The Words [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Roger Ebert (2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1840417/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv104.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120905/REVIEWS/120909996

The Words (cowritten and codirected by Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal) is a film that I honestly bought into hook, line and sinker, leaving the theater thinking that I had just seen one of the best movies of the year (both in terms of writing/direction and even in terms of some of the performances) only to find that it was trashed by an awful lot of critics, getting an very impressive (in an infamous sort of way) 17% from critics on the RottenTomatoes website's "TomatoMeter" (even though the audience score was much more favorable).  The young adult oriented AV Club even gave the film a D- (!!) even as it gave "Casa de Mi Padre" certainly one of the worst American-made movie of the year a "B."  So honestly critics, "why the hate?" Or are there a lot of guilty consciences out there? ;-)

Okay, my last comment is something of a cheap shot, but I honestly don't understand why the critical community would have trouble with either the multi-level structure of the story here or, for that matter, its (IMHO more or less obvious) ending.

How many levels of story/action were in Inception [2010] that received almost universal critical acclaim (though perhaps mostly for its special effects ...)?  And did anybody out there read a _good translation_ of the Thousand and One Nights?  One of the true joys and marvels of reading the 1001 Nights is in keeping track of the levels of storytelling that take place there.  Sure on the first level, there's the story of Scheherazade telling a series of night-time stories to her unstable and insanely jealous husband to keep him focused (on her stories) and thus keep her alive.  But many of her stories were about people (merchants, sailors, yes, at times thieves...) who _also_ found themselves in situations that they had to tell powerful, despotic people (sultans, kings, judges, commanders) stories that would entertain those people, calm them down and keep the (metaphorically) "tap dancing" storytellers alive.  I think there was one time that I counted four levels of story-telling in one section of the 1001 Nights.  So that this film, The Words, would have three levels of storytelling taking place is something that I found joyfully entertaining.

Then perhaps in my line of work, I do see a world that's more complex than cartoons.  Should an adulterer, for instance, tell his/her spouse that he/she cheated?  Why?  To whose benefit?  It's been my experience that many (most? I'd have no idea...) adulterers eventually confess their adultery to their spouses not for the benefit of their spouse but _for their own benefit_: "I cheated on you <fill in the blank as to how many years ago>.  Now by telling you, at minimum, I'm rocking _your world_.  You won't be able to trust me (or anybody) for a _long_ time.  But boy am I relieved ... In fact, I'm so relieved that I'm going to go out for a beer."   Honestly, where's the justice in that?  And yes, the obvious counsel to all is DON'T CHEAT TO BEGIN WITH.  But once you're there, make sure that your motivations for "coming clean" are themselves clean.  And the way to Redemption may be to LEAD AN HONORABLE LIFE FROM HENCEFORTH and to BE MERCIFUL to those who find their sins outed in one way or another, knowing quite well, that it could easily have been you.  Jesus did not say to the people: "Whack the adultress and then sin no more."  Instead he told her accusers "Whoever hasn't sinned cast the first stone" and THEN to the adultress "Go and sin no more..." (John 8:1-11).  Honestly folks, that's a path in which "everybody lives." 

Anyway, those two great musings come to play in this film that was roundly trashed...

The movie is structured -- in three layers.  It begins with a famed fictional writer, Clay Hammond (played by Dennis Quaid) addressing a filled auditorium of adulating writing majors at (presumably) Columbia University in New York City, reading two extended excerpts from his latest book.

Hammond's book is about a young writer named Rory Jansen (played by Bradley Cooper).  In the first excerpt, Rory is struggling.  He's worked on a novel for three years, borrowed (repeatedly and to increasing embarrassment) money from his dad (played by J.K. Simmons), sent his novel to all kinds of publishing houses and received basically the same rejection letter back each time: "Yours is a good, introspective book.  But no one is going to publish it, being by an author who doesn't have a name (isn't already well known)."  Dad finally tells his son, "Look, you have a girlfriend, Dora (played by Zoe Saldana).  You're going to want to get married.  And you can't get married until you have some money.  Son, please get a job."

Rory listens to his father and gets a job -- at the bottom rung of a New York publishing house, still kinda thinking "I'll make connections."  He marries Dora.  They go to Paris on their honeymoon, sort of "in the footsteps of Earnest Hemmingway." (Hemingway fans will find all kinds of allusions to his life/works in this story).  There, in Paris, he purchases an old beat-up briefcase at an antiquarian shop.  He and Dora come home, Rury with his briefcase.

At home fiddling around with the briefcase, still also wondering what to do since his own novel (which he had spent three years writing was never going to get published) he finds that lodged in a somewhat hidden inner pocket of the briefcase is a worn, browning manuscript...

He starts to read it.  He falls in love with it.  It's about a young American soldier (played in flashbacks by Ben Barnes) in France just after World War II, who falls in love with a young French woman (played in flashbacks by Nora Arnezeder).  Having nothing to do, and his own inspirations gone, Rory Jansen, starts _retyping_ the novel into his laptop at night.  He doesn't quite know why he's doing it, but it keeps him busy in the evenings at least "pretending," in a sense, that he's a still writer.

Well, one morning his wife, Dora, sees the text on his computer ... AND SHE LOVES IT.  She comes to him with a big kiss, asking him: "Why didn't you tell me?"  She praises the work to high heaven, telling him that she always believed in him but ... wow! THIS MANUSCRIPT she tells him will DEFINITELY get published.  What's Rory to do?  He had just finished retyping that manuscript into his computer.  At work, he takes it to one of the publishing agents there, Richard Forde (played by John Hannah), and tells him quite modestly: "Look, I've been working here for 2 years, and I've never bothered anybody with any of my stuff, but I was just wondering if you would look this manuscript over and let me know what you think." 

Well publishing agent Richard Forde "looks over the manuscript" over the weekend and _can't put it down_.  He loves it!   On the following Monday, when he sees Rory Jensen, he calls him over, tells him that he honestly loved the book and asks if he's shown it to any other publishing houses. When Rory answers that no, he asks him right then and there if he could be his agent and publish the book.  The book, of course, becomes an enormous literary success winning all kinds of critical acclaim...!

BUT ... as famed fiction writer Clay Hammond continues then with the _second excerpt_ of his novel about the fictional writer Rory Jansen, the plot _inevitably_ "thickens."  One day, an Old Man (played by Jeremy Irons) sits down next to the now famous novelist Rory Jansen on a bench in a park somewhere in New York City.  And there he confronts him with a question: "You know when, I was reading _your_ book, I felt like _I was there_.  I _could taste_ that wine.  I _could taste_ that young woman Celia's lips.  I've always wanted to ask someone as famous and gifted as you: how does one get _so inspired_ to such powerful prose like that?"  And of course it becomes progressively clear that this Old Man was that "young soldier" of the manuscript and yes he even explains to Rory how that brief case with that manuscript had gotten lost...

BOOM ... Okay, what the heck to do?  In Clay Hammond's novel, Rory Jansen actually wants to come clean.  But Dora, his agent, and EVEN THE OLD MAN, try to talk him out of it.  To many critics' complaints, the story of Rory Jansen ends unresolved.  And in a final twist, when a young adoring grad student, named Daniela (played by Olivia Wilde) who's clearly read, reread and read again Clay Hammond's novel that he had been reading to his audience confronts Clay Hammond (privately) with the possibility that CLAY HAMMOND was actually the RORY JANSEN character in his novel, the film leaves THAT also unresolved.

And honestly a lot of the critics have complained about this!  For goodness sake folks, we all pretend to be adults/to be mature.  But when we go to the movies, we seem to want fairy tales.  (And it still is actually something of a fairy tale).  This movie didn't end badly or disappointingly.  It ends as a discussion piece asking: What would you do? 


<< 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! :-) >>

BLOG AUTHOR'S UPDATE - PayItSquare / PayPal Driven Donation Page Added

Dear Friends and Readers of this Blog,

Since its beginning nearly two years ago, FR. DENNIS AT THE MOVIES, has experienced ever increasing readership and has even begun to receive some acclaim.

Yet from the beginning, the goal has been to see if a Blog such as this, seeking to promote dialogue between Conemporary Culture and Faith, could become a self-supporting ministry. Yes, the task ahead is daunting, but one has to start somewhere ;-).

So today, I set up a PayItSquare / PayPal Driven Donations Page to begin to see if the Blog could start to cover its costs.  The page is set-up to accept TWO KINDS OF DONATIONS:

(1) A FREQUENT READER DONATION (suggested $6 whenever you feel like it, or feel guilty enough to contribute ;-).  Consider it like buying a magazine on a newsstand.  Yes, you can continue to read the blog for free.  But you could also hand the magazine that you bought over to a friend to read afterwards (or read a book or magazine that a friend had bought and lent you).  In any case, the operation of a blog like this does incur real costs in terms of both money and time, and it is fair to occasionally contribute to its continued operation.  

(2) A "PATRON" LEVEL DONATION (suggested $25 but you could donate more or less) which would be for those who'd like to perhaps make a more definitive statement of support of the Blog and its mission of promoting a Dialogue between Contemporary Culture (as expressed in Film) and our Faith.

IN BOTH CASES THESE WOULD BE "ONE TIME" (rather than RECURRING) DONATIONS. And you would receive an e-mail giving thanks for your contribution from me on behalf of the Friar Servants of Mary - USA Province.  The Province is registered in the United States as a religious/charitable institution.  All proceeds collected above expenses (strictly accounted) will go to the Province.  As such your contributions would be tax deductible.  FURTHER, if you give a truly significant donation (on the order of hundreds or even thousands of dollars ;-), you can be absolutely certain that you would be hearing from us to make sure that you receive all the required paperwork so that your generous contribution to the Servites would be recognized by the tax authorities.  FINALLY, if you are reading this Blog from OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, while I really _doubt_ that you could deduct your donations from your taxes, I'd honestly appreciate your contributions as well especially if you are a frequent reader.  It'd be a nice gesture to do so _on occasion_.

I honestly envision that most donations to this blog would be small.  So I doubt that for most people (both from inside the United States and outside) their donations here would have a meaningful bearing on their taxes (though your contributions, large or small, would _certainly_ have a meaningful impact on this Blog / developing Ministry). If however your donation would be large, you can be sure that I/we in the Province will do what we is proper/needed to help make sure it's recognized by the proper tax authorities. 

Again, this is a rather daunting and arguably-ego risking task.  I fully expect that particularly the first few months will be bruising.  But I'm seeking to move this Blog to the next levels of its journey:

PHASE 1 (4-6 months - Mar 2013) - The blog becomes able to pay for its direct expenses (gas/tickets/appropriate donations to open source materials - wikipedia/imdb referenced in my reviews) -- $250/mo.

PHASE 2 (12 - 18 months - Mar 2014) - The blog truly starts to pay for itself covering both expenses and at least minimally the effort involved (assuming 20 reviews a month at 2 hrs/review and a pay rate of $10/hour = $400/mo+expenses) -- $650/mo.

PHASE 3 (2-3 years - Sept 2015) - The blog brings in enough money to pay for expenses + 1/2 half time salary ($15000/yr or $1250/mo + expenses) -- $1500/mo.

PHASE 4 (4-5 years - Sept 2017) - The blog becomes capable of supporting a full time salary ($30,000/hr or $2500/mo + expenses) -- $2750/mo.

So may God then continue to bless this project, and let us see what God wills ;-).  And in any case BLESSINGS TO ALL!

Fr. Dennis Kriz, OSM

Robot & Frank [2012]

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

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Robot & Frank (directed by Jake Shreier and written by Christopher D. Ford) is a movie I went to somewhat warily and finally only as an early matinee.  And while I continue to think of the film as perhaps a bit too "original" / "outside of the box" for its own good, as a matinee or a rental, I would _definitely_ recommend it to Seniors and/or grown children of Seniors, because, well, the film "grows on you" ;-)

The film is set "in the near future" presumably somewhere in upstate New York and is about the relationship between a Robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) and an older man named Frank (played by Frank Langella) who's been living alone but has been increasingly become forgetful and less able to take care of himself.  Frank's son, Hunter (played by James Mardsen) bought him the Robot because he lives five hours away from his father (presumably in New York City) and has become increasingly worried about him.  As is often the case, Frank values his independence, doesn't want to be burden to his kids -- besides Hunter, Frank also has a globe-trotting daughter named Madison (played by Liv Tyler) who's a journalist of the vein of Cristiane Ananpour who Skypes regularly, ... but each time from "God knows where ..." ;-) -- and Frank really doesn't want to go to "a home."  So what then to do?  It's "the near future" in this film and so Hunter buys his "set-in his ways" generally grumpy dad the Robot to "tie him over."

Now folks, imagine buying _your_ older parent "a robot" :-).  "Just turn the thing off!" Frank tells Hunter when he sees it. "You can't turn me off and only Hunter knows the passcode," replies the Robot in a gentle-sounding but firm voice of a machine operating with the certainties of ones and zeroes knowing that while as a machine he/she/it doesn't really care if he/she/it were turned on or off, it was simply impossible for Frank to do so unless Hunter gave him the passcode to do so.  So there ;-).  The robot has in his own way a sense of humor / attitude ;-).

It turns out that as a housekeeper, the Robot from "the near future" is actually quite good:  It can clean, it can dust, it can vacuum.  It knows to look for closets to look for these items.  It knows to look into the refrigerator/pantry for food items, kitchen cabinets for pots, pans and dishes.  Heck it can even cook Frank "healthy food" -- "yuck!' ;-).  And it can serve as a giant walking alarm clock, poking him, saying: "Hey Frank, it's 7, you should be getting up" -- double "yuck" ;-)

Frank doesn't really warm up to the Robot until he realizes that he can manipulate/have some fun with him.  It turns out that Frank has had something of a "colorful" past:  He had been a burglar in his younger years, both lucky (he had stolen some fairly valuable stuff in the past) and unlucky (he served 2 jail terms - of 6 and 10 years respectively for his crimes, first for burglary and then for tax evasion).  In any case, he had spent, arguably wasted, a good deal of his life on becoming a really good burglar.  Yet, now with increasing age and most of his past friends presumably either passed (or in jail ...), he was wasting away in his reasonably nice but "out of the way...," home somewhere in upstate New York.  (Was he still hiding / "laying low" or was this the only kind of place that someone like him "with a record" would have been allowed to live in peace?)  In any case, what was Frank to do?  Well he wasn't going to "start a garden" as the programmed to be constructively compassionate Robot was suggesting to him.  Instead, it occurred to him that this Robot could actually be "really good" at picking locks ;-).

The Robot, programed to be concerned for Frank's well-being, and, well, fundamentally _amoral_ doesn't necessarily find anything wrong with Frank exercising both his mental and physical faculties practicing picking locks (or even casing a house or establishment for a robbery). The only criterion that the Robot is concerned with is one of "minimizing risk to his (Frank's) well-being" (in the case of plotting a robbery -- minimizing primarily the risk of getting caught...) and heck Frank's concerned about that too ;-).

So Frank and the Robot become "friends," of sorts, in crime.  There's also a love interest in the story, a librarian named Jennifer (played by Susan Sarandon) for whom Frank decides to perform his first robbery (stealing an old venerable copy of Don Quijote ...).  The Robot, again programmed to be concerned for Frank's well-being is programmed to encourage the building of friendships between Frank and others, expecially between Frank and someone like Jennifer who is both of the appropriate age and unattached.  So, once again, the Robot is manipulated to "go along..." which he/she/it does dispassionately (except for concern for Frank's well-being).

This Don Quijote motiff probably saves the film.  Yes, Frank manipulated the Robot to participate in some fairly bad things.  But he's "an old person" trying to impress a similarly appropriately older lady.  So just like the Robot, most of us, the veiwers are somewhat manipulated by the film-makers' to give Frank "the benefit of the doubt" as well.

Still in its gentleness and humor, the movie does offer the viewer much to think about:

Could robots be useful as caretakers and even companions for people in need?  In the United States, we haven't necessarily thought of much robots taking-on such a role.  However, the Japanese have certainly been thinking along these lines, having already invented and successfully marketed "mechanical pets" for the elderly and others who would otherwise be lonely but would also not necessarily be capable to taking care of more "normal" (biological/living) pets that would need to be fed and taken-out of the house occasionally to be taken care of, etc.

Would people inevitably find ways of manipulating robots to do some fairly dasterdly deeds?  The aging and increasingly forgetful Frank was not necessarily capable of taking _full_ advantage of his Robot in his "twilight years crime spree."  However, one could easily imagine young bank-robbers, car thieves, etc having actually robots do the stealing and even "get away driving" following a heist. 

How would even the most "human" of robots differ from people and would those differences be necessarily bad?  There's a point in the film when Frank and the Robot find themselves in danger of getting caught and the Robot, programmed to be concerned for Frank's well-being suggests to (the increasingly _forgetful_...) Frank that Frank might have to "reformat" the Robot's hard-drive (to presumably erase any memory that the Robot had of Frank's/his crime).  Frank finds the prospect of doing that to the Robot shocking.  Indeed, arguably that's his biggest nightmare (that he, Frank, would one day lose all his memory...).  However, in the case of the Robot, the Robot assures him that he, the Robot, would just "reboot" and be fine. ;-)

Anyway, this is a gentle movie.  I would still look to see it as a bargain matinee or a rental.  But it does sneak-up on you and it has a lot to offer even the reluctant viewer who gives it a chance ;-).

ADDENDUM --

I was recently confronted by difference between how the Japanese view robotics and how we, Americans (and probably Europeans) generally do while seeing the Japanese animated film Castle in the Sky (orig. Tenkû no shiro Rapyuta) [1986], which played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center.   Subsequently, I found and read an excellent book on Japan's embracing of robotic technology by Timothy Horniak called Loving the Machine: The Art and Science of Japanese Robotics.  IMHO, if you're at all interested in the subject, it's well worth the read!


<< 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 Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure [2012]

MPAA (G)  CNS/USCCB (A-I)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1520498/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv101.htm

The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure (directed by Matthew Diamond, screenplay by Scott Stabile and created by Kenn Viselmann) is, fairness must say, honestly "an experiment."  Viselmann is best known as the "marketing guru" who brought the Teletubbies [1997-2001] to the United States.  So if you LIKED (or (DIDN'T particularly like or WERE WARY of) the Teletubbies ...

The current project involves "full bodied puppets." Adult actors in large, bulky, primary-colored costumes animate them kinda like the Teletubbies.  But the current Oogieloves characters talk, sing, dance.  So this film is intended for a "slightly older audience" :-) -- 1-3 year olds rather than 6 month olds ;-).  To some extent the puppet characters resemble those in Where the Wild Things Are [2009] only far more brightly colored and (IMHO generally friendlier ;-).

The film is intended to be an "interactive movie."  That is, when the three principal characters -- Goobie (animated/voiced by Misty Miller), Toofie (animated/voiced by Malerie Grady) and Zoozie (animated/voiced by Stephanie Renz) animated therefore by three young women actors even though two of the characters appeared to be male ... -- get up to sing or dance, a cue is given (butterflies shown flying across the bottom of the screen) telling kids/viewers that they should get up and sing / dance as well.  When the song or otherwise stand up activity ends, another cue (turtles walking along the bottom of the screen) indicates to kids/viewers that it's okay to sit down again.

The plot for this 90 minute often very cute contraption is simple as well.  Goobie, Toofie and Zoozie want to have a birthday party for their talking pillow Schluufy (voiced by Taras Los) who's mostly asleep during the story.  And it's actually good that Schluufy is largely asleep throughout, because almost immediately after the three friends receive five golden/helium filled balloons for the birthday party from their talking red felt-covered vacuum cleaner named J. Edgar (voiced by Nick Drago) -- yes apparently he's a HOOVER vacuum cleaner -- the balloons fly away.

What now?  The rest of the movie is about Goobie, Toofie and Zoozie along with their somewhat crotchety gold-fish named Roofy (voiced by Randy Carfagno) going around retrieving said balloons.

Along the way then, in their "big adventure" they meet all sorts of interesting characters --Jubilee and Dotty Rounder (played by Kylie O'Brien and Cloris Leachman) who live in a giant tea-cup in a tree.  (Despite her last name Jubilee seems to prefer squares to circles while her polka dotted mother Dotty is just happy as pie with the dots she was given in life ... ;-); raspy-voiced Marvin (played by Chazz Palmintieri), the owner of an Ice Cream Shop / Diner who makes a really mean milkshake (at times literally ;-); a singing "diva" named Rosalie Rosebud (played by Toni Braxton) who's actually slightly allergic to the roses that she keeps getting (her "big hit" that she sings is a "Motown" style song about "scratching, coughing and sneezing ..." ;-) ; a cowboy-boot/hat donning trucker named Bobby Wobbly (played by Cary Elwes) who's "hauling a semi full of bubbles cross-country" ;-); and finally salsa/flamenco dancers Lola and Lero Sombrero (played by Jaime Pressley and Christopher Lloyd respectively) who travel on a giant hat and live by a windmill.

It's all cute -- at times kinda pre-fab, Monkees-like, are we being used? just wait for the avalanche of marketing tie-ins' if this thing succeeds, cute -- but honestly parents and really little kids could probably do a lot worse.  I found the film _better_ than both the Teletubbies [1997-2001] (which I never really understood/liked) and Where the Wild Things Are [2009] (where IMHO the children's books were _so much better_ than the film). 

Readers of my blog will know that I generally give innovative projects a break.  I'm doing so here.  Honestly parents with really small kids this is not a bad film and I would imagine that it would probably be useful (and safe) as a DVD filler (what the heck am I going to do with the kids while I prepare dinner ...) at home.  Again, one could do worse.


<< 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 Possession [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0431021/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv102.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120829/REVIEWS/120829975

The Possession (directed by Ole Bornedal, written by Juliet Snowden and Stiles White) is a well made movie about demons and possession coming out of Jewish tradition.

Set in upstate New York today, Clyde (played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan), feeling guilty about the breakup of his marriage between him and Stephanie (played by Kyra Sedgwick) the mother of his children, lets one of his two young daughters, Em (played by Natasha Calis), the other daughter's name being Hannah (played by Madison Davenport), buy an odd looking "box"at a rummage sale near the new house he had just bought for himself.  (He had just bought the new house at the edge of town because he's trying to "start over..." ).

The box is kinda old, wooden and has some Hebrew lettering carved along its side.  Being Jewish, if seemingly not particularly observant, he's probably happy that Em and her sister seem to be at least somewhat interested in their heritage.  It's also obvious that the two young girls are not taking the divorce all too well.  Em is still hoping that her parents are going to get back together, even as it's obvious that mom Stephanie has already begun dating a new boyfriend named Brett (played by Grant Show).  So it doesn't seem that the outcome that Em is wishing for is particularly likely.  So Clyde just hands over the cash to the guy selling the box, _anything_ to make his kid happy ...

Well it turns out that box has those Hebrew markings on it for a reason.  If any of the family had bothered to read (or even knew how to read...) the inscription, they would have quickly disevoered that the inscription contained a warning: DON'T OPEN THE BOX.  Why?  Because it's a "Dybbuk Box" that is, one which in Jewish folklore was designed to encase a malevolent displaced spirit, a dybbuk, that would otherwise seek to enter into the world by entering into the body of an innocent.  Well, 10-12 year old Em, who asked her father to buy her the box, finds a way to open it ...

Now, the situation that ensues would be difficult enough for any family to deal with.  However, remember the parents are divorced ... and the box is at "dad's house."  Em becomes progressively more and more fixated on the box even as she behaves ever more strangely -- in a way that after a time most of us (viewers) would still recognize as _possibly_ "demonically possessed."  Yet, the estranged parents are getting increasingly worried that their daughter is simply slipping into insanity.  Schizophrenia?  Possible.  But why?  Well, as any good guilty parents would certainly deduce: this has _got_ to have something to do with the divorce...

Finally, Clyde, knowing Em's fixation on the box, takes the box to a professor at the university where he coaches, and the professor finally tells him of the nature of the box.  The Professor _doesn't believe_ "the folklore.  But at least tells him that it is a "Dybbuk Box, probably from Poland in the 1920s-30s" and that such a box would have been used to capture and encase malevolent disembodied spirits.

Clyde goes home, searches out dybbuks and demonic possession on YouTube and decides what he has to do: Go down to the Hassidic Jewish community in New York City and find a rabbi who would help him.  But ... how to explain this to his ex-wife who blames him (and indeed them ...) for their daughter's problem.

The film plays from there is more or less predictable firework fashion and yet with enough variation (inspired _in part_ on a specifically Jewish take on demonic possession) to make the film interesting.

Yet there _is_ more at play here.  Many Catholics and Christians will probably appreciate the invocation of some well-known Psalms in the Jewish exorcism ritual including:

You who dwell in the shelter of the Most High,
who abide in the shade of the Almighty,

Say to the LORD, “My refuge and fortress,
my God in whom I trust.”

He will rescue you from the fowler’s snare,
from the destroying plague,

He will shelter you with his pinions,
and under his wings you may take refuge;
his faithfulness is a protecting shield.

You shall not fear the terror of the night
nor the arrow that flies by day... 
                                  -- Psalm 91:1-5

Okay, the Psalm is used in the context of a Jewish exorcism ritual.  BUT IT IS ALSO A REMINDER TO ALL OF US facing more mundane (and fearful) situations in life -- that GOD PROMISES to be with us in those situations.

So ... after all the fireworks are over, do the parents get back together?   See the movie ;-).  BUT EVEN IF THEY DON'T (possible, _perhaps_ even probable) the more important question then ought to be: Should they be able to continue their lives now with hope?  What demon(s) did they exorcise anyway? ;-)

There's a lot more to this movie than first meets the eye ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Compliance [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB ()  Roger Ebert (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Compliance (written and directed by Craig Zobel) is a very disturbing film about a truly disturbing (and illegal) series of incidents that have occurred across the United States in recent years: cranks posing as police officers calling unsuspecting "managers" at small restaurants/convenience stores, asking them for "quick onsite help" in investigating petty crimes supposedly "just perpetrated" by one of their on-duty employees.

In the scenario of the film, a crank posing as a police officer, introducing himself as "Officer Daniels" (voice/played by Pat Healy) calls a fast food restaurant called "Chickwich" asking for the manager (named Sandra played by Ann Dowd).  He then tells her that he has in his office a woman who says that "a young blonde" employee had "stolen something out of her purse."  Well, there happens to be a "young blonde employee," a 19-year old named Becky (played by Dreama Walker), working one of the cash registers at that very time.

"Officer Daniels," who says that he already has Sandra's district manager "on the other line" asks that Sandra take Becky to the back, employee-only area and confront her telling her that she's being accused of this petty, just perpetrated crime.  Sandra, wishing to be a good citizen and good local manager does what the "Police officer" on the line tells her to do.  She asks another employee to step in for Becky who she takes her to the back to talk to her.  There she tells Becky: "There's a police officer on the line and he says that he has a woman in his office accusing someone of your description of taking something from her purse while you were serving her."  Of course, Becky emphatically denies any wrong-doing.

At this point, "Officer Daniels" tells Sandra (and even Becky, who insists on talking with the police officer on the phone) that "of course Becky's gonna deny everything" and asks Sandra to ask Becky to empty her pockets.  Sandra dutifully tells Becky to do this.  Protesting and rolling her eyes, Becky complies.  Of course, nothing is found.

Now "Officer Daniels" asks Sandra to check Becky's personal belongings.  Becky protests saying she hasn't been back to her cubbyhole where her personal things are since she began her shift.  Nevertheless, Sandra does what the "Police officer" on the phone is asking her to do.  The two go back to Becky's cubby hole, search through her purse.  Again, (of course) nothing nothing is found.

Now the "officer's" _request_ crosses pretty much everybody's line into the realm of the disturbing/creepy: "You're going to have to check Becky's clothes."  Sandra responds: "I'm not comfortable with that."  The police officer responds: "I'd send a police officer to your establishment BUT 'we're swamped.'  The alternative is that you keep Becky then under watch.  Eventually, I'll send someone over, but then we're going to have to arrest Becky, send her to the station for processing.  It'll take a long time, Becky will probably have to spend the night in jail.  We could settle the matter quickly if you just do _a strip search_ of her now."  "I'm not comfortable with that."  After further insistence/pressure by "Officer Daniels," he allows Sandra to bring in the assistant manager Marti (played by Ashley Atkinson) to be present during the strip search, which initially involves just asking Becky to take off her clothes down to her underwear.  When they check her shirt, shoes/socks and jeans, and OF COURSE FIND NOTHING, the next "logical" step is for Becky to take _everything_ off, so as to check her bra and panties.  Becky protests but does so, she's down to her bra and underwear anyway.  The demand is consistent with "the process" (SOME PROCESS!).  Marti throws her an apron as soon as Becky strips down to nothing.

NOW, "Officer Daniels" asks that Sandra put Becky's clothes in a plastic bag and put the bag in her (Sandra's car) "WHY???"  "Daniels" explains that this is actually "all part of a _larger investigation_ of Becky's brother for drugs."  "Officer Daniels" continues, explaining to Sandra that he's been so adamant in the rather small matter of the woman complaining that Becky stole something from her purse in order to "extract cooperation" from Becky with regards to her brother.  He tells Sandra then that "on Becky's clothes could be traces of drugs that would make an open and shut case against her and her brother."  Makes sense, Sandra puts Becky's clothes in a bag and trots the bag to her car.

But now Restaurant manager Sandra and her Assistant Manager Marti have their employee Becky in the backroom covered only by an apron.  "For how much longer?" the three ask "Officer Daniels."  "Well it's still going to take some time before I can send a squad car over to complete the investigation."  "But we have a restaurant to run."  "Well is there someone, _preferably male_, who you can have guard Becky until I can send a squad car/team to finish this up?"  They first choose a male employee, Kevin (played by Phillip Ettinger), a friend of Becky's to move from his post (making sandwiches) to the back room to "guard Becky."  Though uncomfortable, Kevin initially complies.

When Kevin becomes _really uncomfortable_ with the further demands that "Officer Daniels" makes of him with regard to "helping his investigation of Becky," and simply _refuses to go along_, Sandra calls her own fiance' Van (played by Bill Camp) to "come over and watch Becky until the Police finally arrive."  It's Friday night.  This whole incident has gone on now for a number of hours.  Van's already had a beer or two after work. But he comes over to help out.  Those few beers though effect _what still plays out_ and on multiple levels.

OKAY.  What an incredibly creepy movie.  What's stunning is (if one stayed through the end -- I did, this time -- but I would certainly NOT blame people if they walked out.  I recently walked out of the movie Killer Joe for similar distrust over where the film-makers were taking the movie) that THIS SCENARIO has actually played out IN REAL LIFE some 80 TIMES (!!) across the United States in the past 10 years.  People do trust authority.  In the scenario played out here, it took FOREVER for anyone INCLUDING THE MANAGER and THE GIRL (19 YEARS OLD) to ask the LEGITIMATE QUESTION - "Hey how do we know that you're a cop?"

SO HONESTLY if this movie SCREAMS to YOUNG PEOPLE: "HEY KNOW YOUR RIGHTS" then it is worth it.  And then even the sacrifice of the young actress Dreama Walker playing the 19 year old being progressively abused here (more on this still to follow below...) is PROBABLY worth it.

YOUNG PEOPLE under those famous MIRANDA RIGHTS ("You have a right to remain silent.  Anything that you say can and will be used against you.  You have a right to an Attorney.  IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD AN ATTORNEY ONE WILL BE PROVIDED YOU..."), YOU have a right to a lawyer: "You want to strip search me?  Not unless I have a lawyer present.  Basta."  Yes, her Manager SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT TOO.  But, YOU can know this BASIC RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE COURTS YOURSELF.  Don't let ANYBODY manipulate you like this.

But now lets go back the movie.  VIEWERS, A film like this can itself become very manipulative and make YOU THE VIEWER very uncomfortable.  REMEMBER TOO that YOU have a RIGHT TO WALK-OUT of a film that YOU don't like.  You probably won't get your money back.  Fine.  But there's NOTHING other than "feeling embarrassed" ("social control") that prevents you from saying "Okay, I'm done and leaving this film" if the film makes you feel uncomfortable.  IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE THAT ELICITING THAT RESPONSE WAS PART OF THE FILM-MAKERS' INTENT (for all kinds of and even artistically / rherorically_legitimate_ reasons ... for instance that the film-makers were portraying something so Evil that THEY WANT YOU GET UPSET AND LEAVE).  So PLEASE DON'T BE SHEEP!!! (Again, I myself walked out of a movie, Killer Joe [2012] not three weeks ago.  YOU CAN DO IT TOO.  You don't have to have a needlessly "short fuse" BUT if a movie gets you uncomfortable PLEASE GET UP AND LEAVE.  You have an absolute (and as THINKING BEINGS even a GOD GIVEN) right to do that.

Now was this movie _that_ disturbing / manipulative to warrant that?  Actually, by various reports, yes, a fair number of people were so upset by the movie that they have walked out of it.  I did not do so this time in good part because I felt indications based on the way that the movie was filmed that the film-maker was not going to take the movie off the cliff:  Yes, the actress playing the 19 year old was shown topless a few times (she was, after all, being asked to strip and then forced to cover herself only with an apron for a good portion of her character's ordeal).  BUT THE CAMERA DID NOT LINGER.  And as the situation progressively got worse (and Parents note that it does), the film thankfully leaves the excruciating details to the viewers' imaginations.

But was nudity required at all?  This is a fair question WHENEVER nudity is considered to be employed in a film.  And there are folks who will say that it is NEVER justified (though arguably one then would have "cover one's eyes" walking even through St. Peter's Basilica / the Vatican Museum in Rome).  So honestly, the more relevant question would be:  

Does the Nudity portrayed (and I would extend this to Violence as well) further the telling of the story or is it largely pointless, gratuitous, or even distracting from the story?  And then I would add a second question: "Is the story worth telling at all?"

I would say that since this situation has played out some 80 times in the United States across the last 10 years, that YES the story is worth telling, ESPECIALLY TO THE YOUNG (here I would I mean older teens and young adults.  The film would be _way too intense_ for a younger teen or below).  Then yes, the LIMITED NUDITY that was present does further the purpose of the story.  IT MADE IT REAL in a way that "fogging the lens, shooting everything simply from behind, etc" would not have.  The camera did not _linger_.  But yes, viewers were confronted with the reality that the character was being progressively violated and in a way that filming the situation in a manner that did not shoot any nudity at all would not have achieved.  Yes, the actress, Dreama Walker, did make a sacrifice here by exposing herself in this way (and yes, pictures of her will now be on the internet probably forever) BUT IT HAD A POINT (and you go to an art museum and you're going to see women's breasts displayed, and yes, DISPLAYED EVEN AMONG THE ARTWORK OF THE VATICAN.  The point is, does the displayed nudity have a point?  I would argue here that it did.

So this is film that is disturbing on a lot of levels.  But it _also_ gives viewers a lot to think about.  But above all, if it saves some teenager or young adult (and honestly, my guess would be that it could save a good many) from being manipulated / violated in the way that the character was manipulated / violated in this film then the film would worth it.  But, obviously, Parents do realize that this is DEFINITELY AN R-RATED FILM.  And I wouldn't necessarily see a reason why someone under 16 (approaching that 17 year old age when teens can go to an R-rated film without adult accompaniment) would need to see it.  But by age 16, when a lot of American teens are working for the first time, the film could serve to help them appreciate their rights vis-a-vis their managers (and authorities in general).  And I do believe that this would serve to as a benefit to them.

So folks, this is an excellent movie.  But it certainly disturbing.

ADDENDUM

While I almost always add a link to famed (indeed legendary) Chicago film critic Roger Ebert at the beginning of my reviews, I would like to underline here that Ebert's review of this film is _excellent_.


<< 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! :-) >>

Lawless [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  Roger Ebert (2 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

It would be tempting to dismiss Lawless (directed by John Hillcoat, screenplay by Nick Cave based on the novel The Wettest County in the World by Matt Bondurant) as an right-wing American Presidential election year propaganda piece.

The chief villain of the story, set in rural Franklin County, Virginia ("moonshine country") during the Prohibition Era is a thoroughly greasy and corrupt "Special Agent" Charlie Rakes (played by Guy Pearse) sent ostensibly "by the Government" to "wrap up" the operations of the "down home" Franklin County bootleggers "just tryin' to make a living."  Actually, he seems to have been sent there more "on behalf of the Chicago Outfit" (think Al Capone) to shake them down.  Then, when he gets there he seems to take a "likin'" to local "African American hookers" ... You get the picture ... Is this film really set in the 1920s or in a paranoid fantasy of a present day Obama-hating (who, after all, is mixed race, pro-government, or at least not "anti-government," even democratically elected government, and from Chicago ...) fatigue clad white supremacist with an axe to grind?  (The film is actually based on the historical novel given above ... but of all the possible novels to be made into a film, why _this one_, and _why now_?  "Well, Virginia ... it's an election year" ... And there's also a thoroughly anti-Iranian film called Argo [2012] in Hollywood's pipeline set to come out in the fall "just in time to prepare us" for the coming conflict there).

That said, readers of this blog will also know that I've consistently trashed viciously stereotypical portrayals of "hicks" in Hollywood films (Straw Dogs [2011], Killer Joe [2012] or say nothing of Shark Night [2011]) while giving good reviews of films that lampooned the awful stereotype (Tucker and Dale vs Evil [2010]) or at least tried to offer a more complex (if at times troubled) portrayal of contemporary rural life in the United States (Hick [2012]).

Further, if the current film, Lawless, wasn't being released 2 months before an American presidential election and the villain (from the current President's hometown, and arguably _my_ own hometown) wasn't painted in such an over-the-top, thoroughly greasy/slimy stereotypical way, I'd probably be more positively disposed to it as well (and I'm giving it 2 1/2 stars, not exactly trashing it, despite my thorough dislike of the portrayal of its crayon/catchup-drawn villain).  It's a good "under dog" story, celebrating freedom (symbolized by the moonshine whiskey and hills) and certainly the list of actors and actresses playing in the film is excellent.

The story's about the Bondurant brothers, Forrest (played by Tom Hardy) and Jack (played Shia LaBeouf), moonshiners from said Franklin County in rural southwestern Virginia during the Prohibition Era (1920-1933).  Already at the beginning of the film, they had a reputation of being "indestructible."  One had been the sole survivor of his _entire battalion_ in "The Great War" following a shipwreck on his way to Europe to fight.  The other, despite having caught the 1918 Spanish Flu that decimated the region (killing also much of his family as well as some 50 million people world-wide) had "gotten better" a few weeks after catching that flu and simply "went on with his life" even as all kinds of folks all around were dieing from it.

This sense of their apparent "indestructibility" then informed their response to "Special Agent Rakes'" arrival "from Chicago" to "turn the screws" on Franklin County's moonshiners (more like them "shake down") on behalf of the Government (in reality more like for the Chicago Mob).  Feeling themselves "indestructible" the Bondurant brothers decided to tell Special Agent Rakes to "go to Hell" when he sought to extort them, and the rest of the movie unspools from there ...

Of course a good moonshining, Prohibition Era gangster drama needs more than just "gangsters," "corrupt lawmen" and "rum-runners."  It needs women, and Jessica Chastain playing a former "show-girl" (again from Chicago...) who "just wanted some peace" (apparently all the way out in rural Virginia's Franklin County) and Mia Wasikowska playing a "preacher's daughter" from a presumably dry Amish-like sect provide the film's love interests for both Forrest and Jack respectively.  It all makes from a very good story and is at least in part based on true events.

There is one other aspect of the story I did not like -- it's episodic _needlessly brutal_ depictions of violence.  Yes, this is largely a "gangster film," so violence comes with the territory.  However, I would argue that the violent scenes in this film are often so over-the-top graphically portrayed that they cloud over, arguably _drench_, the rest of the story.  PARENTS PLEASE TAKE NOTE that one of the characters in the film HAS HIS THROAT SLIT.  The depiction of that scene is still _with me_ and there are several other scenes approaching that level of brutality.  Yes, the throat slitting apparently really happened in the true story, BUT is _that scene_ really what a film-maker/story-teller would want the viewer to remember from the film?   Is not the larger story largely in danger of being lost in the blood of that one scene?  And I do think that this is a problem whenever film-makers _choose_ to focus _too much_ "on the blood" of a story rather than on the story itself.

So bottom line.  This _not_ a bad film, but it could have been MUCH BETTER.  If the film-makers chose to focus less on the blood of the one scene described above (and several others like it) and less on the "Chicago-ness" of the "dirty government agent" they would have had on Oscar contending 4 star movie.  Instead, they give us a 2 - 2.5 Star arguably right-wing propaganda piece that leaves viewers remembering largely brutal details in the film rather than the larger story itself.  The film makers owed the actors/actresses of this film (and viewers) much better.


<< NOTE - Did you like what you've been reading on this Blog?  If you did, then consider contributing to it (financially) every so often by CLICKING HERE.  Thank you in advance for your generosity! >>