more importantly AN AUDIENCE'S) interest.  Now what if the Hero began life (or the storyteller made him) "an orphan"?  How much greater the Hero's accomplishments would seem if he began life "on the mean streets of ancient Athens" ;-) -- a sort of Homerean Rocky Balboa ;-).  Then, well, if he's an orphan, it's not really a big jump (in the ancient world anyway) to posit that his father was "a God" (Indeed, this would help explain the Hero's surprising abilities).  Then, in Greek Mythology, the Awesome "King of the Gods" Zeus had a very jealous wife, the Goddess Hera (the to this day remembered as the Greek Goddess of HEARTH and Home ...).  So even though this child, who grew-up to be Great was the son of a God, there's EVEN a ready explanation of why his beginnings were so terrible: he was being punished by Zeus' wife Hera ;-).  Why once one starts along this path, the story practically writes itself ;-)

Now what if, as a story teller begins to build Hercules' LEGEND, he decides to CONFLATE the various heroic stories of other local heroes.  What's the sense of having 10,000 stories of various local heroes when you can have ONE SUPER-HERO.

Now -- and this is the jump / genius of the current story -- what if we "misunderstood" the Hercules legend to think that there was ONE Hercules (sort of like a ONE SUPER GENIUS Thomas Edison or a ONE/ULTRA-UNIQUE Steve Jobs).  What if a better conception of thinking of Hercules would be that of thinking of him as Hercules, INC -- A TEAM OF FOLKS doing all kinds of SPECTACULAR THINGS under THE BANNER of "HERCULES" (and not minding that perhaps Hercules got a little more credit -- like Thomas Edison getting "credit" for inventing 10,000 things when he actually "invented" the modern engineering workshop (where he hired teams of scientists/engineers to do the "realization work" for him), or Steve Jobs getting "credit" for everything from the Apple 2 computer to iTunes to the iPhone/iPad, when again there was _an entire corporation_ built around his ideas to bring them to reality.  Now, why would "the underlings" not mind?  BECAUSE THEY GOT PAID, THEY DID THEIR WORK AS A JOB).  So what if "Hercules" was like that?  Perhaps he was "the guiding inspiration' to the Legend, BUT ... his various "labors" were actually DONE BY A TEAM (a Hercules, INC as it were) and if one pushed things even further, even his "12 great labors" were a perhaps little spruced up by his PR folks (in the film, PR person) to make them seem a little more "awesome" than they actually were ... what's a little "stretching the truth" to "make a sale" ;-)

Isn't this fun? ;-)

And so it is ... in this film, we follow a smiling, "showman" Hercules (played spot-on for this task by ex-pro-wrestler (!) Dwayne Johnson) donning his lion skin (from "his" famous "labor" of killing of the Neomean Lion) and sporting his trademark CLUB, while his work is done, yes, PARTLY by him, but ALSO by a pretty good _team_ behind him, including:

His childhood BFF Autoclutus (played by Refus Sewell), who like Hercules was ALSO "AN ORPHAN" who knew Hercules from "mean streets of Athens days" (and in Greek Mythology, was ALSO to have had a divine father, in his case Hermes).  Being "awesome fighters" they were sent by the King of Athens on all sorts of Ancient Greek "special ops" missions (some of which came to be remembers as part of the above mentioned "labors of Hercules/  And eventually, they ditched the Athenian army and came to found an Ancient Greek "Blackwater-like" group that that they decided to call Hercules (since by then he had "gotten a name").

Along the way they also took on:

Amphiaraus (played by Ian McShane) in greek legend remembered as a seer / prophet, who in the group, played a sort of "older wisdom figure role" who kept the "young bloods in line," kept them focused "on the bigger picture" and so forth,

Atalanta (played by Ingrid Bolsø Berdal) portrayed here Amazonian huntress who they met on one of their "labors" / "special ops,"

Tydeus (played by Eksel Hennie) portayed in the film as a somewhat feral fighter, one who Herc and Autoclutus found as "the sole survivor" or a village that had been destoryed by some ancient Greek monster in some way,

and finally, Iolaus (played by Reece Ritchie) both in the film and in Greek mythology remembered as Hercules' nephew (and companion on various of his labors).  In the film, he plays the group's principal "PR man" spinning the fame of Hercules in a way to get the group more work.

And so it is that in the film they do find a new "gig" ... to help the King of Thrace (played by John Hurt) rout a rebellion led by a certain Rhesus (played by Tobias Santelmann).  Much "sand and sandal" combat and intrigue ensues ...

All in all, while the violence of the film would probably not make the film suitable for little children, the PG-13 rating is probably appropriate.  And I found the movie a refreshing blast.

I liked the story, I liked the characters.  They brought Greek Mythology to life in a way that I have to say was, after all is said and done, _surprisingly_ original!  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! :-) >>