The Edge of Seventeen [2016]

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

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


The Edge of Seventeen [2016] (written and directed by Kelly Fremon Craig) while NOT as completely awful as The To Do List [2013] continues a string of more-or-less obviously culturally left-wing propaganda pieces trying to be "next generation John Hughes"-like productions.

In the current film, otherwise promising young actress Hailee Steinfeld plays Nadine an already socially awkward sixteen year-old "with a story" -- her dad (played by Eric Keenleyside), who she dearly loved / counted on, died of suddenly of a heart-attack when she was 13 -- is driven to the edge when her best and arguably only friend Krista (played by Haley Lu Richardson) suddenly starts dating Nadine's hot/far more popular older brother Darian (played by Blake Jenner):

Shocked, dismayed, threatened, Nadine pleads: "Krista, it's either me or him.  It can't be both.  I've had your back for nearly 10 years, and my brother's an a-hole.  You have to choose ... now."    

Shocked now as well and offended by the threat, Krista picks ... you know ... and the rest of the film unspools from there.

Now, what would there be to _not_ like about a film with a set-up like this?  Almost ANY viewer would immediately identify with Nadine's feelings / situation.

The problem that I had with the film was with the soullessness of what follows.  To the cultural Left, God MUST be Dead.  And to be honest, if the film at least just left God "dead," I'd have far kinder words to say about the film -- even if the film, more or less obviously presents a case of "a teenage Job" ;-).  Instead, the film's maker(s) need to have God ridiculed:

In a totally gratuitous scene, Nadine is shown SITTING ON THE TOILET and THERE decides for some reason to PRAY.  Yet two seconds into her "prayer" she returns to complaining to God about how HE was "never there for her."  And at the end of her "prayer" and apparently her "movement" she reaches for the toilet paper and ...

Liberals reading this Blog, if you ever doubt WHY Donald Trump was elected President THINK OF THAT SCENE.  That was 2 minutes offered to MILLIONS of _captive viewers_ THAT DID NOTHING (added NOTHING to the story) BUT GRATUITOUSLY INSULT THE FAITH OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF SAID VIEWERS.   That's why Donald Trump is President -- because of DECADES of stupid, gratuitous insults (OVER and OVER) such as this.   

Franco too, did not become DICTATOR in Spain in a vacuum.  He BECAME the REASONABLE CHOICE for Spain because the Left CHOSE to "shoot up nuns."  Say what???  Yes, the looney Communists of Spain would STORM CONVENTS and _shoot-up nuns_ ... in up-to-then Super CATHOLIC Spain.  One of the nuns they shot-up in this way, María Francisca Ricart Olmos, OSM is now a Blessed from my religious order (the Servites).  Generally speaking, when a Party chooses to pointlessly / gratuitously _shoot-up nuns_, they literally LOSE "THE WAR" ...

I mention this because Left often has an utter blindness as to how they piss people off.  It doesn't take "a Racist" to get PISSED-OFF at the sight of NUNS being shot-up.  It doesn't take "a Racist" to get pissed-off at the depiction of "Prayer as Bowel Movement."

And that is why I am disappointed and ANGRY that those who could have made a very good film here CHOSE to STUPIDLY CHEAPEN IT by _making it_ a CULTURAL LEFT-WING PROPAGANDA PIECE. 

With sadness ... 1/2 Star.


<< 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! :-) >>

Bleed For This [2016]

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

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


Bleed For This [2016] (directed and screenplay by Ben Younger, screen story by Ben Younger, Angelo Pizzo and Pippa Bianco) is an appropriately R-rated (Parents please do note ...) quite-to-thoroughly-engrossing biopic / blue collar boxing movie.  Simplifying things _a bit_, the film tells the story of the truly stunning comeback of boxer Vinny Paz / Pazienza (played to Oscar Nomination worthy heights by Miles Teller).

Vinny Paz / Pazienza would not have become deserving of a movie about his life (but then _absolutely_ so) if not for (1) what happened to him (a few weeks after winning the WBA middle weight boxing title, he got into a head-on car crash leaving him with a broken neck) and (2) how he responded to it (DESPITE HAVING A BROKEN NECK, and having to wear a mechanical contraption called "a halo" attached to his torso / skull FOR SIX MONTHS so that his neck bones would heal, he never gave up his desire to return to boxing and _recapturing_ his title, which .. GO SEE THE MOVIE).

I mean MOVIES EXIST FOR MOVIES LIKE THIS.  It really is an absolutely incredible story about truly _never_ giving up.

Now there are problems with the movie, among them THE (FOUL) LANGUAGE.  Now Dear Readers do understand that I grew-up in Chicago and just spent the last 12 years back in Chicago serving at a lovely if also linguistically colorful blue collar / ethnic parish in Chicago, so I'm largely "tone deaf" to expletives.  But I do have to agree with the reviewer for the USCCB (Catholic Bishops' Conference) website (link as always above) who does complain about the language.  EVEN IF such language is (kinda) "real," it's certainly NOT edifying.  And honestly, it's a bit exaggerated, as are hookers and strippers all around in the film.  Again, Parents do note that this is an R-rated film and deservedly so ...

Still it is one heck of a story, just one that one (unlike the Rocky movies) one would be insane to show to a twelve year old ...

Good job folks, but you also should be somewhat ashamed ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them [2016] (directed by David Yates, screenplay by J.K. Rowling [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] based on her book written under pseudonym [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]) is a generally fun Harry Potter prequel that also would seem to have borrowed visually / conceptually from the Men in Black movies, and thematically from Marvel Comics X-Men series.

Set in Prohibition Era New York of the 1920s, the "Wizarding community" States-side at the time is portrayed in the film as being decidedly _underground_ if also quite _thriving_.  Yes, there was a fairly prominent / loud "Anti-Wizarding" movement (which in many respects looked like any/all "anti-Vice" movements of the time).  Yet, as with Prohibition itself at the time, there was a "live and let live" attitude taken by the Authorities: so long as the Wizarding community "kept to itself" (didn't "cause trouble" / didn't "flaunt" its presence publicly) the civil Authorities left it alone, indeed, to the point that the "Wizarding community" was portrayed as having its own (underground) "parallel government."

The existence of this "parallel government" is actually / interestingly shown as causing its own problems ... those "at the top" of this "parallel social pyramid" / "government" actually seemed to _want_ to "keep things the way they were" with Magic "repressed" and the "Wizarding community" remaining "underground".  Why?  Because said repression actually kept _them_ "the Elites" in this community "in charge."  Fascinating ;-)

But this repression had its costs, especially on "the young" of the "wizarding community" as they had (unsurprisingly) difficulty "repressing" their "magical powers."

So into this just under the surface "pot boiler" enters an English "Magi-zoologist" named Newt Scamander (played quite wonderfully in a slightly "fish out of water" sense by Eddie Redmayne).  He comes to the States with a suitcase full of strange "Fantastic Beasts" knowing that, yes, they were _nominally_ "illegal" but really _not with a clue_ as to what kind of a chaos he's bringing to the States with his very peculiar "baggage."  A few of his magical beasts "get out" of his bag, and ... the rest of the story ensues ;-).

Among that which ensues is Newt's running into an America circa-1920s "every man" named Jacob Kowalski (played wonderfully, if honestly, why didn't the film-makers CAST AN ACTUAL POLISH AMERICAN ACTOR TO PLAY THE ROLE, by Dan Fogler) who enters the story with "a very little Dream" of opening up a small "Polish style Bakery" (in part in honor of his sainted, once baking, grandmother) and found to his dismay that it was _not_ going to be easy to get "a start-up loan" -- with the Quintessentially "Anglo" banker telling him in effect "to make money son, you're gonna have to have money to begin with."

AS A MILD SPOILER, Kowalski's running into the parallel Wizarding World does actually come to help him out.  But before he finds said help, he's plunged into an "Alice in Wonderland" world that before entering it, he honestly would have never ever imagined.  All he had wanted to do is to quit his job "at the cannery" and "sell PACZKIS (pronounced "poonchkis") for a living" in honor of his sainted grandmother.  (Dear Readers, if you haven't had pączki (basically a Polish style "Bismark" or "Danish") in your life, YOU HAVE MISSED OUT ;-).  And yet, before he could get to open his little Polish bakery, what Marvels he had to witness / endure ...  

Anyway, the film becomes an interesting social parable reminding us of the various parallel subcultures that exist around us and the ultimate value of "helping each other out" even if we don't necessarily understand all that is going on in the said subcultures around us.

So, set nominally in 1920s New York, and largely about "Wizarding" ... it's a story that's remains largely "about us" even today.

Good job folks, pretty 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! :-) >>

Arrival [2016]

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

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


Arrival [2016] directed by Denis Villeneuve, screenplay by Eric Heisserer, based on the story "Story of your Life" [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Ted Chiang [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a quite thoughtful / cerebral (read also rather _slow moving_ if beautifully shot) "first contact" Sci-Fi story that has _much more in common_ with 2001: A Space Odyssey [1968] than, well, the shoot-em-up Independence Day [1996, 2016] scenarios.

This is not to say that the arrival of twelve _enormous_ stone monolith-like objects from (...??) to earth, piloted apparently by a race of "septopods" (with _big_ octopus-like heads and seven elephant-trunk-like appendages), was not scary.  And yes, governments / intelligence services all around the world were scrambling to get answers to the obvious questions: Why were they here?  Where did they come from?  What did they want?

Yet, when U.S. Army Colonel Weber (played dead-on by Forest Whitaker) comes, hat-in-hand, to Ivy-League linguistics professor Dr. Louise Banks (played wonderfully by Amy Adams), it's clear that getting answers to these urgent questions was not going to be easy:  How do these aliens communicate at all?

The film becomes a fascinating meditation on the very nature of language, taking adage that "every language we learn gives us a new/different way of perceive the world" to a, well, SciFi-ish extreme ;-).  Still one fascinating if certainly "cerebral" (if also beautifully shot) movie.

Good job!


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

Trolls [2016]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  RogerEbert.com (2 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (0 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (G. Ihnat) review


Trolls [2016] (directed by Mike Mitchell and Walt Dohrn, screenplay by Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger, story by Erica Rivinoja, based on the Troll Dolls [wikip] created by Thomas Dam [wikip] [IMDb]) is an obvious loony-left (if highly commercial) entry into the nation's culture wars that most Viewers would probably wish they were not part of:

The film is about a race of HAPPY-GO-LUCKY (let's just call them "gay" in the pre-1960s sense of the word), RAINBOW-COLORED "TROLLS" who begin the film CAGED by a sullen, uncouth, green-colored REPTILIAN race of giants called "Bergens" who believed that the _only way_ that they could find happiness was if they ATE (destroyed the happiness of) said Trolls. 

Honestly folks, except for the "splash of Neon color" and the inversion of the Good and Evil characters, this film could have been produced by Goebbels & Co.

Now Readers, don't get me wrong.  I have repeatedly denounced Right-Wing propaganda products posing as children's films on my Blog, notably Hop [2011], Hoodwinked 2 [2011] and even the more-or-less obvious racism present in the scripting of Despicable 2 [2013].  I have also viewed and reviewed positively various well-done / _intelligent_ (and appropriately rated) LGBTQ-themed films over the years, including Beginners [2011] / Best Exotic Marigold Hotel [2011], Love is all You Need [2012], Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? [2013], Stranger by the Lake [2013], Call Me Marianna [2015] and Carol [2015].

What I object to here, object to almost universally, and then _especially_ when it comes to CHILDREN'S FILMS (!) is a simplistic portrayal of GOOD vs EVIL especially when Viewers (remember these would be KIDS) are pushed into viewing ENTIRE GROUPS OF PEOPLE as "BAD" / "EVIL."

Yes, in as much as "the big / clumsy / ugly Bergens" justified their EATING (radically destroying the happiness) of the "cute as a button" Trolls as their _only way_ to "finding happiness" that would be EVIL.  But ... WHAT / WHO ARE WE ACTUALLY (!) TALKING ABOUT HERE?? 

Zero stars for hammer-over-the-head propaganda pieces.  Zero stars.


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

Dr. Strange [2016]

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

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


Dr. Strange [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Scott Derrickson along with Jon Spaihts and C. Robert Cargill, based on the Comic [MC] [wikip] by Steve Ditko [wikip] [GR] [IMDb]) while on a purely artistic / technical level is simply spectacular (well worth the 3D glasses if one would wish to pay the $3-4 extra / ticket to view the film that way) is perhaps the most problematic (of the Marvel based films) to date for a Catholic (re)viewer like me.

I write this as both basically a fan of the Marvel comics based films to date and a as reviewer, who though writing from a Catholic perspective, recognizes that artists (including comic book writers / graphic novelists as well as film makers) in a free society clearly have the right to produce any work that they wish.

That said, artists / film makers, etc need to expect their their works will be critiqued and at times criticized by (re)viewers holding any number of values (and yes, at times, quite organized belief systems) including someone like me.

I write that this film has proven to be the "most problematic" of the Marvel based films thus-far because in numerous instances the story's writers / film-makers here appeared to chose to portray Christianity as "in league with" Darkness / the Enemy.

The film's chief villain, a certain Kaecilus (played by Mads Mikkelsen), who appeared to be seeking to move our world into a realm of Darkness, is shown meeting with his followers IN A CHRISTIAN (AND ARGUABLY A CATHOLIC) CHURCH.  Worse, for some reason the film's makers choose to argue (and repeatedly) that the possibility of ETERNAL LIFE is SOMETHING TO BE AVOIDED and arguably EVIL while FINITENESS is somehow by definition GOOD.

Tell that to a mother who's lost her kid to cancer / a car accident ... (or to a kid who loses his or her mother to cancer or a car accident).   In such cases, FINITENESS is self-evidently UNJUST and Christianity, quite FUNDAMENTALLY, seeks to REDRESS this self-evident INJUSTICE with its DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE -- that not even Death has the Final Word on one's life, that the Final Word belongs to God, and God's Final Word for us is Life with Him and Each Other for Eternity.  That would _seem_ like self-evidently a REALLY GOOD DEAL (Good News [TM]) for someone who's facing untimely death or the untimely death of a loved one.  And yet in this story "Eternal Life" is portrayed, repeatedly (and arguably quite dogmatically) as somehow "in league with Evil."

And I'm just saying that this is _Strange_ ...

Indeed in the film, the story's chief protagonist, Dr. Stephen Strange [MC] [wikip] [IMDb] (played by Benedict Cumberpatch), found himself staring squarely at the INJUSTICE of the FINITENESS of his own life.  He entered the story as a super-talented (if also arrogant) neurosurgeon only to find his life radically altered in a split second, when while driving a split moment's glance at an MRI on his cellphone caused him to smash his car in a way that shattered his hands (to the point that he could _never operate again_) and nearly cost him his Life.   Such a high Penalty for such a small Mistake.

That accident and its consequences forced him to set off on what inevitably _became_ a different kind of quest (from excellence in the narrow field of neurosurgery to something BEYOND IT) ... and much ensued.

Yet, that which ensued ... _need not_ have gone in a way that made CHRISTIANITY (or its hope in Eternal Life) "an Enemy" ... that was a choice made by the storytellers here.

And Dear Readers, I have no problem at all that the film's protagonist chose to go to Nepal to seek a more EASTERN (more HINDU / BUDDHIST) answer to his dilemma.  I'm just saying that CHRISTIANITY / a belief in Eternal Life need not be the enemy.  Indeed, I would hope that it'd be _a good part_ of the solution ;-).


<< 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! :-) >>

Keeping up with the Joneses [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub (K. Rife) review

Keeping up with the Joneses [2016] (directed by Greg Mottola, screenplay by Michael LeSieur) is a film that I WISH I HAD CAUGHT EARLIER.  I chose to see it only this week (two weeks after its release during a lull in my calendar) because A LOT of the critics (above) DIDN'T PARTICULARLY LIKE IT and SOME EVEN HATED IT).  Yet, as I was watching the film, I realized that as in the case _of a number of other comedies_ about quite _regular people_ -- Katherine Heigl's One for the Money [2012], and Kevin James' Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 [2014] come-to-mind -- listening to the mainstream critics here was DEFINITELY A MISTAKE.

The film begins by introducing us to Jeff and Karen Gaffney (played wonderfully by Zach Galifianakis and Ilsa Fisher respectively) a _nice_ 40-something college educated / "professional" couple bidding goodbye to their two 8-12 yr old boys (we never really see them) who were boarding a bus for a two week "summer camp." They then drive back to their quite nice / spacious home "on a coul de sac" in some random middle-upper-middle class suburb (somewhere near Atlanta apparently).  Their neighbors were all similarly college educated professionals, living in similar quite nice / quite spacious homes.  Zach worked in "human resources" for a nearby defense contractor.  Apparently, a number of his neighbors worked (on the engineering side) of same said defense contractor.  Karen apparently had a degree in interior decorating and, in as much as she could find work, "worked from home."

The nature of Jeff and Karen's jobs is important here because there is an element of "loser" to them.  While most of the employees at Jeff's firm worked on "classified" projects (designing missile components, etc) Jeff had the very "pedestrian" (and _unclassified_) job of keeping these highly competent employees "happy" and "working as a team" (rather than resenting / undermining each other on account of their large but quite bruiseable egos ;-).  Karen, on the other hand, presumably started out an architecture major and came to focus on interior design because one's more likely to find work.  But in the process she's also reduced her horizons from "designing great structures" to "helping to redesign a neighbor's bathroom" (they wanted to "add a urinal" ;-) and _hoping_ that the neighbors would end-up paying her for the job ...

So on the one hand, their lives _were_ tranquil: They "made it", _look_ where they were living.  On the other hand, they're "kinda losers" on a street where the neighbors living in similar houses seemed to be doing _far more exciting things_ and seemed to have the money for "extra frills" (like adding that urinal to a bathroom) even if such "frills" seemed, even from "a step or two away" SOOO STUIUUPID ...

Into this world of soul deadening bbq-fork-in-hand pastel-colored banality enters a new couple, Tim and Natalie Jones (played again wonderfully with the requisite by Jon Hamm and Gal Gadot -- they must have had a blast playing their roles ;-), who immediately _don't seem to fit_.  Why?

Well, they buy the house next door to the Gaffneys "with cash."  Part time "real estate agent" neighbor Meg Craverston (played by Maribeth Monroe), for whom and her missile designing husband Dan (played by Matt Walsh) Karen is redesigning the bathroom to add that famous urinal, DOES NOT MIND that the Joneses would be buying their house "with cash" (It saves her work / worry about the sale still possibly falling through).  BUT it's immediately odd Karen (and should be to a fair amount of the film's Viewers).  WHO would do that?  Yes, the house and the neighborhood (with its lovely tranquil coul de sac) was nice.  Yes, the Joneses, who apparently had the money to pay for their quite nice house (on a street of similarly nice houses) with cash, were certainly _free do so_.  BUT ... honestly, "if one had that kind of money ... to buy a house like that on a street like that in cash ... WHY buy a house there?   Consenting to a simple mortgage, a couple like that COULD BUY A HOUSE ANYWHERE ... on an EVEN NICER, MORE INTERESTING STREET in a MORE INTERESTING / EXOTIC PLACE.

Well, of course, the Joneses "have their reason(s)" for buying that house on that street in that way, reasons that become ever clear(er) as the story progresses ... But it's fun to see _the only ones_ to catch the oddity in the Joneses entering into their quite suburban tranquility there "in the coul de sac" would be, "the most average / banal of them all," Karen and Jeff Gaffney.

And it's then interesting to watch what follows.  Because as lowly / pedestrian as Jeff and Karen Gaffney's lives may seem, they actually have a lot to offer the (seemingly) far more interesting / exotic Tim and Natalie.  

Indeed, by the film's end, I have to admit, I JUST LOVED IT ;-).  Everyone matters.  Everyone has something to give to others.  A great, great, initially pedestrian suburban tale ;-).   


<< 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! :-) >>