Nocturnal Animals [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Nocturnal Animals [2016] (screenplay and directed by Tom Ford based on the novel Tony and Susan (1993) [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Austin Wright [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is an extremely well written / well acted, R-appropriate thriller about a bored and unhappy middle-aged Los Angeles art dealer named Susan Morrow (played quite magnificently by Amy Adams) who is, one day, blithely surprised to get a manuscript for a novel in the last stages before being published from her first husband Edward (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) who she had left and not heard from for nearly 20 years.  Enclosed is a small card from said first husband, and turning to the first page of the manuscript, she finds that the book is dedicated to her ...

The novel, quite shockingly violent, about a random "Texas suburban folk" family in a several-years old Mercedes who find themselves harassed, stopped and, of course, worse ... by a trio of drunk / crazed rednecks in a beat-up rednecky muscle car on a lonely stretch of an interstate somewhere amidst the parched / dry land and tumbleweeds of West Texas one fateful evening, DOESN'T DIRECTLY CORRESPOND to Susan / Edward's "past history" together, BUT ... riveted, in a dread-ful(l) sort of way, Susan can't bring herself to put the manuscript down.

And as she reads said, awful(ly) violent, yet as utterly riveting as "a car-wreck on the highway" of a novel, we Viewers are treated to the interplay of three stories -- (1) that of Susan's current dreadfully boring and perhaps "PAST her prime" life where Susan's primary concern seemed to have been reduced to finding a way (if she felt there was a point...) to confront her still "quite-the-looker" salt-and-pepper-haired, the occasional wrinkle actually _enhancing_ the attractiveness of his smile, "Richard Gere" of a second husband named "Hutton" (played by Armie Hammer) on his more-or-less obvious infidelities towards her, (2) a recollection of the circumstances of how Susan and Edward, her _only now_ about to be published, 20-years-after-she had left him "aspiring novelist" of a first husband had met ... and eventually broke-up (again, it was she who had left him...), and (3) the story of this terribly violent nightmare of a novel.

Call it A SPIKE _driven_ into the Subconscious of a late-40 year old, this is _not_ a pretty story. Indeed, from the very first scene, it is a _quite ugly_ one.  But it is IMHO one _well written_ and _well acted_ piece.

NOT for ANYONE under 30, it's still one heck of a 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! :-) >>

La La Land [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB ()  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (A-)  Fr. Dennis (4+)

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


La La Land [2016] (written and directed by Damien Chazelle) is a lovely, generally happy, sometimes poignant tribute to both "growing up" and L.A. that is already getting a _completely deserved_ El Niño scale downpour of deserved Awards nominations.  Yes, there are still a whole bunch of films to see before the curtain falls on this year's Award Season contenders, but this hands-down would be my vote for Best Picture of the Year. 

Part of what made this film work so well for me is that I KNEW THE LOS ANGELES PORTRAYED in this film WHEN I MYSELF WAS IN MY TWENTIES going to grad school at USC in the mid-late 1980s.   Every other waitress at Carrows' or Denny's across L.A. was like Emma Stone's aspiring-actress character Mia (in her current incarnation working as a barrista at a Starbuck's like cafe' on Universal Studio's lot).  And one of the few moments of sadness that I've felt since returning to Southern California (after 25 years) to take-on an assignment at a parish of ours, St. Philip Benizi, in Fullerton, CA, was hearing that Gorky's Cafe, a place where one could reliably have great in-house brewed beer (_long before_ microbreweries even existed) with some great borscht (the only place that could compete with my mother's) while listening to great Jazz at 2-3-4 AM on any Friday or Saturday night, had _closed_ some years ago.  What a tragedy, what a cultural loss.  Hence I could feel Ryan Gosling's character Sebastian's pain, as he dreamed of re-opening "a _real_ Jazz club," as well ;-). 

The the film's locations were truly iconic:  I drove that _insanely high_ 110 Harbor Freeway-105 interchange where the film's traffic jam / opening "dance number" was staged ON MY WAY TO SEE THIS MOVIE ;-).   Thirty years ago, I bought an old SLR camera from a shady dealer at Crazy Giddeon's on Hollywood Blvd, my sister, visiting from Chicago, beside me, PRECISELY TO TAKE PICTURES of "L.A. at Dusk" from the HOLLYWOOD HILLS protrayed so nicely (and so precisely at _exactly_ the right time of early-evening-turning-to-night) in the film.  I knew the then iconic beach bars (by legend "where the Beach Boys started") just off of Hermosa Beach's Pier, where Sebastian takes a contemplative stroll at one point in the story.  The film got the region's psychic geography completely right. 

And then there's the story.  Both Mia and Sebastian are in their twenties, today.  Both have their dreams, dreams that kinda intersect, kinda don't, and we watch their stories play-out, even as we recall similar dreams / stories that we had when we ourselves were young(er). 

And yes, when one's talking about dreams / memories ... a "sound track," at minimum, is required ;-).

Simply a spectacularly beautiful / nice film!  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! :-) >> 

Miss Sloane [2016]

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

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


Miss Sloane [2016] (directed by John Madden, screenplay by Jonathan Perera) is a dark, monstrously calculating, "House of Cards"-like contemporary political thriller that will challenge _anyone_ thinking of committing oneself to enter the halls of government to seek to work for the greater common good.  Yet, I do believe that it's better to _know_ what "one's up against" before entering such political life than to enter such life naively.  Still, a better (and certainly far more constructive) education can be found in the documentary series 12 Stories: How Democracy Works Now [2010] [WorldCat.org] one which one should be able to find and borrow through one's local public library.

The current story centers on Elizabeth Sloane (played as always to Oscar nomination worthy heights by Jessica Chastain, _well_ on her way to becoming Meryl Streep's successor as perhaps the best actress of her generation).  Miss Sloane, MISS because, driven as she was, she apparently never had interest in marriage / family / etc, is a ruthless, well on _her_ way legendary WASHINGTON LOBBYIST who prided herself on  _NEVER_ LOSING -- contemporary Democracy's "power behind the throne," contemporary Democracy's Lady MacBeth, who though it's never mentioned could _easily_ have held Sun Tzu's The Art of War [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [eBook] as _her_ Bible -- "Never, ever let them surprise you, but wait and surprise them." 

At the beginning of the film, the Gun Lobby comes to The Firm where Miss Sloane works with a request: Already having a _lock_ on the nation's Congress, they would still like to extend their power by finding some way to 'sell guns' to _women_.  "Security moms" aside, women have been notoriously "soft" in their support / appreciation of guns.  Indeed, they tend to find guns ... well ... dangerous.  So trying to address this "negative image" that women would seem to have with guns, the Gun Lobby decides to explore the possibility of hiring The Firm where Miss Sloane works to see if they could "change such perceptions."  And yes, they're going to Miss Sloane's Firm in good part because SHE, assumed to be a Machiavellian "killer lobbyist," worked there.

YET ... both Miss Sloane's bosses (the head boss played quite excellently by character-actor Sam Waterson) and "head of the NRA"-like potential client (played by Chuck Shamata) are FRANKLY SHOCKED when Miss Sloane REFUSES the job.  She tells them quite matter-of-factly that she simply did not believe in their cause.  WHAT'S MORE, she takes the opportunity to do something EVEN MORE SHOCKING ... She decides to leave The Firm (with five of her assistants in tow) TO TAKE-ON the Gun Lobby instead.  WT ... ?

Fascinating is that that Miss Sloane does this NOT "for personal reasons" (she knew NO ONE personally who had suffered as a result of gun violence) but instead (1) as a result of _reasoned conviction_  (It _really_ made _no sense to her_ why one needs to get a drivers' license to drive, a pilots' license to fly, a medical degree to perform surgery, but any psychopath could go to a gun show and walk home with a military style assault rifle and all the ammunition that one could carry) and (2) she does it, well, for _the professional challenge_.  Remember, SHE NEVER LOSES.  As an "undefeated prize fighter," what bigger challenge in the Lobbying Field would there be than to take-on the Gun Lobby in Washington?  And so then ... it's "game on."

Now a LOT OF VIEWERS could really _get sick_ here.  Okay, the Cause is Just (and the Catholic Church in the United States has _regularly_ and _consistently_ spoken out for what would seem like common sense restrictions on gun ownership.  How could it not?  IT'S A CHURCH).  But look at The Cause's champion here: an ice-cold, thoroughly ruthless, professional lobbyist willing to do _just about anything_ "to win."  Is "winning" in such a no-holds-barred, throw anybody and everybody under the bus fight worth it?

Well that's the question asked ... and it's a very well written, well acted, if quite dark film.


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

Jackie [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller-Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Jackie [2016] (directed by Pablo Larraín, screenplay by Noah Oppenheim) is a powerful, often heart-rending / gut-wrenching movie about Jacqueline Kennedy scrambling, often, still in shock, simultaneously (1) to simply _get through_ the AWFUL hours / days after following her husband's John F. Kennedy's assassination (his head _exploded_ into her lap ...) and (2) trying to cement her husband's (and her) Legacy, his Time having been cut so tragically Short, before he / she / they would be Forgotten. 

If the second concern would seem surprising, the point is made in the film with the still seemingly shell-shocked Jacqueline (played to nobrainer Oscar Nomination levels by Natalie Portman) asking the driver of a limo, still presumably part of the presidential fleet, in the days after the assassination, what he remembered of James A. Garfield and William McKinley, both Presidents, both having been assassinated while being President.  The driver, of course, remembered next to nothing of the two, though, yes, he remembered Lincoln.  But then Lincoln prosecuted and won the Civil War and Ended Slavery in the United States, what did JFK really accomplish in his three years as President?   Perhaps he averted Nuclear War over Berlin / Cuba.  Perhaps he oriented the Country's space program toward the Moon.  Who could really know?  Who could really tell?  Who would really remember?  Why should we (Viewers) really care?

The last question is perhaps at the heart of the story here: Why should we care?  But I think we do, care.  We will ALL meet an End one day.  How do WE want to be remembered?    Certainly, almost none of us will be remembered as JFK (or Jackie) was.  But I do believe that most of us would certainly NOT want to just ... disappear.

EXCELLENT, thought provoking film about ... Legacy.


<< 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! :-) >>

Office Christmas Party [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Office Christmas Party [2016] (Josh Gordon and Will Speck, screenplay by Justin Malen, Laura Solon and Dan Mazer, story by Jon Lucas, Scott Moore and Timothy Dowling) is, obviously, NOT going to receive any Oscar Nominations.  It's not that kind of movie, it's not intended to be that kind of movie.  That said, what then is it intended to be?

The film continues in a surprisingly _long_ string of R-rated comedies about "grown-ups behaving badly."  But it's actually more complicated than that: It's part of a pretty impressive list of films about grown-ups finding themselves in any number of constraining circumstances who decide at some point in the story, early-or-late, to just say "WT..." and revolt against said constraints.  The list of films would include Bad Santa 1&2 [2003] [2016], Bad Grandpa [2013], Bad Teacher [2011], Horrible Bosses 1&2 [2011] [2014], Bridesmaids [2011],  Ted 1 & 2 [2012] [2015], Movie 43 [2013], Neighbors 1 & 2 [2014] [2016], Bad Moms [2016].  Like their similarly R-rated romantic comedic cousins -- No Strings Attached [2011] or Friends with Benefits [2011] come to mind -- there's a "Wouldn't it be nice?" quality to them: Wouldn't it be nice to tell one's boss what one really thought of him / her?  Wouldn't it be nice to tell someone's bratty kid what one thought of him / her?  Wouldn't it be nice to just pitch some film (or idea) that's just completely insane and leave it to one's "higher ups" try to guess if one's actually serious about it?

So this film is about a random, relatively small family-owned tech-firm based in Chicago, constrained by market forces to be increasingly cut-throat, that decides to say "WT..." and throw one EPIC ... "Office Christmas Party" ... Why?  Arguably "to save the company" ;-) by impressing some purchasing agent from some fairly large potential buyer that unlike the bigger tech players in the field -- Dell, HP, etc -- THEY still "care about people," caring expressed here by ... partying.  

The premise here is not entirely bad.  Corporate culture can be mind-numbing / soul-killing.  It's just that the partying displayed becomes _so crude_ that there's no way that this film could be shown to ANYBODY but adults and even then with REAL ISSUES:  At one point in the film, the revelers are shown chugging some sort of a slurried alcoholic concoction through a rather engorged d... of a rather horny-looking ice-sculpture.  Honestly folks, WHO WOULD DO THAT?  Especially since even in the film, every other employee has his/her smart phone out, clicking photos of their coworkers doing this.   Try looking for another job after THAT gets posted on Facebook...

But then that's part of the point.  The film is sooo over-the-top that there's no way it could be taken seriously.  Still it's also sooo over-the-top that, as childish / sophomoric as it is, it can't possibly be shown to anyone under the 17 of the R rating and even then with serious reservations.

Still, honestly folks, it's often very funny ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Apparition Hill [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Official Website


Apparition Hill [2016] (written and directed by Sean Bloomfield) is an excellent documentary about the Madjugorje Apparitions enjoyed a week-long run recently at the Laemle Town Center Theatre in the San Fernando Valley here in Los Angeles.  Many viewers would / will be surprised.

A Catholic would have to have been living under a rock for the last 30-40 years to not know of the Madjugorje Apparitions and unsurprisingly they have proven to be about as divisive in the Church as anything that one could possibly imagine.  Honestly, no matter what position one could take on the still ongoing Apparitions, one is more or less certain to be dismissed by a large percentage of contemporary Catholics.

So in this regard, I do want to thank the writer / director and his crew for making this remarkably accessible arguably "Reality Show style" documentary about the phenomenon.

The project began with the film-makers publicizing a contest: send us a short video explaining why we should pick you to go with six others on an all-expenses paid week-long pilgrimage to Madjugorje.  Yes, they advertised this contest in English language generally Conservative Catholic media, which would _somewhat_ limit "the pool of contestants."  On the other hand, two of the seven people they picked, one from England, the other a police officer from Chicago, were basically young / middle-aged skeptics who thought that their families (or _inlaws_) "were NUTS" :-) to be taken up by the Madjugorje phenomenon (and PLENTY of rank-and-file Catholics, both Madjugore-philes and non, could EASILY relate to them and their families ;-).  Could the two have been feigning their skepticism?  If so, honestly, film-makers look these two up, because they would have given Oscar level performances here.  Among the others were a husband and wife, with the wife suffering from Stage 4 Cancer and another a middle aged man suffering from advanced ALS.  There was also a young woman, Catholic Convert, from a Mennonite background, who just found "the whole focus on Mary" to still "be odd" (and arguably heretical).

So the film-makers picked well.

Then skeptics of the phenomenon WOULD BE SHOCKED, HONESTLY SHOCKED, to see Madjugorje looking NOTHING LIKE one _could_ imagine it to be (filled with a multitude of "old ladies" hobbling up some random hill in still medieval, still bombed-out former Yugoslavia (from the _still_ quite recent wars there) _snarling_ that those relatives _not_ with them were almost certainly going to Hell when they came home ;-).  INSTEAD FOLKS, Madjugorje turns out to look like a quiet, thoroughly modern, "Olympic Village" -- think of Nagano or Lillehammer filled in good part by SMILING YOUNG PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.  A miraculous, wrought-metal statue of Jesus in the center square (it "weeps" water, "sometimes...," strangely) out of the back of one of his knees ;-), could have been made by Pablo Picasso or Salvador Dalí ;-). Yes, the trek up the Apparition Hill is still precarious -- honestly looked as if it could have been "sent over" from Mel Gibson's set for the Passion of the Christ.  I _know_ (EVER _NICE_, SMILING! ;-) "old ladies" who've visited Madjugorje (repeatedly) and I honestly marvel, now, that they could have gone up said hill ;-).  And then the group's conversations with one of the visionaries, again ever-smiling, ever-nice were also very nice. (I knew that from before ... that the visionaries from Madjugorje were _always_ reported to be really nice, ever-smiling people)..

All in all, this film, _can_ make one "think" ... I myself have never been to Madjegorje (mostly honestly because of time) and I'm _not_ necessarily someone who'd be "naturally predisposed" to believe in these Apparitions.  Indeed, with a science background, and _generally_ on the "pro-Vatican II Council" side of the contemporary Catholic Church divide, I'd be _assumed_ to be "on the skeptics' / rejectionist side" (by both sides in the argument).  HOWEVER, over the years, I've known a lot of good people, good parishioners, who've gone to Madjugorje, generally _repeatedly_, and I've seen over the years THE GOOD WORKS that MOST OF THESE SMILING "MAGJEGORJE PEOPLE" DO on a routine, day-to-day basis.  As such, I came to the film "with an open mind" and LEFT HONESTLY SURPRISED / IMPRESSED.  I now understand better WHY so many people who go to Madjugorje return there over, and over again.  It's lovely, beautiful, peaceful, modern ... emphatically _not_ a "condemnation of our time" ... instead, a vision of what our time could be.

Great documentary!

Oh, yes, did the lady with Stage 4 cancer (or the guy with ALS) get healed?  No.  At least she died a month or two after her trip.  But anyone with a heart would see that the trip, the pilgrimage, was worth it anyway.  We do say that Healing involves far more than the physical.  It was obvious that she died in peace, and her family was in greater peace as well.


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

Manchester by the Sea [2016]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB ()  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (A)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller-Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Manchester by the Sea [2016] (written / directed by Kenneth Lonergan) is a generally well-written and certainly well-acted indie piece about a contemporary New England family that had suffered multiple tragedies that certainly deserves Oscar consideration for several awards including (certainly) for best actor and (possibly) for best direction.

Yet it is by no means a perfect film and (yes) its MORAL failings make it hard to recommend as anything but a REALLY SAD (yes, honestly, BRING THE KLEENEX) if also LOVELY "blue collar art piece."

What am I talking about?  Well, the film's about a late-30 something thoroughly guilt-ridden / shell of a man, Lee Chandler (played wonderfully, honestly to Oscar nomination levels by Casey Affleck), who's nonetheless given custody of his brother Joe's son 16 year-old son Patrick (played again generally quite excellently by Lucas Ledges) after Joe (played by Kyle Chandler) dies of a sudden heart-attack. 

Why wouldn't Patrick's mother automatically get custody of Patrick?  Indeed, why didn't she have custody of Patrick to begin with?  Well she was an almost lost-cause alcoholic.  She comes into the picture (briefly) in the latter part of the story as a _sincerely_ if also quite desperately "Born Again Christian" (the Chandlers being generally if not particularly deeply devoted Catholics) trying, well, _sincerely_ to regain control over her life (Honestly, you just want to cry for her ...).

Why then would Lee be such a mess?  Well, HE was coping with (or really _still_ shell shocked from) a family tragedy that HE was at least _partly_ if perhaps _not wholly_ responsible for.  And, well, his now late-brother seemed to have more confidence in him than he had in himself.  (Again, you just want to cry for him / both as well ...).

Finally, if not surrounded by such awful tragedy, Patrick, a rambunctious and popular hockey-playing (this is blue-collar Massachusetts after all ...) sixteen year old would be a generally happy high schooler.  But of course, his dad died of a heart-attack early in the story and his mother was, well, "somewhere / away" for most of the story, presumably "in treatment."  (You want to cry for him as well ...)

So where could one find moral fault in such a sad story?

Well ... the parenting presented in this film was really quite awful.  Yes, 16-year-old Patrick had a rough life.  Presumably the various girls his age around him had similarly rough lives as well.  Still, I REALLY DID FIND IT SHOCKING (and honestly _unrealistic_) THAT THE PARENTS IN THIS FILM WOULD BASICALLY "BE COOL WITH" and EVEN _HELP_ THEIR DAUGHTERS SLEEP WITH THIS GUY. 

I just don't believe that to be credible.  Yes, Patrick was young, attractive and _sad_.  But I just can't imagine a mother of a teenager his age "being cool with" _her daughter_ sleeping with him as a result.  It just doesn't compute for me.  AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE TO PARENTS WATCHING THIS FILM, let alone to their teens.

As such, while a SAD and often BEAUTIFUL MOVIE ... I honestly CAN'T RECOMMEND IT as anything more than "an unrealistic art piece" AND I WOULD HOPE THAT PARENTS would NOT "pimp" their daughters out like the various parents did in this film.

Yes, Patrick's life was "hard," but NOT THAT "hard" to "deserve" such "assistance" ...

Two 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! :-) >>