Southpaw [2015]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McCarthy) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Southpaw [2015] (directed by Antoine Fuqua, screenplay by Kurt Sutter) is a boxing movie that went into wide release to mixed reviews (above) some weeks ago.  Due to said mixed reviews, I did not see it then, somewhat to my regret now.

This is because boxing movies are generally about "more than boxing" (they are about struggle in general) and often the "critical class" (reviewers) is/are not the one(s) to which these films are primarily directed or the one(s) who best understand(s) them.  To make the point, I wish to note here that I was asked several times during the past several weeks by parishioners if I've seen this movie, and with increasing embarrassment, I've had to respond "not yet."

Boxing movies are generally genre movies.  As such they are often enough (unsurprisingly) heavily cliched.  And yet that they are cliched, does not necessarily render them unsatisfying much less without value.  Perhaps the best way to understand Southpaw [2015] is to appreciate that despite being largely about "anger management" (controlling rage despite hard knocks / tragedy) its purpose (redemptive) and approach (fictional) are far closer to Silvester Stalone's Rocky [1976] than to Martin Scorsese's / Robert DeNiro's Raging Bull [1980]:  The goal of the film is not to watch Jake Gyllanhaal's boxer named "Billy Hope" (!) self destruct, but rather to watch him, despite having experienced some very very hard knocks, (re)build himself (back) into "being somebody."  The vast majority of viewers could probably count the number of times they've picked-up a set of boxing gloves on one hand (or perhaps even less...) but would nevertheless _completely understand_ the story being told.

In Billy Hope's Job-like "Descent into Hell" from previous boxing super-stardom, he tragically loses his wife (played by Rachel McAdams) (and, of course, _partly_ because of his own previous arrogance/stupidity).  Then / as a result he "loses his focus" (hence his next Fight), then his house and even for a time his 8-10 year-old daughter Leila (wonderfully played in the film by Oona Lawrence).

Perhaps the most redeeming / instructive part of the film is watching Billy Hope, who the audience knows has ALL KINDS OF REASONS TO BE ANGRY AT THE WORLD, having to deal with a NO-NONSENSE "by the book" social worker (played wonderfully by played by Naomi Harris) who _repeatedly_ reminds him that his (perhaps even legitimate) "issues" aside, _she's_ present at the supervised meetings between him and his daughter NOT for _his sake_ but for _his daughter's_ SAFETY.  Those scenes involving Billy Hope, his daughter (who after all has lost her mother too) and the social worker MAKE THE MOVIE FOR ME and can serve as an INSTRUCTIVE and even POSITIVE example for all kinds of adults ANGRY AT LIFE (often even partly legitimately) in situations similar to his.  (And in "my day job" I do come across plenty):

Yes, one may have legitimate right to be angry, disappointed, etc.  But it's never "all about us" and "The System" is there, above all, to protect the innocent -- "Hope's" _daughter_.  Wow ;-)

Anyway, this is a Hollywood film (and even a classic "Descent into Hell" Western Civ. story), so it has to end well.  And ... (mild spoiler alert) it does.

So, even if we've seen variations of this story in the past, it still makes a very good film that even "moves the ball" (with regard to those court supervised "parent-child" meetings).  So good job folks!  Very good job!


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

American Ultra [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  


American Ultra [2015] (directed by Nima Nourizadeh, screenplay Max Landis) can perhaps be described as Jason Bourne of The Bourne Identity [2002] meets the Pineapple Express [2008] meets the original Rambo of First Blood [1982]:

The film begins with Mike (played by Jesse Eisenberg) a mild mannered stoner introducing himself to us though an extended voice-over.  We see that he lives in essentially a shack at the edge of a small town in West Virginia with a similarly "stoner" but also clearly "more together" girlfriend named Phoebe (played by Kristen Stewart) to whom he is enormously grateful because she seems to have enormous patience in putting-up with him. 

Now how can they both be "stoners" and yet one be "clearly more together" than the other?  Well, it becomes pretty clear rather quickly that Mike is keeping himself "baked" on marijuana because of some serious phobia issues.  In contrast, Phoebe, while "partaking" as well, isn't doing so for the same reasons or nearly in the same quantities: She's smoking-up with Mike to continue to be with him and, yes, to help keep him at ease.  Oh dear, "an enabler" ... YES (!), perhaps, but she does seem to know that he has issues.  And again, Mike is enormously grateful for her kindness.  Odd, but possible ...

Things would continue indefinitely in this rather mess-ed up stasis if not for a petty bureaucratic fight taking place several hundred miles away -- at CIA headquarters in Langley, VA (!)  What the ...?

There, a young / rising mid-level CIA official named Adrian Yates (played by Topher Grace), who's directed a rather "successful" covert program that turns criminally insane inmates into special ops-assassins has decided to "terminate" a previous, less successful, rival program headed by another (since demoted) middle-aged mid-level CIA official named Victoria Lassater (played by Connie Britton) which simply sought to convert "volunteers" from among petty criminals in U.S. prisons into special ops-assassins -- "terminate" meaning KILLING the remaining "volunteers" from Lassater's previously less successful (largely failed) project.  Why would Yates bother?  Well, because he feels he "can" and because he's a bureaucratic a-ahole.

Mike, turns out to be one of those "volunteers" from Agent Lassater's previous, less successful program.  To "decommission him" at the end of the (failed) program, the she had his memories largely erased, leaving him a basket case with all kinds of phobias (the origins of he didn't understand) and unable to function in the world without some help (Phoebe).   Lassater is aghast, however, to find-out that her young rival at the Agency was now going to send his (previously criminally insane) "assets" to KILL her one surviving "asset" who she had been at least able to so "decommission," albeit with horrible side-effects, back to somewhat "normal" civilian life.

What to do?  Lassater decides to "go rogue" to try to save Mike.  She shows-up at the "Cash and Carry" dollar store where Mike works, telling him a very specific obviously coded message.  That coded message activates repressed memories inside Mike, allowing him to "defend himself" against the coming onslaught previously criminally insane now highly trained CIA super-assasins sent to "off" him.

Much of course ensues, and for a good part of the movie, Mike has no idea why ...

The film becomes a fairly interesting paranoid thriller.  My biggest problem with it is the film's often senseless brutality.  The same story could have been told without resorting to the level violence portrayed in the film.  As such, the R-rating is certainly deserved.  Still the story itself is rather compelling.  As such, the 20-something crowd could leave the film with a fair amount to talk about.

Still I thought the graphic violence was way, way too much than necessary to tell the 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! :-) >>

In the Morning [2014]

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

IMDb listing

Shadow & Act (N. Mumin) review

 
In the Morning [2014] (written and directed by Nefertite Nguvu) is a thoughtful African American romantic drama about nine educated late-20-something through 30-something African American New Yorkers, most living in Brooklyn, coming together "one morning" (or at least during that day) to bid farewell to a friend about to leave New York to begin a new chapter in her life in Brazil (presumably in Rio de Janeiro, Salvador or São Paulo).   The conversation leads to relationships, goals and expectations in life.

The film played recently at the 2015 (21st annual) Black Harvest Film Festival held here in Chicago at the Gene Siskel Film Center. 

Though all the characters / actors in the film were African American, virtually all urban, educated Americans / Westerners would understand the characters' interests / concerns:

Harper (played by Kim Hill) the one leaving for Brazil is willing to go to the ends of the earth to find fulfillment / happiness (On the flip side, she's unwilling to "just sit there" and wait for life to unfold around her).  She's had a nice but ultimately disappointing relationship with Ravi (played by Hoji Fortuna) who's actually there at the brunch (so they parted on more-or-less good terms).

Among the others at the brunch is Amara (played by JoNell Kennedy) at whose home the "Harper's farewell" will come to an end later in the evening.  Amara plays the other book-end in the spectrum of attitudes expressed with regards to personal fulfillment / relationships: She's married.  Yes, she knows that her husband Malik (played by Jacky Ido) has been cheating on her.  She even knows with whom, Cadence (played by Emayatzy Corinealdi), not present at the brunch, but who is even shown meeting (unrelated to this gathering) with Malik, Amara's husband, to break-up with him.  But despite Malik's infidelity and indeed rather hard-core unrepentant infidelity (if Cadence wasn't breaking-up with him, he appeared to be quite happy to continue with his two relationships, and one gets the sense that he'll probably find another girlfriend-on-the-side soon to replace Cadence), Amara's decided to stay in her marriage, something that Harper (and many in the audience), of course, does not / would not understand at all.

Two others, invited to the gathering, late 20 / early 30-something Zuri (played by De'Adre Aziza) and her adjunct professor at some local college also 30-something boyfriend Leal (played by C.J. Lindsey), are not attending because they have a situation at home: Zuri's found that she's pregnant and yet she also knows that Leal has not been faithful to her.  What to do?

So these are the various stories that play-out in the course of this "day in the life" of these characters in the film.  And it certainly would make for some good young adult discussion.

As I wrote above, despite Amara's husband's cheating, Amara's made the decision that she wasn't going to leave her marriage, and it appears that she's doing so not merely "for the sake of her marriage" but "for the sake of Marriage [TM], period."  Perhaps by naming her character "Amara" (which suggests "bitter" or "bitterness") the filmmaker herself is underlining her inability to understand completely why Amara would be doing so (except perhaps out of a spirit of martyrdom).  But Amara's in the story, there, along with Harper who at the other side of the relationship-fulfillment spectrum is willing to sacrifice all, including her friends / relationships, for personal happiness / fulfillment.

So it makes for quite an interesting reflection / discussion piece.

Here I would add, from my perspective, as a Catholic priest after all ... ;-) ... that the Bible is full of people who "meet God" at almost laughably late / odd stages in life:  Abraham was 75 when "God called him" [Gen 12:1-4], Moses (by tradition 80!) when he saw the burning bush [Ex 3:1ff].  It seems to be a very odd question to ask: Were either of these two men, or Abraham's wife Sarah (or Moses' wife Ziporrah [Ex 2:21]), "fulfilled" when they were in their twenties! ;-)

And yet, it is an interesting question! ;-)

Fulfillment is certainly important in life (and if we don't feel at least part "fulfilled" then arguably we're not following what God would hope for us [Matt 19:29]) but _just_ looking for "self-fulfillment" does seem, to me, to be rather selfish and against the Spirit of the Christian life.

That said, what an interesting / thought-provoking film!  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! :-) >>

Best of Enemies [2015]

MPAA (R)  ChicagoTribune (4 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Cheshire) review
AVClub (N. Murray) review  


Best of Enemies [2015] (cowritten and codirected by Robert Gordon and Morgan Neville) is a documentary about the commentary / debating segments that ABC News had contracted from Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley, Jr to spruce-up / liven-up its otherwise certain destined to be 3rd place (among then three competing television networks) and forgotten television coverage of the 1968 Republican and Democratic Party Conventions.   The network chose well ...

Though both Patrician, both were articulate and often quite witty spokesmen for (and indeed epitomized the intellectual foundations of) their respective opposite ends of the American political spectrum at that time:

Gore Vidal knew both Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy personally.  The former actually campaigned for him when he, briefly, took a stab at running for the U.S. Congress (for a seat in upstate New York) in 1960.  The latter, he knew as Jacqueline Bouvoir BEFORE she became J.F.K.'s fiancée / wife.  Vidal who was gay, became famous in the 1950s-60s in the Eastern American intellectual establishment for his increasingly provocative novels [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]  about sexuality, homosexuality, transsexuality (culminating perhaps with his 1968 novel Myra Breckinridge [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]).  And yet that's NOT ALL that he wrote.  He called himself "America's biographer" and certainly he would have had a right to at least "throw his name in that ring," as he wrote a series of quite weighty tomes (lightened by his characteristic irreverent tone) on Lincoln [GR] [WCat] [Amzn], America's Founding Fathers [GR] [WCat] [Amzn], as well as America's increasingly imperialist tendencies in the modern era [GR] [WCat] [Amzn].  Much of "Liberal" / "Blue State" America today could trace its roots back to him.

On the flip side, William F. Buckley, Jr was a heavy weight himself.  He knew and was friends of both Barry Goldwater and especially Ronald Reagan.  His weekly National Review became sort of the "Federalist Papers" of the modern American Conservative movement.  Neither was he a "mindless Conservative" / "Reactionary."  Catholic, he took on Pope John XXIII's 1961 social encyclical Mater et Magistra, with a famous essay "Mater Si, Magistra No" which was both serious (putting the silliness of the current gas-bag Limbaugh-dine conservatives' complaints about current Pope Francis' environmental encyclical Laudato Si to shame) and also laced with his own brand of wit. 

Not that Buckley was right, IMHO. I do think that he and many of his head-shorter contemporaries today fundamentally misunderstood / misunderstand the Popes' role / teaching.  The Popes DON'T advocate for "Communism" (!?) BUT THEY DO remind the world of fundamental moral principles: We have responsibility for our brothers' / sisters' welfare (we are "our brothers'/sisters' keepers" [Gn 4:9]) as well as for "our common home" (which was given to us by God [Gn 1:28] originally AS A PARADISE [Gn 2:8]).  

What was clear to anyone, however, was that Buckley like Vidal HAD A BRAIN, and arguably much if not all of what is reasonable in contemporary Conservative "Red State" American thought could be traced back to him and The National Review that he founded.

So ABC chose its two commentators well.  How'd it go?

Here, contrary to most critics (and reviewers of the current film) I would suggest that the "Debates" between Buckley like Vidal, in as much as they were "debates" at all, ended _badly_.  Basically, what is most remembered of them (and certainly underlined _over and over_ in the current documentary about them) was that in the last "debate" Gore Vidal called Buckley a "crypto Nazi" and Buckley in turn called Vidal a "queer" and that SOMEHOW Gore Vidal "won the debate" as a result.  Why?  Presumably because it's okay to call someone "a  crypto Nazi" BUT NOT "a queer."

And there we have it.   I would suggest that BOTH MEN FAILED.  And I would agree that their childish if certainly mesmerizing presence on the television screen back in 1968 (but the alternative would have been watching even more of police officers hitting protesters with clubs ...) INFLUENCED (though in my mind BADLY) political "debate" on television ever since.  Basically, these two "Giants" gave us the first "CNN Crossfire" show, when, sigh ..., they could have done so much better.

So in the end, I left the theater disappointed, though perhaps understanding a little better why we are in the country we are today: Nearly 50 years ago, two of the truly best and most articulate minds of the time were invited to debate the great questions of their time, and instead ... they chose to call each other names.  Sigh ...


<< 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! :-) >>

White Water [2015]

MPAA (UR would be PG)  Fr. Dennis (4+ Stars)

IMDb listing 

EUR (L. Buford) review
Broadcastingcable.com (J. Walsten) review
The Art of the Monteque (V. Nickerson) review

Deadline.com (A. D'Alessandro) interview w. the child actors


White Water [2015] (directed by Rusty Cundieff, screenplay by Michael S. Bandy and Eric Stein) is a family drama set in 1963 rural Alabama near the end of the Jim Crow Era.   The film played recently at the 2015 (21st annual) Black Harvest Film Festival held here in Chicago at the Gene Siskel Film Center.

The film tells the very human story of a 7 y/o African American boy named Michael (played by brothers Amir and Amiri O'Neill) who becomes fascinated / obsessed with the _probable_ taste of the water coming-out of the "white's only" water fountain in town.  Since he saw a white boy his age, Tommy (played by Brody Rose), drink and drink and drink from that fountain, Michael is convinced that it must be _much better_ than the water coming out of the "colored folks" water fountain.  Michael knows the taste of the water from that one and he's never been impressed.  Indeed since the water was rusty in taste, he rarely drank from it, only when he was really, really thirsty.

So there it is.  A seven year old African American boy wants to taste "the water of the white folks," and, well ... it's ILLEGAL.  And his ma', Annie (played spectacularly by Sharon Leal) and grandpa (played by Leon Lamar) become convinced that Michael's inevitably going to do something really stupid (like drink from the "white folks' water fountain") that's going to get him into _a lot of trouble_ just like his no-good saxophone playing father (played by Larenz Tate) would get into.

Add then Michael's maybe one-year-older cousin Red (played by Zhane Hall) who eggs Michael on, telling him he's "drunk from white folks' drinking fountains many-a-times" and then Rev. Stokes (again wonderfully played by Barry Shabaka Henley) who's JUST TRYING to keep his little, often quite oppressed / humiliated flock from doing any of a wide number of very stupid things (both politically and personally) that would "lead them on the certain Road to Perdition" ... and one gets ONE HECK OF A (somewhat tempered by years) SEGREGATION ERA STORY that TRULY EVERYONE, BLACK OR WHITE, COULD UNDERSTAND.

Honestly school teachers, if you're looking for a GREAT CHILD FRIENDLY FILM THAT EXPLAINS _ALL THAT ONE REALLY NEEDS TO KNOW_ about THE HUMILIATING (and at times DEADLY SERIOUS) EVIL that was SEGREGATION in the SOUTH during the Jim Crow Era this is A GREAT ONE TO CHOOSE.

Great job folks, great, 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! :-) >>

The Diary of a Teenage Girl [2015]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB ()  ChicagoTribune (4 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


The Diary of a Teenage Girl [2015] (directed and screenplay by Marielle Heller based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Phoebe Gloeckner [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a definitely _appropriately_ R-rated film about a 15 year old whose first sexual experience (and second, third, ...) was with her mid-late 30-something mother's boyfriend (also 30-something though perhaps a couple of years younger than said mother).  Say what??

Obviously, this is _not_ a "light" film.  And let's be clear, there are adults, both men and women (among them, of course, some past Catholic priests), WHO ARE IN PRISON / AND ON LIFELONG SEX OFFENDER LISTS for having had sex / entered into sexual relationships with minors.  So what possible value could there be to making such a film?

To be honest, this is a film IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR PARENTS / OTHERWISE ADULTS and then perhaps for SOME TEENS (with HOPEFULLY some parental involvement).

Why Parents?  Well this film is as good a reminder as any to divorced / unmarried / recently married parents with kids that their new "one" could have dangerous issues with regards to the kids (from hitting them to hitting-on / SLEEPING with them...).  Yes, can be pretty awful and/or lonely to be divorced / unmarried with kids at home, but one simply has to be very careful about who one's bringing (new) into the house because one's not just putting oneself at risk, but also one's kids.  Honestly, it's just the reality.

Then why adults in general?   If a fifteen year old (a minor) starts thinking that you want to have sex with them, it's time to run.  There's NO WAY that such a relationship could play-out well and in the U.S. today (and, indeed, in most of the western world) 9-out-of-10, 95-out-of-a-100, the adult's gonna end-up in jail / on a sex offender list, etc.  So the film presents an opportunity to internalize how stupid / creepy the guy was in the film and then to redouble one's efforts manage one's life in a manner that would avoid getting sucked into a situation like the one portrayed in the film.

So then what the heck happened in the film to produce such an intro to a review of it?

The very first line of the film (set in San Francisco in 1976) has the film's 15-year-old protagonist Minnie (played by 20-something actress Bel Powley) proclaim in a voice-over to viewers: "Today, I had sex for the very first time."

The next fifteen-or-so minutes involves her progressively revealing to viewers the exact circumstances of the loss of her virginity, and it becomes clear that the circumstances were quite fumbled and yucky and let's face it, the guy (played by Alexander Skarsgård), was her twice divorced 30-something mother (played by Kristen Wiig)'s 30-something boyfriend.

How did it come to that?  Well, Minnie explained:  Some days (or a couple of weeks) before, she and her younger half-sister Gretel (played by Abby Wait) along with their mom and mom's largely-live-in boyfriend were all watching TV.  Eventually Gretel and mom pealed off to go to bed, leaving Minnie and her mom's boyfriend alone.  Having all been snuggling together (as "family") before, Minnie and mom's boyfriend were left in that position after the other two left.  Then whether by accident -- he _could have been_ tired, he _could have been_ drunk -- or intentionally, said mom's boyfriend plopped his hand on Minnie's breast and _appeared to fall asleep_.   Was it a come-on?

I could imagine a lot of people who see that movie debating that point.  However, it's beside the point:  that accidental and/or very creepy gesture left Minnie, a not particularly confident in her own skin 15 year old, wondering: "What did he mean?"  But she kinda liked it (it was the first time anyone had touched her like that).  And so sometime later (a few days later or a few weeks later) SHE TELLS HIM that SHE wants to have sex with him.

Said boyfriend of Minnie's mom had exactly one opportunity to end this well.  HE COULD HAVE SAID: "But Minnie I love your mom."  BUT HE DIDN'T (SAY THAT) BECAUSE HE DIDN'T (REALLY LOVE MINNIE'S MOM).  He was JUST SLEEPING WITH MINNIE'S MOM because she was available and HE (PROBABLY) HAD "NOTHING BETTER GOING ON."  Not exactly a romance that would "launch a 1000 ships ..."

He could have also said: "Minnie you're 15 years old and I don't want to go to jail" and since he didn't particularly love Minnie's mom anyway, could have made a relatively easy exit over the next several days.

Instead because he probably was something of a creep, he had sex with her.

The rest of the movie follows.  Again, this is not a pretty picture.  In fact, IMHO it is quite an ugly one.  Is it "realistic"?  I think that most viewers would probably hope not.  But it can give parents, adults and possibly some older teens some things to think about.


<< 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! :-) >>

Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet [2014]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB ()  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub ()  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (R. Moore) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub () review  

Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet [2014] (directed by Roger Allers, et al, screenplay by Roger Allers along with Hanna Weg and Douglas Wood based on the acclaimed spiritual book [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by turn of the 20th century Lebanese author Kahlil Gibran [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) offers a gentle introduction to the immensely popular text.

As in the book, so too in the current animated film (Al)Mustafa (voiced in the film by Liam Neeson), a spiritual leader, who has spent 12 years on an island outside of a fictionalized town called Orphalese, is about to go home.  A ship has come to take him to his homeland (or "homeland").

Now why was (Al)Mustafa on "the island" to begin with?  The book is (deliberately) unclear.  The film is much more specific (but certainly offers a credible explanation for both that time-in-history, and perhaps even ours.  After all, the story plays out near the Eastern Mediterranean / Western Middle East, hence in "the land of I.S.I.S." and all kinds of extremist militias).

As in the book, so in the movie, BEFORE (Al)Mustafa departs (or "departs" ... in both the book and the film the actual and certainly ultimate manner of his "departure" also remains vague) HE'S ASKED A NUMBER OF SPIRITUAL QUESTIONS by the people coming together to bid him farewell, which provides him opportunity to give sage advice about love, work, marriage, time, etc.

His answers, generally given in in the book 1-2 page poetic vignettes, make up the bulk of the small 60-or-so-page text.  The film expounds in generally lovely / gentle / colorful animated fashion on four or five of his answers.

Since the bulk of the 60-or-so-page book is in effect (Al)Mustafa preaching to the people, before "departing", the film does take _some_ imaginative liberties with the book to tell the story.

Notably, it dramatizes (Al)Mustafa's leaving of his "little house outside of town" and his walk to the town and its harbor.  (Al) Mustafa is portrayed as having a (widowed) house keeper, named Kamila (voiced by Salma Hayek) who, in turn, has a little 6-7 year-old daughter Almitra (voiced by Quvenzhané Wallis).  Note that that Almitra is imagined/portrayed quite differently in the original book than she in the film.  Together with a guard named Halim (voiced by John Krasinski), Kamila and Almitra help (Al) Mustafa travel down from his "little house outside of town" into town.

It all makes for a lovely story and for a nice, but certainly not only, perhaps even _intentionally_ limiting (concretizing) interpretation of the book.

So while not necessary to understand the story presented in the film, getting-hold-of and reading the 60-or-so page book both beforehand and perhaps especially _afterwards_ will help one appreciate the specific artistry and choices made in the film.

IMHO the book [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] is far more general in scope than the film.  However, as I've already suggested, the choices made by the film-makers make for an interesting, even compelling (and perhaps unfortunately still all too timely) interpretation of the book.

Good job folks!  Very good job!


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

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. [2015]

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

IMDb listing
AlloCine.fr listing*
CSFD listing*
FilmTV.it listing*
FilmWeb.pl listing*
KinoPoisk.ru listing*
Kino-Zeit.de listing*

CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (J.Hassenger) review

FilmServer.cz (V. Limberk) review*
Gazeta.ru (J. Zabaluev) review*
Kino-Zeit.de (Press Spiegel) reviews*
Rossiyskaya Gazeta (D. Sochovskiy) review*


The Man from U.N.C.L.E. [2015] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Guy Richie along with Lionel Wigram, story by Guy Richie, Jeff Kleeman, Lional Wigram and David C. Wilson based on the television series [1965-68] [IMDb] by Sam Rolfe) is the less "controversial" film coming-out in wide release this weekend, the other, edgier film being Straight Outta Compton [2015].  And I have to say that I enjoyed (indeed LOVED, read on...) this "lighter" / "safer" even if surely "more vanilla" film as well.

Though certainly more serious than the Get Smart [1965-70] [IMDb] television series, the current "U.N.C.L.E." film as well as the series that inspired it takes its lead with (and is partly a send-up of) the James Bond movies that were already so popular in the 1960s.

Like the Get Smart [1965-70] [IMDb] series, the U.N.C.L.E. [1965-68] [IMDb] series involved a battle between two great coalitions representing "Good" and "Evil."  In Get Smart, the Coalition for Good was called "Control" and the coalition for Evil was called "KAOS."  In U.N.C.L.E. the "Coaltion for Good" was indeed called U.N.C.L.E. (standing for United Network Command for Law and Enforcement) and its opponent was a neo-Nazi ODESSA-like Coalition called T.H.R.U.S.H. (Technological Hierarchy for the Removal of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity).

That the opponent of U.N.C.L.E. was a neo-Nazi ODESSA-like organization allowed both American / Western agents in general to work with Soviet (Russian) agents to work together _both_ in the original series and in the current film today.  This cooperation between East and West is a key distinguishing characteristic of the U.N.C.L.E series from pretty much all the others (in the West) of this genre: Ian Fleming's James Bond, Mel Brook's / Buck Hardy's Get Smart, Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan and so forth.  Given renewed East-West tensions today, I do find the decision to try to reboot this _hopeful_ 60s-era series to be an unexpected joy and a reminder that just as Russia (then the Soviet Union) and the West cooperated in defeating Nazi Germany (and no-doubt frustrated any subsequent attempts at revival of race-based neo-Nazi empire building, no in this case, no one's 'crying' Argentina ...), Russia and the West have common interests even today, notably in fighting Islamic extremism / terrorism.  So there is undoubtedly contemporary value to the revival of this (then) hope-against-hope 1960s era spy-series.

Another _great joy_ in the revival of this 1960s era spy-series can be found in the drawing of the key characters (re)introduced in the film -- the super-competent / stylish yet slippery American CIA Agent "Napoleon Solo" (played with exquisite brashness by Henry Cavill), his huge, perhaps coming across initially as somewhat clumsy, but also arguably more straight-forward / honest KGB counterpart Illya Kuryakin (played again spot-on by Armie Hammer), an OMG she _steals_ the movie (!) mild-mannered East German "auto-mechanic" (agent) named Gaby (played wonderfully by Alicia Vikander) WHO'S PLAYING EVERYBODY (but SHE HAS TO ... SHE'S GERMAN in the middle of the Cold War ;-) and the ever smiling (but which way is he really going?) head of British Intelligence, Alexander Waverly (played again wonderfully/spot-on by, again, ever jovial / ever-smiling Hugh Grant).

Together they must break into a secretive neo-Nazi/Fascist ring led by an Italian Versaci-dressed bombshell named Victoria Vinciguerra (played again perfectly as a Bond-worthy villian by Elizabeth Debicki) and, it turns out, some of Gaby's old (past-Nazi) relatives "Uncle Rudi" (played with appropriate "I'm a member of the Aryan super-race and if you are not you don't deserve anything from me" Evil swarminess by Sylvester Groth) and as well as _her dad_, a scientist who just seemed to get mixed-up _way over his head_ (again...) into something increasingly/unbelievably Evil).  Much then had to ensue ... and it does ;-)

I'd also add that the COSTUMING (and even SET DESIGN) in this film are about as good as they get.  While this is a very "light" film, I DO HOPE that come Oscar Season, this film gets remembered with regards to COSTUME DESIGN in particular:  For every time that Gaby came-up on the screen, I kept thinking of my (Chicago Art Institute diploma-ed / accredited) dress-designing mom who was in her 20s-30s in the 1960s and pretty much made / wore _exactly_ (!) the kind of light dresses that Gaby wore throughout the film.  (Honestly, I found this aspect of the film AN ABSOLUTE JOY).

So what then to say about this film?  Perhaps it's more optimistic than reality (certainly then, but also now) would warrant/deserve.  But this is a lovely / LIGHT film that offers the possibility of looking for the best in each other's characters (or at least of most characters) rather than looking for the worst.

So honestly, great job folks!  Honestly, great and _positive_ job!


* 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! :-) >>

Straight Outta Compton [2015]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

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

BET coverage
Ebony coverage
Essence.com coverage
TheSource.com articles

Straight Outta Compton [2015] (directed by F. Gary Gray, screenplay by Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff story by S. Leigh Savidge, Alan Wenkus and Andrea Berloff) is a biopic about the late-1980s early-1990s Los Angeles-based "gangsta rap" group N.V.A.

Perhaps the most important thing that I can say about both their story and the film is that despite a very long list of (legitimate) complaints about the content of their songs and then their often violent / often misogynist off-stage behavior, the group did OFTEN tell the truth, certainly the truth as viewed from their perspective.

And I think I can say that because I LIVED IN LOS ANGELES during those same years, studying for a PhD (in Chemistry) at the University of Southern California, at the northern edge of South Central L.A.  I knew very well the buzzing of police helicopters over my head at night, pretty much _every night_.  And I watched a black man being spread-eagled / arrested at night in front of my student room for rent where I was living.

Later, after I finished my PhD, I still lived in the area during the L.A. Riots following the trial of the LAPD officers in the Rodney King arrest.  I will never forget the smell of the city burning on the first night of the rioting.  And I spent the second night at a priest friend's out in the suburbs near where I was working because I could not get home to the apartment where I still lived at the time (on the east side of Hollywood) because the area was still cordoned off by police who were trying to restore order.  I spent that evening with my priest friend and his Hispanic gang-intervention group standing on a street corner by a shopping center a few suburbs away, chanting to very agitated passerbys essentially "Give Peace a Chance" and I've never forgotten my impression of that angry night as: "So this is how the Apocalypse would look like" as it seemed like there was a near total (if thankfully temporary) unraveling of social order.

While I did not know Compton as well as I knew South Central L.A., I would have to say that comparisons to the notorious Soweto Township in South Africa would _not_ be entirely off-base.  As such, I totally get the sharp, spare-me-the-B.S.(!) language / anger of N.V.A.'s songs and the current film.

Now a fair number of non-blacks who've never lived in an area like Compton / South Central L.A. will simply not understand or _not get past_ the anger expressed in the N.V.A.'s songs and videos (Hence a fair question could be asked: 'Okay, you're absolutely right, but ... if you turn a lot of people off who's going to really listen to you?' But a fair response would probably be: 'Well a lot of those people who don't like us weren't going to listen to us anyway...").  A fair number of observers will also discount / dismiss N.V.A. (and other rappers like them) for their attitude / descriptions AND OFTEN ENOUGH (DOCUMENTED) BEHAVIOR toward WOMEN.  I also _completely_ understand the AFRICAN AMERICAN PARENTS precisely living in places like Compton / South Central L.A. who would be saying: "WE GET IT.  WE SEE IT.  BUT WE _DON'T_ WANT OUR KIDS LIVING LIKE YOU -- with guns, drugs and whores (or living as drug dealers / whores)."

So this is a film that is edgy about a rap group whose music was and remains _very disturbing_.   Parents, this film certainly deserves its R-rating.  But it's NOT a film / story to dismiss.


<< 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! :-) >>

BaddDDD Sonia Sanchez [2015]

MPAA (PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing


BaddDDD Sonia Sanchez [2015] (codirected by Barbara Attie, Janet Goldwater and Sabrina Schmidt Gordon) is a documentary about the prolific 80 year old African American writer / poet / educator Sonia Sanchez [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]  co-foundress of the Black Arts/Studies Movement in California in the 1960s.

The documentary played recently as part of the 2015 (21st annual) Black Harvest Film Festival held here in Chicago at the Gene Siskel Film Center.

Her story could be inspiration to a lot of young educated men and women of color in the United States today because she had to navigate pretty much _every_ professional obstacle that could be placed in front of a woman or person of color to marginalize him/her:

Yes, she was a co-founder of the Black Studies Movement movement in the 1960s and hence had to FIRST DEFEND the very legitimacy of "Black Studies" as field worthy of academic endeavor and THEN had to fight clueless (generally white) university administrators who wanted the works of towering African American figures like Booker T. Washington (an African American leader of the post-Reconstruction Era who built an entire movement around African American self-reliance) and W.E.B. DuBois (the founder of the N.A.A.C.P. !) to be kept _outside_ of emerging Black Studies curricula (LOL ... probably "Uncle Tom's Cabin" would have been "okay" ...)

Then, she became an initially reluctant but as time went on _scathing_ African American opponent to the Black Panther movement also emerging in California in the 1960s for its horrendous marginalization / mistreatment of African American women.

For a time, she was part of the Nation of Islam movement RUNNING SCHOOLS FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSLIM WOMEN within the movement, until she came to realize with hard experience that this Muslim affiliated movement was, after all, (if _not_ explicitly hostile) not particularly oriented toward promoting higher / scholarly education of women.

And she did all this WHILE RAISING THREE CHILDREN -- two sons and a daughter -- in the course of two marriages (both eventually failed) and finally on her own.

What she did have, always, was her writing and her poetry and eventually a rock solid conviction that _violence_ of any kind, was NEVER the solution.

By then, living and teaching at Temple University in Philadelphia she publicly challenged then Philadelphia's African American mayor's 1985 decision to _bomb_ the somewhat odd, to many misguided, black separatist movement "MOVE's" compound in Philadelphia, an action that killed 11 MOVE members including 5 children.  Later, to oppose the 2003 Iraq War along with several other "grannies" (both black and white), she participated in a sit-in at at U.S. army recruitment office after the recruiters wouldn't take _their_ applications to enter the Army "rather than the young ones."

Those who know something about poetry will find her philosophy there fascinating: Sonia Sanchez [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] is famous for her free verse BUT she's also written _entire books_ on and in the style of Haiku and she would insist that her students become masters in form poetry _like but not inclusive_ of Haiku BEFORE going into free verse.  Also in the film, Ms Sanchez insisted that when she speaks, there's always a "sound track" (perhaps only in her imagination) behind it.  And indeed, most of the times when the film showed her reciting poetry, there was a jazz ensemble of one-sort-or-another playing "background."

All in all, I found this documentary about Ms. Sanchez to be a joy.  I found her person to be _very interesting_ and inspirational.  And I appreciate festivals such as this, the annual Black Harvest Festival held here in Chicago, as an opportunity to be introduced to people like her and to other artists, indeed often enough film makers, that I otherwise would probably never have learned about, but can enrich my / other's lives.

Great job!


ADDENDUM:

While this documentary film was _wonderful_, one need not find / see it to learn about Sonia Sanchez [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn].  There's plenty to find about her across the internet, in book stores and in libraries.  Just follow the links I've placed along side her name ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Shaun the Sheep Movie [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (J. Hessenger) review  


Shaun the Sheep Movie [2015] (codirected and cowritten by Mark Barton and Richard Starzak of Aardman Animations [IMDb]) is a remarkable British children oriented "claymation" feature film about Shaun the Sheep (bah-ed/grunted by Justine Fletcher) and his barnyard friends (all bah-ed, grunted and quacked by various cast members), including a human Farmer credited as simply "the Farmer" (and "grunted" by John Sparkes).  For since the film was made "from Shaun the Sheep's perspective," the Farmer himself as well as all the other human characters in the story ALSO "grunt" their lines.  Hence this is a feature length film -- 85 minutes -- with no dialogue "to speak of" ;-)

I'm reminded here of a two minute "Law and Order" Adult Swim / Robot Chicken "short" [YouTube] which plays-out the entire story arc of a typical episode of the famed Law & Order television series [1990-2010] [IMDb] using nothing but "clucking chickens" (there's a victim chicken, bystander chickens, police investigator chickens, a "person of interest" chicken, prosecutor / defense attorney / judge / jury chickens, TV reporter chickens, etc ...).  I've long considered that two minute short to be absolutely brilliant and yet here the current movie extends this story-telling yarn to an 85 minute long (feature length) film.

Does it work?  Well ... ;-) ... smiling from ear-to-ear as I write this, I think that it basically does, but I'd understand that (many) people would be skeptical ;-).

So then, what's the story with regards to Shaun the Sheep?   Well, perhaps inspired in part by the "Harold the Clever Sheep"[YouTube] sketch of Monty Python's Flying Circus [1969-1974] [IMDb] fame, Shaun, also a fairly "clever sheep," finds the routine at the Farmer's farm to be dismally boring: Every morning that stupid rooster crows, then the dog starts barking, the farmer's alarm clock goes off and soon the farmer's down at the barn with the sheep and proceeds to tick off the same checklist for the day, every day.  That is, he lets the sheep out to pasture -- they graze -- and then he brings them back to the barn again to sleep at the end of the day.  It's not particularly hard work, certainly not for the sheep, but it's quite boring, or perhaps baaaah-ring.

Well, inspired by an advert that he reads on a bus passing-by saying "Take a Day Off" -- apparently though he can not understand spoken human language, Shaun can read ;-) -- Shaun puts together a rather ingenious plan (along with the other sheep) to "take a day off."  (Kind of an Animal Farm [book: 1945] / Chicken Run [2000] meets Ferris Bueller's Day Off [1986] ;-)

First they have to distract the dog.  To do so, Shaun pays off a "shady duck" from the nearby pond with a few slices of bread (amusingly, he has to haggle with the duck over the number of slices ;-).  Then the sheep have to get the Farmer to nod-off.  To do so, they run around in a quick circle behind him as he leads them to the pasture.  As the poor Farmer _counts_ them, first he's a little confused, then becomes drowsy and finally falls asleep.  The sheep then carry him (on their nice fluffy / wooly backs) to an out-of-the-way RV trailer where he could sleep the day away, while THEY (the sheep) get to "take their day off."  The pigs, watching the sheep do all this from their sty, are not amused (actually quite jealous), but they can't do anything about it ;-).

All seems to go quite well, until ... tragically, somehow the RV trailer starts moving and before any of the sheep (or the dog) could do anything about it, the RV trailer starts rolling ... toward "The Big City" (Well that's what the direction sign says anyway ;-).

The RV trailer _crashes_ then somewhere in the city.  The Farmer hits his head and temporarily forgets who he was or where he is.  And, well, come night fall ... he's not back and ... the sheep start to get hungry because ... the farmer's not there to feed them.

What now?  Well they, the sheep and the somewhat jilted / feeling betrayed-by-the-sheep dog have to go to "The Big City" to look for their master.  Much ensues ... ;-)

It makes for an amusing story perhaps teaching children the concept of "unintended consequences."  Here Shaun and his fellow sheep just wanted "a day off" and inadvertently lost (minor spoiler alert ..."at least for a while") the Farmer who took care of them.

Anyway, of course, things have to "end well" and (again minor spoiler alert) they do.  And all come to be happy on the Farm again.

Parents: I do not know if a really small kid would have the attention span to watch this movie all the way through in the theater BUT ... I would imagine that this will become a favorite HOME VIDEO for little kids in the years to come.

Good job, very good and funny 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! :-) >>

Ricki and the Flash [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (M. Macina) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  

Ricki and the Flash [2015] (directed by Jonathan Demme, screenplay Diablo Cody) has some very well drawn, well acted characters.

The film's lead character, Laura (stage name Ricki) (played by Meryl Streep), who left her far more buttoned-up / conventional (and it turns out far more financially successful) husband Pete (played by Kevin Kline) and their kids to pursue a career in Rock and ... ended up 15 years later playing as "the house band" playing covers of other people's music at a random bar in the San Fernando Valley (Tarzana, California maybe 10-15 miles from the clubs on the Sunset Strip in Hollywood, but it could just as well been on Mars...) is a revelation.  In my line of work (as a parish priest...), I've known / worked with Rickis, even "musician Rickis" (this film came out on the weekend of our parish's annual Annunciata Fest that even features a lot of bands very similar to "Ricky and the Flash" ;-).  Indeed, there are moments in the film that I found jaw-droppingly poignant -- about a person that's both so flawed and yet also so sincere / perfect and  _ever_ partly / largely _aware of both_.  Wow ...

There's then Ricki's 20-something daughter Julie (played by Mammie Gummer) who grew-up hating her mom for having abandoned her along with her brothers Adam (played by Nick Westrate) and Josh (played by Sebastian Stan), but, having been dumped by _her_ husband after a very brief marriage was finding herself in a crisis of her own and discovering (partly to her own initial horror) that she had both more of her mom in her than she had realized AND MOM MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY THAT "STUPID" / "INCOMPETENT" / "TERRIBLE" AFTER ALL ...

Then there's Ricki's husband Pete's second wife Maureen (played perfectly by Audra McDonald).  Maureen, A NURSE, is exactly as _responsible_ a person as Laura/Ricki proved irresponsible, hence the almost PERFECT "second spouse" (An excellent recent Irish movie offering a similar dynamic of juxtaposing a terribly irresponsible first spouse and a super-responsible second one was Gold! [2014], though in that cases the juxtaposed first and second spouses were the husbands to a still 30-something Irish woman just trying to do the best for her kid and find some happiness as well).  In the current film, Maureen's become everything that Laura/Ricki was not and had, in fact, achieved the love / appreciation of Pete-and-Laura/Ricki's kids in a way that certainly Laura/Ricki did not (but honestly, neither did Pete).  Has Maureen become a "kind/gentle" EVER "saying the right things" USURPER?  Or was she simply EXACTLY WHAT THE FAMILY NEEDED after the breakup of Laura/Ricki and Pete?

Finally, there's Ricki's lead guitarist Greg (played reasonably well by ACTUAL 1980s-90s era POP STAR Rick Springfield [IMDb] I cut him some acting slack because he's been above all an A-ish-list pop musician rather than an A-list Hollywood actor).  He too has made relationship mistakes, but he too, like Laura / Ricki, "loved the music" above all and hence understood her in a way that none of the others, not even her family, could.

So there're some very well drawn characters here, why not such great reviews?  I personally found Pete and his family to have become WAY MORE FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFUL than necessary or even appropriate to effectively tell the story.   I think that the story would have been far better served if he had been made an accountant, perhaps a restaurant owner or something like that.  As portrayed, Pete had become SO RICH (doing some straight laced but certainly lucrative work -- was he a banker, was he a lawyer?) that I simply found it hard to believe that the two -- Pete and Laura/Ricki -- would have EVER met / seriously fallen in love and produced a family of three kids together before having so radically gone their separate ways.  The film provided no explanation and that proved an insurmountable problem for me.

Then this is a Hollywood film that thus had to "end well."  But Linda/Ricki's world and that of the husband/family that she met are SOOO far apart (and they needent have been so), that it's hard to see how it could work out, and CERTAINLY NOT in the stupidly cheap way (after creating sooo many well drawn characters) that it does in the film.

So there it is.  There are some very well drawn, even unforgetable, characters in this film ... which are then plunged into a story that doesn't altogether make sense.  And it's a shame, because many of the characters in this movie (and the actors/actresses playing them) deserved 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! :-) >>

Number One Fan (orig. Elle L'Adore) [2014]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
Allocine.fr listing*

LaCroix.fr (C. Renou-Nativel) review*
LExpress.fr (C. Sautet) review*
LeMonde.fr (N. Luciani) review*
Liberation.fr (G. Renault) review*
LaPresse.ca (M. Cloutier) review*

EyeForFilm.co.uk (R. Mowe) review
The Hollywood Reporter (J. Mintzer) review


Number One Fan (orig. Elle L'Adore) [2014] [IMDb] [AC.fr]* (directed and screenplay cowritten by Jeanne Herry [IMDb] [AC.fr]* along with Gaëlle Macé [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) is a  rather _disconcerting_ (to an American / Anglo-Saxon sensibility) crime, stalker / celebrity "comedy" that played recently at the 2015 Chicago French Film Festival (July 31 - Aug 6, 2015.

Muriel Bayan (played by Sandrine Kiberlain [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) is a humble beautician in some town somewhere in the center of France.  She has two kids but has arguably lost custody of them for reasons not entirely clear.  What is clear is that she's been a BIG FAN of a fictionalized French pop singer named Vincent Lacroix (played by Laurent Lafitte [IMDb] [AC.fr]*).  Indeed, after losing her kids ... she ... goes a concert of his.

Now Vincent Lacroix is introduced to us as a rather typical contemporary celebrity.  He's does enjoy the fame of his public persona (likes signing autographs after his show), he's learned to be careful of overly obsessive fans (we learn later that he had a something of a French equivalent of a "restraining order" apparently put on Muriel some time in the past), and he's tried to build a private life away from the stage with his current "significant other" Julie (played by Lou Lesage [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) and other personal friends.

Yet it's an unstable mix and so, after what had been a "quiet night" at home with friends, Vincent and Julie get into a fight.  As the argument progresses, she actually slaps him first but he responds by pushing her against a book case ... and a fairly large / heavy object (arguably an award ...) falls on her head, badly, and kills her.

OMG ... what now?  "Fortunately" the friends are gone and he's alone there in the house with his now dead wife with the object that killed her lying at her side.  If he calls the police, will they believe it was an accident?  In anycase, the tabloids will have a field day with this.

SOO ... he decides that he's going to try to cover it up.

Enter Muriel, the somewhat simple-minded "fan" who Vincent had some time back placed a restraining order against.  He pulls out one of Muriel's past obsessive fan letters (with her address on it ... she lived somewhere in the same town).  He then wraps the body of his dead significant other in a thick blanket, puts in his his car, and drives in the middle of the night to Muriel's apartment building and rings her door bell.

"Hi this is Vincent Lacroix, I need to talk to you."  Yes, it's the middle of the night, yes, it's VERY ODD that Vincent Lacroix was at her door BUT ... "OMG, VINCENT LACROIX's at MY DOOR!"

Vincent Lacroix asks her then: "Would you do something for me?"  "OMG, yes!"  "I want you to drive your car, tonight, to my sister's in Switzerland.  There will be something in your trunk.  I don't want you to see it.  You have no need to see it.  Just take your car to my sister's ... in Switzerland.  I have everything explained for her in this (sealed) letter.  She'll take your car and come back with it about a half an hour later (Vincent's sister and her husband ran a pet crematorium.  Muriel has no idea of that, but the viewers know).  And then you can go home.  Would you do this for me?" 

Somewhat confused but, starstruck, "OMG after all these years, restraining order and all, here's Vincent LaCroix IN MY APARTMENT," Muriel says yes.

Much ensues ...

What ensues would certainly be disconcerting for a fair number of Anglo viewers: MILD SPOILER here: Fortunately Muriel isn't a total idiot/doormat but she proves no saint or martyr either.  Then of course there's the "great Vincent Lacroix" who clearly turns out to be quite an SOB (that's clear from what I described above).  Add then the two police investigators put on the case (played by Pascal Demolon [IMDb] [AC.fr]* and Olivia Côte [IMDb] [AC.fr]*).  After all, Vincent Lacroix's partner had "gone missing" and it becomes rapidly clear that _something_ had to have happened to her (a sudden stop in her cell phone and credit card activity).  While clearly not incompetent, it becomes clear that they have "other" often random / stupid distractions that compete for their attention as they work on her case.  And finally there's the police investigators' supervisor who seems to be above all concerned that her department "come-in under budget" for the year, RATHER THAN SOLVE CASES.

It all comes to feel very disconcerting.  Here a person has died.  We see how she died, and yes, it was _largely_ as a result of an accident.  BUT the people around, both near (Vincent Lacroix) and progressively far (Muriel), the two police investigators and finally their supervisor, don't seem to care.  All seem to be preoccupied with their own agendas, and well Julie was dead already anyway ...

Even though the film played very much like something of a modern "screwball comedy" ... it really didn't feel like "all that funny" at all ...

So it makes for a rather disturbing film by the end ...


* 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! :-) >>