Trust [2010]

MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (4 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 ½ stars)
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1529572/
CNS/USCCB review -
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110331/REVIEWS/110339996


Trust (directed by David Schwimmer and cowritten by Andy Bellin and Robert Festinger) is a timely, well written, well crafted and well acted cautionary tale about a 14 year old girl who meets someone online who terribly misrepresents himself and takes advantage of her.

The girl, Annie (played by Liana Liberato) is a quiet, still insecure freshman, trying out for the volloeyball team at a high school in a upscale suburb. In the movie the high school is New Trier High School and the suburb is Wilmette, IL. She meets someone, Charlie (played by Henry CoffeeChris ) on a teen oriented chat site who first presents himself as a 16 year old and one who _also_ plays on his school’s volleyball team (strange because most American high schools _don’t_ offer competitive boys volleyball). He gives her a few tips and whether these tips actually help her or not, she makes the team. Thus they become online friends. During the course of their online conversations, which soon extend to texting, the person on the other end, confesses to her that he’s actually 20, then 24, then a 26 year old grad student. That bothers her but continues to be nice. Of course, her parents, Lynn (played by Catherine Keener) and Will (played by Clive Owen) have no idea.

Finally, the same day as Lynn’s older brother heads off to college, she receives a text from her friend asking if they could meet. She responds, texting "?!?!" but eventually agrees. They meet in a nice suburban shopping mall. Her online friend turns out to be a mid-to-late 30-something year old man nonetheless comes dressed far younger than his age. She starts to cry, and asks "Is this a joke?" He tells her "no." She asks, "Why do you keep lying?" Here he lays it on, telling her that he _was_ worried about how she’d take his real age, but since "they _clicked so well_" and "had something _so special_" that he hoped if they only saw each other that "their age difference would not matter." Alone, sitting there in a lounge area in a mall, her initial resistance soon fails. He snowed her.

Eventually they start walking, eventually he gets her in his car. There gives her "a present" (lingerie) and tells her how much he’s dreamed of seeing her in it. Again, without physically hurting her in anyway, he’s manipulated the situation in a way that she simply does not know how to say no, or how to get out of the situation even if she wanted to. He takes her to his motel room ... And there, with the movie hinting that he video-recorded it all, he takes her virginity. Without resorting to any threat or any violence, he raped her.

Confused, overpowered by the various and conflicting emotions of that afternoon, all her parents and younger sister noticed that evening was that she was somewhat quieter at dinner than she was before. But Annie’s best friend had seen her in the mall, knows somewhat of the story leading up to the "mall date" and the next day in schools asks Annie "was that [creepy old guy] the guy???" Annie tells her defensively to mind her own business. But Annie’s friend as a 14 year old, apparently remembering past presentations given by school authorities on subjects like this (online predators, etc), goes to the guidance department of the high school to report the incident. The guidance counselor comes to Annie’s class to "to talk to her." Initially, Annie doesn’t put 2 and 2 together, but soon does because the police are there to take her statement. Annie’s mother gets a phone call as she’s running errands. Annie’s father, who works for an ad company in Chicago (that actually specializes marketing to "tweens") gets pulled out of a meeting with a phone call as well. Hundreds of high schoolers who have no idea what’s going on, see the police take Annie away in a squad car taking her to a hospital to get her rape tested. Her parents eventually meet her there.

What an unbelievable nightmare and a great presentation of how a rape victim often gets raped several more times by well meaning authorities seeking to do justice.

In the weeks that follow, Annie is given regular counseling, the counselor being played by Viola Davis. The counseling is of some help but Annie does not believe that she was raped until the FBI comes over to her home a number of weeks later to ask her if she knew any of four other girls, ages 12-15, that the man who had posed to her as "Charlie" had also groomed and raped/sexually assaulted. It is only then that Annie realizes what happened to her.

Trust is an excellent movie. Liana Liberato playing Annie and Clive Owen and Catherine Keener playing her parents are all outstanding in their roles. There are still more twists in the story that I have not mentioned here but "Charlie" is never found.

Trust is not a cheerful movie. But it can serve as a great discussion piece by parents to their children about the dangers of meeting someone online. They can truly be anyone.


<< 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! :-) >>

Hanna

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (L) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0993842/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/h/hanna2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110406/REVIEWS/110409995

Hanna (directed by Joe Wright, story by Seth Lockhead with the screenplay co-written again by Seth Lockhead as well as David Farr) is a grim fairytale, the Brothers Grimm meet the Bourne series.

Let me explain: A father, Erik (played by Erik Bana) seeking to protect his daughter Hanna (played by Saoirse Ronan) after the death of her mother Johanna Zadek (played by Vicky Krieps) who dies under initially unclear circumstances, flees to the forests of the northern wilds where he raises her as best he can to defend herself. What northern wilds are they? Good question. Initially, I thought them to be Alaska or Canada, but they could have been Scandinavia or possibly even Russia (though the last case would have been least likely).

Erik tells his daughter that she is from Germany and has a grandmother in Berlin and that they will go to the Grimm’s house in Berlin to meet her. But before doing so, she will have to kill a woman, Marissa (played by Cate Blanchett) who killed Hanna’s mother and who is bent on killing her as well. Why this would be so is initially unclear.  However, it is clear that Erik was some sort of a spy -- a very good one -- who was capable of disappearing along with his daughter for many, many years.

Hanna grows up in the forests of the northern wilds and when she's 15, she begins telling her father that "she is ready to leave." Erik, like a "good father" is uncertain, but goes out to the back of their house and digs up a long hidden radio transmitter and tells Hanna that the decision to leave is now hers. The transmitter is a homing device, if she turns it on by pressing a big red button, it will forever blow their cover and Marissa will send agents to retrieve both of them.  Hanna’s left to ponder the matter as she goes to sleep.

The next day, Hanna sends her father off to do some hunting and when he comes back, he sees that she’s pressed the red button and turned on the transmitter. Hence, the clock is ticking. Very well, Erik shaves, has Hanna help him cut his hair, puts on a suit and tells her that whereas Marissa would certainly have him killed immediately, she would probably take Hanna prisoner first (giving Hanna the chance to kill Marissa). Erik says goodbye to Hanna and tells her to meet him as long planned in the Grimm’s House in Berlin after she takes care of Marissa. Erik disappears into the forests and soon enough Special Forces come to the house in search of Erik and not finding him, take Hanna to an "undisclosed location" worthy of the name.

The movie proceeds from there. In the process, the reason for Hanna’s mother’s death and for the authorities’ 15 year search for Erik is revealed, as well as why Hanna herself would be a target. 

The story is made all the more interesting by the realization that Hanna, 15 years old, has grown-up entirely in the woods. All she's known are the skills that Erik her father has chosen to teach her.  These while interesting and perhaps useful to her in her quite unique situation (there were people who were out to kill her) didn't include knowledge of even the most basic of electrical devices or even that of running water.  So as her father instructed her repeatedly, she also had to know how to quickly "adapt or die."

I found the movie to be a fascinating mashing of a Brothers Grimm-style fairytale and a post-Bourne Identity spy novel. Yes, there is violence but of a kind that has been common in PG-13 movies in recent years (lots of shooting and glass, etc shattering but very little actual blood/gore), much is left to the imagination. Agreeing with the PG-13 rating, I do think that Hanna would not be appropriate for young children.  However, by age 13 (becoming a teenager) there should no longer be a problem with viewing the film. And the movie is "teen appropriate" in another way.  For in rather strange, highly stylized (symbolic) way, Hanna is a parable about "growing up." ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Soul Surfer

MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Roger Ebert (2 1/2 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596346/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/s/soulsurfer2011.shtml
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110406/REVIEWS/110409991

Soul Surfer (directed by Sean McNamara and co-written by him along with Deborah Schwartz and others) is a very nice story about Bethany Hamilton (played by Anna Sofia Robb) a cheerful 13 year old, who along with her best friend Alana Blanchard (played by Lorraine Nicholson) was growing-up in rural Hawaii, home schooled, surfing and attending a local Christian youth group, the youth group leader, Sarah, played by Carrie Underwood.

Bethany had loving parents (played by Helen Hunt and Dennis Quaid) as well as two older brothers. Life was good and she had dreams of becoming a champion surfer until one day she lost an arm (up to the shoulder) to a freak shark attack. Suddenly life had changed in all kinds of ways, both temporary and permanent. Remember folks, she was 13 at the time. And she does ask her youth group director: "How could this have been part of God’s plan?"

The rest of the movie is about answering that question and the plot proves not entirely predictable.  I do believe that throughout the movie there is an interplay of both blessedness and tragedy. At the beginning Bethany was growing up healthy, carefree, with a loving family and great friends in one of the most beautiful parts of the world. And to the movie’s credit, it does not apologize for that. Yes, growing-up a teenager in rural Hawaii, night surfing to the full moon and fireworks would be wonderful. Then she has her accident, what now?

Part of the answer does come when she goes with her youth group to Thailand to help survivors of the tsunami in its immediate aftermath. The contrast of images is so striking and poignant. The very same waves so beloved by the young people of Hawaii had caused so much destruction to others, including kids, in Thailand. And yet it’s not the waves’ fault. They can bring both joy and destruction. Once again, what to do now?

Without saying a word, the movie reminds us that Christianity is a faith that believes that any situation can become an invitation to kindness and any situation, indeed any tragedy, can be redeemed. 

ONE LAST NOTE, and one which I am not the only one to have noticed: In a movie, where almost all the protagonists were blond, Bethany’s one (surfing) rival in the movie, Malina Birch (played by Sonya Balmores) was brunette and one who had a propensity throughout the whole movie to wear (and always compete in) black. I found the symbolism unfortunate (carrying racial overtones) and I do believe that the movie would have been better served if the rival was either cast or dressed in a different way.  I mention this as one of a very small number of criticisms (though since I do mention it, IMHO a noteworthy one) of an otherwise outstanding youth-oriented 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! :-) >>

Insidious

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591095/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/i/insidious2011.shtml
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110331/REVIEWS/110339994

Insidious, directed by James Wan and written by Leigh Whannell, who previously worked together on the Saw movies, is a low budgety affair made in the style of the recent Paranormal Activity movies. I went to see this movie in good part because I knew that a good number of our younger people will go to see it, and to be honest, I’m done with this type of movie for a while.

I found the first Paranormal Activity movie fascinating simply because of its low budget ($50,000, using a rented house, starring two as of then "no name" actors and filmed using a few higherp-end consumer video cameras). Paranormal Activity II, which I reviewed here, which made extensive "dramatic use" of domestic security cams was already getting tired. Insidious, which a number of reviewers compared more to the older Amityville Horror series of movies, continues the low budget gimmick. It’s set in two houses, a high school classroom and probably the high school’s theater (where "the Spectral Plane" region cryptically called "The Further" in this movie was certainly staged and filmed). The quality of some of the "demon costumes" and "manakin undead" even begin to fail Steven King’s "zipper on the back" test. All of this, no doubt, was done purposefully for a "low budgety" (it’s not real) feel.

To be honest though, I’m not sure I’d prefer a high quality version of this movie, because as far as I could see, the movie’s sole purpose was to say "boo."

Yes, there is a plot of sorts. A family headed by high school teacher, pa, Josh Lambert (played by Patrick Wilson) and stay at home ma, Renai Dalton (played by Rose Byrne) move into a new (larger) house following the birth of their third child. The oldest child, Dalton, about 6 y/o (played by Ty Simpkins) runs around the house in a superman’s cape and a wand. He also draws rather imaginative pictures (as six year olds do) that the parents pay no mind to until he doesn’t wake-up one morning.

The doctors tell the parents that Dalton’s in some sort of a coma possibly resulting from a run of the mill "fall" while playing "superman" the evening before he didn’t wake up. But it does not really make sense. What does start to happen is all sorts of strange things in the house while Dalton brought home from the hospital after some time and eventually on a feeding tube, continues to sleep in a comatose state.

Eventually, Renai begins to believe the house is haunted because of the strange things happening in the house and convinces her husband to move. They do, but the strange things continue to happen in the new house as well. Sufficiently spooked, Renai even invites a Catholic priest friend over at one point but Josh, her husband discourages her from pursuing that route further, reminding Renai that they are not religious. Wonderful ...

At this time, the mother-in-law, Lorraine Lanbert (played by Barbara Hershey) takes on a more important role suggesting to Renai that she invite an old friend of hers Elise Rainer (played by Lin Shaye) to make an assessment. After some comic relief provided by Elise’s two "Ghost Buster" like assistants, Elise tells John and Renai that she suspects that their son isn’t in a coma at all, but rather that he had been "astral projecting" himself at night to a place Elise called "the Further" and that Dalton somehow got lost up there in "the Further." Since their son’s body was "vacant" while his soul was lost out there in "The Further" all sorts of spirits of the dead and even demons were now coveting his body apparently as a vessel to animate in the absence of Dalton’s spirit, hence causing all the paranormal ruckus in the Lamberts’ homes since Foster’s "coma." The rest of the movie is about attempting to find Dalton’s soul out there "in the Further" and to bring it back.

However, since the secular world of spirits in this movie still has demons who apparently want our torment our souls, call me "biased" but I still prefer the Priest, Holy Water and the Rosary to the goofy and ultimately not altogether successful solution offered here. Leave the New Agey stuff on the bookshelf and just teach your kids about God and how to pray.


<< 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 Borgias (TV miniseries on Showtime)

CNS/USCCB Review:
http://www.usccb.org/movies/tv/tv040311.shtml

NOTE AT THE BEGINNING OF MY OWN REVIEW:

Normally, my blog covers films.  However, since the miniseries The Borgias: The Original Crime Family (directed by Neil Jordon, Simon Cellan Jones, et al, written by Neil Jordon and Michael Hirst), about the papacy of Pope Alexander VI covers an very important and very scandalous period in Church history, I  thought to cover it here.  Note that since this is a _miniseries_, there is _no way_ that one can do anything but a preliminary review of it until the entire series is complete, because one simply can not know "what is coming."

Showtime.com does offer a free "sneek peek" of the first episode. From that episode, a couple of things appear to be reasonably clear:

(1) From a strict technical "period piece" stand-point the series promises to be outstanding. Jeremy Irons plays Rodrigo Lanzo Borgia who became Pope Alexander VI. He is a serious actor playing a serious role.

(2) There will be extensive nudity in the series. This nudity is fuzzed out in the "teaser episode" provided on Showtime.com’s website. However, that is a signal certainly that this series is _really_ "not for the kids." However, the subject matter – the Catholic Church in the truly most corrupt period of its history – is probably not for the kids either. It’s intended for the parents / adults. If the amount of nudity becomes ridiculous (a distinct possibility on cable...) then of course that will diminish the value of the whole series. Presently, this, and the larger question of whether the whole project has value, can not be determined until more of the series airs.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY - There will of course be legitimate concern about the historical accuracy of this series. Here I would say two things: (1) the makers of this series owe it to the public to be reasonably diligent providing a historically accurate portrayal of the times and (2) given the corruption of that period, there really wouldn’t be _much need_ to "make things up" that surpasses the historical record.

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT - The Borgias: The Original Crime Family is about the Borgia family and the reign of Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Lanzo Borgia) from 1492-1503.

The wikipedia article on Alexander VI has him with 7 children by several women. Previously, I had learned that he had 9 children by 3-4 mistresses and possibly another 2 children by another 1-2 mistresses.

Additionally, he married off (and annulled marriages of) his daughter Lucrecia several times, each time to promote a "balance of power" among the warring states of the Italian peninsula.

When I heard this in the seminary, I told the professor teaching the history course covering this period that for the first time I understood what Henry VIII was trying to do in England only a few decades later. Henry VIII too was arguably acting in the best interest of his realm trying desperately to get a healthy male heir to prevent another "War of the Roses" over succession that took place a 100 years beforehand.

Henry VIII would have certainly known of the scandals that Alexander VI was party to in Italy before his birth and must have been frustrated saying to himself "Alexander VI annulled several marriages of _his own daughter_ to "promote peace" in Italy, I'm trying to do the same here in England."

Anyway, Alexander VI was certainly party to more than a few scandals, so I do hope that the film-makers don't feel the need to invent more than is already in the record.

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THE PERIOD OF ALEXANDER VI? Well, I suppose, (1) No matter how bad things may seem, it _can_ "always be worse" :-), and (2) with power comes corruption. If the Pope was a nobody then it'd be easy for him to be a saint. (Today, in fact, the Pope doesn’t have the secular power that he had before, and by all accounts this has made for better holier Popes). And it wasn't as if in the time of the Borgias, the Pope became corrupt only when he became Pope. To even be in the running AT THAT TIME required that he come from a powerful family. And the Borgias were NOT the only powerful/corrupt family in Rome. Remember, there was a reason that the Papacy was moved (arguably by the French king) to Avignon for about a century in the 1300s. Rome was a mess.

Anyway, a good place to follow the historical accuracy of the period will certainly be on wikipedia. It won't be perfect either, because the period in question is contentious and the PEOPLE DO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL LIFE DECISIONS based on what they come to believe about this time (and other times of scandal).

FOR MYSELF. I am a Catholic and a Catholic priest. I am so, even in spite of times like that of Alexander VI. And I am so because I honestly do believe that the people involved at that time _didn't know any better_ and I do have a healthy respect for the corrupting influence of power.

Where there is power there is temptation. And to be honest, despite the awfulness of that time, I'm not sure that any of us could have done much better. And yet society, _any society_ needs leadership, and yes, sometimes, that leadership is lousy. What makes it hard sometimes to get good leadership is precisely because power has "its perks," and many people will choose to seek to benefit from those perks rather than seek to use power for the benefit of the common good.

Anyway, this series could easily descend into a pit of darkness, pretentiousness and scandal itself, or it could actually serve as a means of illuminating one of the darkest, complex and yes most corrupt periods in Church (and indeed world) history. And for an episode or two, we’ll have to wait and see what the series will be / become.

ADDENDUM:

Several weeks into the series (Apr 18), the series has continued to prove to be well done from a technical point of view _and_ reasonably accurate historically. Remember, that this is a dramatic series rather than a documentary series.  As such, there will be some artistic license taken by series' makers.  How much is of course the big question and how such dramatic licence will effect the over all trajectory of the story. 

For instance, it would be doubtful that a son of Alexander VI would have been as directly involved in the murder of an exiled Ottoman prince as portrayed in Episode 3 (to the point of first personally poisoning him at a "family get together" and then "finishing him off by personally smothering him with a pillow in the Ottoman prince's chambers after falling ill).  That Alexander VI would accept the Ottomon prince as an exile as a (paid) favor of the Ottoman Sultan of Constantinople is believable.  These kind of arrangements were certainly done all the time.  That Alexander VI would be offered an even higher price by the Ottoman Sultan to "dispose of" the pesky prince (and that Alexander VI would accept) is also believable. I'm positive that these kind of double dealings were also done.  But portraying Alexander VI's own sons to be so intimately involved in the Ottoman prince's murder after hamming up the Ottoman prince's relationship with the sons and Lucretia, Alexander VI's daughter, seems far more a dramatic device than something based on actual history. 

Perhaps the close relationship between the exiled Ottoman prince and the grown children of Alexander VI existed, and perhaps this _could be_ documented in a diary or in the memoirs of someone close to Alexander VI's family (in the memoirs of an aide or servant or in the the diary of one of Alexander VI's own children).  However, it's far easier to believe that the relationship between the Ottoman prince and the adult children of Alexander VI was played up in the series for dramatic effect. 

This example should give people a pretty good indication of how to follow/believe this series.  Some of the incidents are going to played up for dramatic effect.

Intelligent places to follow what other people think of the series are (1) on the discussion board for the series on the IMDb website (2) on the wikipedia website.

ADDENDUM (Nov 3, 2011) - Viewers could also consider the recent film Anonymous arguing the case that William Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him.  In the film, Queen Elizabeth I of England is presented as someone who may have produced as many as three illegitimate children, two during her reign.  I'd find it next to impossible to believe a scandal of this sort could have been hidden (and three times).  After all, in Protestant Elizabethan England she was known as the "Virgin Queen," a title not she did not taken-on by accident but rather in attempt to replace lingering devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary among the common people of England with a new and patriotic devotion to her.  On the other hand, if true (or even close to true), such a possibility gives an indication of the hypocrisy/lifestyle of the upper classes across Europe at the time and perhaps put the Borgia family's excesses in context: the Borgia family may have been awful, but it was not really all that different from other powerful families at the time.


<< 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! :-) >>

Hop [2011]

MPAA (G) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Michael Phillips (2 stars) Fr Dennis (1/2 star)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1411704/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/h/hop2011.shtml
Michael Phillips review -
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/la-et-hop-20110401,0,1693439.story

Hop (directed by Tim Hill, screenplay written by Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio) is a movie that gushes with sweetness and is impeccable from a technical point of view (mashing live actors with animation). But its messaging is rather "problematic" on all kinds of levels.

On the most obvious level, Hop is aggressively secular promoting for Easter what the Santa myth does to Christmas. The Easter Bunny becomes like Santa, the famous Easter Island out in the South Pacific becomes the Easter Bunny’s "North Pole," little chicks become the Easter Bunny’s "elves"/"raindeer." And the Easter Bunny travels around the world in a contraption which even looks like Santa’s sleigh, driven in this case by a flock of those little chicks, in order to deliver Easter baskets and hide Easter eggs for little boys and girls around the world.

On a stranger level, Hop has the bunnies speaking in English accents and the chick workers in Hispanic ones. The Hispanic accents sort of make sense as Easter Island is nominally under the jurisdiction of Chile in South America. But then a good part of the plot in Hop is an attempt by Carlos (voice by Hank Azaria) the foreman of the Easter bunny’s "worker chicks" seeking to overthrow the Easter bunny and "take over the Easter operations" for the chicks themselves. The reigning Easter bunny (voice by Hugh Laurie) actually functions like something of a King as there apparently could be only "one true Easter bunny" at a time. Thwarting the coup, the older regally accented Easter bunny then dubs his more "prol" accented son, E.B. (voice by Russell Brand) and his new found _American_ human friend Fred (James Mardsen) as the "co-leaders of Easter" thus to save Easter and presumably to continue to "keep the uppity Hispanic chicks down."

Now if you happen to be a Hispanic parent or grandparent, where Easter bunnies, etc were _never_ much part of your tradition anyway, and you just wanted to take your kids or grandkids to a nice kids' movie, you could wonder "What the heck is this?" And it’s a fair question.

To reiterate, self-evidently secular as it is, from a technical and even storytelling point of view, Hop is impeccable (reminds me of an Easter version of Elf). But it’s messaging is very, very strange and I’m not sure if I were a Hispanic parent (or child) what I would do with it.


<< 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! :-) >>

Source Code [2011]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (3 ½ stars) Fr. Dennis (3 ½ stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert’s review

I found Source Code [2011] to be a surprising film. Yes, it’s a sci-fi action film set in the present day (and there are conventions for all these categories) but the film somehow became more than that. It was able to bring the sci-fi "down to earth" and then in a surprisingly positive way. Written by Ben Ripley and directed by Duncan Jones, it mostly involves quite ordinary and ultimately quite sympathetic characters (simple commuters on a train in Chicago).

The premise of the story is that scientists operating on a super-secret project from Nellis Air Force Base (of Area-51 fame) had come up with a way of _quickly_ retrieving the last 8 minutes prior to a terrorist attack _after it happened_ and then to insert a person into those last 8 minutes in order to run through them in order to determine how the attack took place and who was/were the perpetrator(s) were.

In the movie, Colter Stevens (played by Jake Gyllenhaal), formerly a US helicopter pilot in Afghanistan is inserted in such a way by military scientists (played by Vera Farmica and Jeffrey Wright) into a commuter train in Chicago blown-up by a bomb in a terrorist attack to determine how it was set off and by whom.

Why couldn’t you just try to determine this through rapid analysis of surveillance cam footage? Well surveillance cams are not everywhere and this project envisioned a way that someone could walk/run through anywhere he or she wanted through the critical space in question during those last 8 minutes.

Why 8 minutes and not 10 or an hour, etc? Well perhaps the exact amount of time that one could go back in time from an accident was arbitrarily set by the film-makers but they offered a very precisely reasoned explanation a limit such as that would exist.

The more damning objection to the movie’s premise would be to question whether one really could run around "anywhere" during those last 8 minutes (even into a sealed or closed compartment or off the train, for instance...), or whether one was still limited (as in the case of surveillance cam footage) _by the retrieved record_ of those last 8 minutes no matter how that record was retrieved.

The movie _does envision_ that the inserted person could view the situation from previously unexamined perspectives (ie go into compartments that were previously closed, walk off the train, etc) and also to interact with the people in the situation, thus necessarily _changing_ the situation (however slightly) each time. This would seem to me to impossible given the manner of "information retrieval" and "insertion" offered in the movie.

Nevertheless, the movie assumes that the inserted person _could_ interact with the environment (and with the people in the environment) and not merely observe it/them. One recalls here that Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry famously asked how the "Heisenberg Compensators" which powered the Starship Enterprise’s warp engines worked, replied "very well." Welcome to sci-fi, where one does have to "suspend disbelief" at some point to make the story "work" ;-).

Assuming then that possibility that a person inserted into the past could interact with the environment (and its people) and not merely observe it, then all sorts of possibilities (and paradoxes) regarding "time travel" come to fore: Forget trying to figure out who perpetrated a terrorist attack, why not try to frustrate it to begin with. But if one did that, does the history that followed the terrorist attack (or the sinking of the Titanic, as another example ...) _get expunged_ or does a new history where the terrorist attack did not occur (or the Titanic did not sink ...) "split off" from the history in which these events took place? This gets into the realm of parallel universes, that can make for great fodder for late night discussions over beer and pizza. (Morgan Freeman recently narrated a series called Through the Wormhole for the Science Channel, which presented topics such as these).

Of course, Colter Stevens decides to try to do this – to try to foil the terrorist attack to begin with – thus trying to save the utterly lovable and utterly _not_ deserving to be incinerated in a terrorist attack Christina Warren (played by Michelle Monagnan) as well as the rest of the people on the commuter train, petty jerks, dweebs, and otherwise utterly ordinary people that they may be.

But then, if he does succeed (I’m not going to tell you if he does) would he save them, period? Or would he simply save them in an "alternate universe" created by his interfering in the sequence of events in the one in which they lived (and in which they were destined to be blown up)? Finally, would it matter to the people involved if they were saved from the fireball?

Great, great, teenage / young adult stuff ;-)

ADDENDUM

Near the end of the movie arises a fairly "heavy question" about the "redeemability of the world." This is all the more interesting perhaps since the movie touches on possibilities of "time travel" and "parallel universes."  What's your take on the question?  Is the world redeemable?  Or should we wait for it (or even want it) to "blow up?"


<< 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! :-) >>

Paul

MPAA (R) CNS (O) Roger Ebert (2 1/2 stars) Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1092026/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/p/paul2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110316/REVIEWS/110319984

I went to see Paul (written by Nick Frost and Simon Pegg and directed by Greg Motolla) for a number of reasons. First, over the years, I’ve generally liked Seth Rogan. The (hopefully exaggerated) enormity of his character’s drug use notwithstanding, I liked generally him in Knocked Up and I even liked him in the Green Hornet. Even though his role in Superbad was actually pretty tame (rather "good" rather than "bad";-), I just didn’t like Superbad, period, finding very little positive or even particularly funny in that movie. Second, I went to see Paul because as far as I could discern from the trailer and reviews, I thought I’d like Paul’s plot. To be honest I was disappointed with both Paul and with Rogan.

Again, the plot seemed promising: Graeme Willy (played by Simon Pegg) and Clive Golings (played by Nick Frost) a couple of wide-eyed "geeks" from England come to California for a comic book convention. Growing up a "geek" myself and with plenty of other "geeks" as friends, "I could relate." Then after the convention, the two rent a big RV to begin a tour of the UFO hot spots of the American South West. Being the son of Czech immigrants, I also know something of that "wide-eyed" experience of relatives and friends of relatives first coming to this country (even to visit) and "hitting the road" in a big, often _very big_ car (or RV) for the very first time. So there was something both EPIC and REALLY, REALLY ENDEARING watching a movie about this experience of two Europeans in the U.S. for the first time, taking that RV on the road to explore "the America of their Dreams."

The key plot-twist advertised in the trailers was that while on this American odyssey the two run into an actual space alien named "Paul" (voice by Seth Rogan), who after some adventures they then help "go home" (hey, that even sounds like a tribute to the plot of E.T. ;-).

What I found disappointing (and frankly needless) was the other plot twist (not exactly advertised) where the movie became an extended, and not particularly funny slam of fundamentalist Christians. How this happens is that the two British tourists along with their new found alien friend stop at a RV campsite somewhere in Nevada operated by Ruth Buggs (played by Kristen Wiig) and her father Moses Buggs (played by John Carroll Lynch) who play stereotypical "three toothed" hick Christian fundamentalist ignoramuses (Ruth even has a "glass eye" when she first appears). Staring face to face at Paul, Ruth who believes God created the world in 7 days 4000 years ago, declares Paul to be a "demon." Over the rest of the movie, the aliens, Graeme and Clive from England and Paul from outer space, evangelize Ruth into accepting the "true gospel" (of evolution).  Note that neither I have, nor more importantly the Catholic Church has ever had, a great problem with evolution.

Now the two British stars Frost and Pegg wrote the screenplay and it is possible that the fundamentalism of the American countryside simply appalls them. Still, honestly, I did find their portrayal both unfunny and unfair.

For while there certainly are Christian fundamentalists like Ruth and Moses in the United States and are perhaps more prevalent in the American countryside, the American west is also the "American heartland of black helicopters, cattle mutilations and UFOs." And there has been an entire series on the History Channel in recent years promoting Ancient Alien Theory which suggests that God/"the gods" was/were perhaps alien biochemist(s)/astronaut(s). So good old Graeme and Clive could have just as easily (or IMHO much more easily) run into a milieu of good-ole-boys where God and aliens, the Flood and UFOs would have been seamlessly talked about as being basically one and the same thing, and a good part of those good-ole-boys would have had rather impressive comic book collections of their own stored under their "boxes of ammo" (if one needed to go there) as well ;-). So I do believe that the American "outback" is far more interesting a place than those two British writers (and Seth Rogan/"Paul") made it out to be.

Above all, I do believe that this movie could have been much more fun than it was. Instead, the makers of this film chose to make it into a needlessly gratuitous slam of people who are always much more interesting/complex than their stereotypes suggest.

So while IMHO the movie had a great deal of potential, I have to say that I left very, very disappointed, because it did not have to go that way. Would I recommend this movie? With difficulty and only if one was able to hold one’s nose while Christian fundamentalists were needlessly and gratuitously getting slammed over and over, for a very, very long time.

PS - A number of years ago, the Vatican declared that Catholics need not have difficulty in reconciling both their faith and a belief that life, even intelligent life could exist on other worlds. To deny even the possibility of there being life, even intelligent life on other worlds would limit the greatness of God (Osservatore Romano, May 14, 2008, Ital original, Eng translation)

ADDENDUM

An excellent book that covers much of the same territory as Paul does but with a much kinder smile is fellow Britisher Jon Ronson's book Them: Adventures with Extremists.  A number of years ago, I wrote a review of Them on Facebook that I reposted recently reposted on my personal blog.  Ronson's point, well taken, is that we have far more in common with "Them" (the "Other guys" that we don't like) than we may think.  I much prefered Ronson's gentle humor to the "hit people we don't like with a baseball bat" approach of the makers of Paul.


<< 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! :-) >>

Outside the Law (orig. Hors la Loi)

MPAA (unrated) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (3 stars) Fr Dennis (3 ½ stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229381/
CNS/USCCB review -
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110323/REVIEWS/110329992/1023

Outside of the Law (orig. Hors La Loi), written and directed by Rachid Bouchareb is a French and Arabic language film with English subtitles about the Algerian struggle for independence, that ought to be required viewing by _anyone_ who has a strong opinion (of _any_ kind) on the current American war on terror. It’s well acted and brutally honest. NO ONE in this film comes off looking particularly good.

The movie is about three Algerian-born brothers, whose family was thrown off their ancestral farm in 1925 by a Frenchman waving a deed. (The Algerian family didn’t even know what a deed was just that they had been working the same land for generations). In 1945 as World War II comes to a close, their father is shot by a stray bullet fired by French colonists/authorities trying to supress a pro-Algerian civil rights march in the town in which they lived.

The three brothers, now adults and with only their mother to take care of, take different paths.

Messaoud (played by Roschdy Zem) the oldest of the three brothers is arrested following the march in which his father was killed for being one of the march’s organizers. While in prison, he is radicalized and joins the Algerian independence movement (FLN).

The middle brother Abdelkader (played by Sami Bouijila) joins (or is forced to join) the French Foreign Legion and does a tour in French-Indochina (Vietnam) where he is captured by the victorious Vietnamese. During his captivity, he and the other non-French colonial troops are propagandized by the message: "Why are you here fighting us when you have your own countries to liberate?"

The youngest brother Said (played by Jamel Debbouze), generally despises politics and is left to take care of their mother. He eventually emigrates with her to Paris, where he can’t find work and eventually gets involved in organized crime.

When the oldest brother, Messaoud, is released from prison, he is given the task of organizing Paris’ Algerian ghetto on behalf of the FLN. At about the same time as he is released, Abdelkader returns from Indochina and decides to throw his lot in with Messaoud to fight for Algeria’s independence.

The fight and the tactics are brutal. Messaoud is told by the FLN that _every_ Algerian must pay a "tax" to the FLN to support the struggle. Messaoud and Abdelkader are forced to enforce this "discipline" in the Algerian ghetto. As a result, their tactics make Said’s mere operation of a prostitution/boxing racket look tame. Among other things, Messaoud and Abdelkader have to punish a poor Algerian who has a wife and three children because he used his money to buy his family a refrigerator rather than pay the FLN’s tax.  They knock on his door, drag the wife out of the house, summarily condemn him to death on behalf of the FLN and then carry out the sentence by strangling him to death.

As the fight becomes more desperate, the French increasingly resort to terrorist tactics themselves. Colonel Faivre (played by Bernard Blancan) a former hero of the French resistance, who now heads an anti-terrorist command in Paris, receives permission to organize a unit which becomes called "the Red hand" which would nominally operate as "a criminal organization" and yet have immunity from the French Ministry of Justice to do whatever they saw fit to terrorize the Algerian community in Paris back into submission. Hence they assassinate suspected leaders of the FLN, blow-up shops and homes of FLN sympathizers, etc. As a result, the FLN’s command in Paris largely flees to Germany (Frankfurt) and Switzerland (Geneva).

By the end of the movie, the three brothers are all reconciled as a result of the madness. Said gets a tip that the French authorities were going to intercept an arms shipment into France organized by Messaoud from Frankfurt and Abdelkader still working from inside France and tries to save the two brothers. Messaoud, in turn is able to save Said’s life from an assassination attempt by the FLN because Said wanted to put-up an Algerian-born boxer to fight for the French national boxing championship while the FLN insisted total boycott anything French.  Said, ever apolitical simply didn't understand the boycott -- "Wouldn't it be _great_ if an Algerian won the French boxing title?" (apparently _not_ in the view of the FLN...)

In the end, only one of the three brothers is left standing, but Algeria does win its independence...

Outside of the Law is a brutal movie, I’d definitely recommend it to anyone with ANY strong opinion IN ANY DIRECTION regarding our current war on terror. The FLN were not nice people. And in fighting them, the French "took off their gloves" in ways that _even today_ would seem unimaginable in the United States and it _still_ wasn’t enough.

The movie does ask the question: How far OUTSIDE THE LAW is either side willing to go to "win?" And it was clear in the Algerian conflict, that BOTH sides were willing to go very, very far.


<< 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! :-) >>

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules

MPAA (G) CNS/USCCB (A-1) Mike Phillips (2 stars) Fr Dennis (2 stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1650043/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/d/diaryofawimpykid2011.shtml
Mike Phillips’ review -
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/sc-mov-0323-diary-wimpy-kid-rodrick-r20110324,0,7565114.column

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (directed by David Bowers) caught my eye because it was a kid/family oriented movie, received good reviews and scored #1 in the box office in the United States in its first weekend in the theaters. It is the second movie made following the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series of cartoon novels written by Jeff Kenney.

Centered on the life of Gregory Heffley (played by Zachary Gordon) entering the 7^th grade in this movie and his family. Gregory is the middle of three brothers. He’s tormented by his older brother Rodrick (played by Devon Bostick) who’s in High School, already drives, and is the drummer in a garage band (calling itself Löded Dyper) made up mostly of his high school buddies. And Rodrick generally thinks of himself as being far cooler/worldly than Gregory. Gregory then has a younger brother, who seems to get away with everything because he’s only fffrreee (3). So Gregory has kind of the worst of both worlds in the sibbling pecking order. His best friend is Rowley Jefferson (played by Robert Capron) who’s similarly geeky but perhaps more at piece with it. Mom and Dad are Rachell Harris and Steve Zahn. Mom writes an advice column on parenting in the local, suburban paper and both Mom and Dad suffer from trying to be both "in control" of their household and "cool," which anyone who would be looking from the outside (ie the audience) would immediately realize is pretty much impossible. Thus the stage is set for many painfully funny situations.

I am not the only one writing about this film who’s noticed this, but one thing that’s somewhat strange about the portrayal of this family and the town that its from is that it is almost utterly white. Down to the school kids, teachers, neighbors, roller rink patrons, the _only_ person of color in the entire movie is an Indian classmate of Gregory’s named Chirag Gupta (played by Karan Brar). And he flies back to India for a number of weeks during the film, so it’s signaled that he’s "rich" (that is, probably an upper Brahman cast, that is a member of the "original Aryans"). Between that, the "umlaut" on the "Löded Dyper" band name and even Mom’s glasses and hair-style that progressively make her look more and more like Sarah Palin, one wonders if the movie was _purposefully_ cast to appeal to a _white-conscious_ pro-Palin demographic or was purposefully subverted by those doing the casting _to lampoon_ that demographic.

Honestly, I think it could go either way. But the utter lack of non-Aryan "people of color" felt weird, especially since the movie would have worked in most demographics.

Then as a Catholic priest, I did find the Church scene amusing because it was clearly Protestant "with some Catholic trappings thrown in." It was Protestant because, first there was no altar and second it’s been my experience that pretty much the _only_ Catholics who dress up in their "Sunday best" in the United States today are actually African American or Haitian (face it, most American Catholics going to Mass today go as slobs and that goes for even funerals and holidays). But the service had "Catholic trappings" because the Congregants in the movie went up to receive Communion, dispensed "to the hand" from Protestant looking collection plates. The attempt appeared to "try" to be "respectful" of both Protestants and Catholics but in a way that again could be interpreted as either pandering to or lampooning a white "Palin nation" demographic now utterly scrubbed clean in that Church of any non-whites.

So would I recommend this movie? Sure, the gags are fun. But if I were Asian (Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese), Black or Hispanic, I’d just find the movie stunningly devoid of people like me.


<< 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! :-) >>

Sucker Punch [2011]

MPAA (PG-13), CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Mike Phillips (0 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Mike Phillips review

Sucker Punch, directed by Zack Snyder of 300 fame, is another recently released movie that’s probably inappropriately rated PG-13. The fetishized dress of the central (female) characters (though without any nudity), spectacular (though again stylized) violence, and "life is like an insane asylum/brothel" theme would make an R-rating seem much more appropriate. Still, the movie runs like a 2 hour music video and actually pulses with hard, head banging music throughout. So the dress and "life can suck," teenage "angst" thematics would not seem altogether strange to anyone who’s grown up over the last 40 years or spent at least some of that time as a fan of  the music television channels MTV or VH-1. Still, I wonder how much simpler/better the movie could have been if the film-makers had decided to just accept an R-rating and then used the same technology, fireworks and thematics to just tell a good story without seeking to "get away" with anything.

What’s Sucker Punch about? Well the plot could be summarized in this way: After the death of her mother, a young (teenage) girl is sent by her (step)father to said insane asylum/brothel. The movie is about her attempt, indeed campaign, to escape.

Now one could assume that this young girl was really sent by her (step)father to an insane asylum/brothel, but then one would not understand this movie at all (or understand the music of the last 40 or so years, from heavy metal to rap). The "asylum/brothel" and even "the crisis" that landed her there are _all_ best understood as symbolic.

Yes, life _can_ at times seem senseless (like an insane asylum) or a like a game (like a brothel). And anyone who’s ever listened to, been a fan of Pink Floyd / Supertramp, etc or, been simultaneously attracted to / scandalized by the sexualized lyrics of either AC/DC (heavy metal) or 50 cent (rap) would understand that teens/young people have been absorbing and utilizing this imagery since at least the 1960s. And lest one get upset about that, let us appreciate that both Desert (fallenness, senselessness) and Prostitution imagery have been present throughout the Bible from the journey of the Exodus to the Prophets (Hosea, et al) to the Book of Revelation (always disturbing and yet always one of the Christian Bible’s most popular books).

The young girl, nick-named Baby Doll (played by Emily Browning), is given two guides, one in this world (female, Dr. Vera Gorski, played by Carla Gugino), one in her dreams (male, nicknamed "Wise Man", played by Scott Glenn) to help her escape.

Her female guide in this world tells her ‘to dance,’ and _while she dances_ to see this as an opportunity to seek her freedom. This advice too, can be taken in two ways. Taken in a crass/literal way (which also assumes that the protagonist is literally in an insane asylym/brothel would understand the advice to be that given to a young prostitute to encourage her to "split" emotionally from her "work." Taken symbolically, however, the advice is far more useful. Telling the protagonist to "dance with the music," is to tell the her go on with her work, schooling, day-to-day business. But telling her to also "seek her freedom while dancing" here is to tell her to also use one's time to "work on a plan" to find a way out of the situation that she is in.

Her spiritual guide, who first appears to her in the guise of an Eastern martial arts guru sets her on a "quest" in search of (1) a map, (2) some fire, (3) a knife, (4) a key and (5) a fifth element which is "a mystery" but involves "sacrifice." Each of these elements has obvious symbolic meanings, and represent elements needed in assembling a "plan of escape."

The protagonist convinces a few of her in/brothel mates (whether or not they actually are in an insane asylum or brothel) to join her on her quest to escape the senselessness/oppression of the "insane asylum/brothel" that they find themselves in.

Each time, while the protagonist "dances" (_never_ actually shown) a fantastic battle involving all concerned takes place.

There are a couple of plot twists that take place that can’t be revealed without ruining the story but it can be said that while not all in her party are able make it free, a number do.

The whole story is played out in vivid, stylized ‘dreamlike’ sequences that make last year's wunder-film Inception look like a stick figure cartoon.  Each of these 'dream sequences' is actually a period piece incorporating both actual and popular cultural elements from the period in the sequence. They are then mixed / "mashed" in a IMHO fascinating way.  Thus one sequence has the girls appearing in a WW II British bomber in the midst of a Tolkein style battle involving dragons and orcs.  In another, the girls are sent in a Vietnam era helicoptor to disarm a cold-war style nuclear weapon heading on a train toward a target that looks very much like Lower Manhattan while fighting Terminator-like cyborgs.  Again, the imagery in this movie is often simply awesome. 

Harder questions for young adults to ponder would be: What is the nature of  the "freedom" that is sought in this movie?  And are we really strong enough to _alone_ bestow meaning to our lives?

I do find the movie far more intelligent than most critics give it credit (Mike Philips of the Chicago Tribune, a respected critic with no axe to grind, gave Sucker Punch _zero stars_).

I’ve also found times during my life that have seemed dry and senseless (like that of passing through a Desert or perhaps approaching living in an Insane Asylum). For myself, I do not know how I would have been able to pass through such difficult times without a sense that God was at my side.  The imagery of the famous recent Catholic hymn Be Not Afraid comes to mind.

This movie is vivid and disturbing. I don’t think it’s appropriate _at all_ for young children. Parents of teens would have legitimate concerns about the sexualized dress and general plot trajectory of the story. But high schoolers especially in the upper grades and certainly college aged young adults and above will probably "get" the story and probably understand it better than the parents (or most movie critics).

Finally returning to the highly dramatic, stylized but often violent imagery of the movie. As always with such violent imagery, which also generally exists in Apocalyptic literature, a legitimate concern can be raised if the audience experiencing it will understand that the conflict and violence depicted, _indeed the whole story_, is to be _understood symbolically_. (Consider simply that most Muslim scholars will both passionately and sincerely say that Jihad is supposed to be understood as an "internal struggle," but tell that to Osama bin Laden and Al Queda ...).

But in the end, my gosh, would this movie make for a _great_ (and _fun_) discussion piece among college students at a coffee house, over a pizza (or at a Newman Center) after watching the 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! :-) >>

The Lincoln Lawyer

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

IMDb Listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1189340/
CNS/USCCB Review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/l/lincolnlawyer2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s Review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110316/REVIEWS/110319985

"Man, I’m a big fan of your work,
playing one side off against the other,
in bed with everybody..."
       – from The Big Lebowski

The Lincoln Lawyer (directed by Brad Furman, screenplay by John Romano based on the novel by Michael Connelly) continues in a long line of hard-boiled Hollywood crime dramas extending back to the days of the character Sam Spade, black and white film noirs and author Mickey Spillane. More recently, John Grisham updated this genre of tales by making a lawyer (rather than a private investigator) the central character of the story.

Still the elements of this kind of story remain the same: A hardened protagonist (usually male), usually a private eye or more recently a lawyer with a practice in a large "fallen city," is presented with a case that initially sounds like so many others that (usually) he has worked-on before. As the case proceeds, however, it gets even more depraved than (usually) he ever imagined. The "fallen city" is even more "fallen" than previously thought. The depravity of the case both reinforces the protagonist’s hard-boiled world view and redeems the protagonist by forcing (usually) him to rectify the situation and bring justice.

Interestingly, the audience follows along usually identifying with the protagonist thoughout the whole trajectory of the story. Thus the world-view presented is, in fact, largely that of the audience itself. It sees the world as fundamentally corrupt/fallen ("fallenness" being as Biblical a theme (1) (2) (3) as one can get). Yet, the audience is shocked to see just how corrupt/fallen it has become and it cheers the protagonist as (usually) he seeks to rectify this new Evil.

Certainly other countries have produced their share of crime dramas. However, this basic script has been standard Hollywood fare since the days of Humphrey Bogart (1930s-40s). So it could be said that this storyline has a definite place in the American psyche to the extent that so long as one begins with a decent script and the acting, direction and camera-work is at least average, one’s guaranteed a "b movie" that will make money here.

I mention all this because Americans are often thought of by foreigners as being somehow naive about "how the world works." These movies testify to the opposite, that Americans are NOT naive, that there is a long home-grown American tradition of reflecting on Evil and that by that tradition Americans have come to understand that Evil does not exist just "outside" but also "within" – that mayors, D.A.s, police officers, even the "little old lady across the street" could "have an an angle." It is a tradition in which "Party Lines" are dismissed out of hand as probably being lies (Would Sam Spade believe _any_ "party line?") Yet despite his cynicism, the protagonist in these films is shaken out of his complacency by an Evil that does go beyond the pale, but _not_ before following that Evil all the way to its source, often a good distance from where it first presented itself, often implicating people who initially posed as the "good guys."  It’s really a subversive story-line, but it’s one that worked in Hollywood for decades.

So then, how does The Lincoln Lawyer "stack up" this tradition hard-boiled crime dramas? Mick Haller (played by Matthew McConaughey) plays a slick Los Angeles defense attorney who makes a living defending scumbags.  He drives around, chauffered, in a big black Lincoln Continental (an impressive "bad-a car" if there ever was one), keeping tabs on his clients, picking up new ones and collecting his fees.  Indeed, like archetypical scumbag defense lawyer Bill Flynn from the musical Chicago (Flynn played perfectly in _that_ movie by Richard Gere), Mick’s only criterion in taking up a case is whether or not the client can pay. Indeed, we’re told early in this story that Mick’s only fear is of one day getting a client who really is innocent...

Many in the police hate him, of course, for defending scumbags who deserve to be in jail. But Mick does not care. He tells one officer that he sees his job as making sure that the police _do their jobs_ and don’t over-reach.

Early in the movie, we are also introduced to Mick’s ex-wife, Maggie MacPhearson (played by Marisa Tomei) who works for Los Angeles District Attorney’s office and who had divorced Mick because was just too strange for her to be working to put scumbags in jail while her husband was working to keep them out. The two have a young daughter that they both love and seek to protect from the dangers/consequences of their work. Theirs is an interesting modern situation and calls to mind that many people today work in professions that if they were honest about it are not particularly conducive to marriage and family...

A new case comes up involving a Louis Roulet (played by Ryan Phillipe) a rich 20-something who helps his mother in the upscale real estate business of Beverley Hills and Malibu. Louis is accused of viciously beating-up a young woman he met in an trendy Los Angeles club. He claims to have been set-up by a gold-digger seeking to sue him later for his money. He’s not exactly Mick’s typical client, but Louis personally asked for him and the family is more than willing to pay. Mick has his private investigator, Frank Levin (played by William H. Macy), check into the story...

Much happens. As in the case of other reviews I’ve written and posted on my blog, I’ll leave it the readers to check out the movie and make their own judgement as to whether the movie was satisfactory (or even if it made sense).

I will say that I found the movie _well crafted_ and _well acted_.  And yes, inanimate, devoid of any "special powers" as it was, _the car_ was a _worthy_ "supporting character."   And as far as I could discern, the movie’s various twists and turns "added up" nicely by the end. So I found this story to be a very good "crime drama" of the vein I described above.

Was The Lincoln Lawyer a great film? Probably not, but movies like this don’t aspire to greatness. Did it hold its own? Certainly.  Does it tell a great, well crafted, story?  Ditto.

Any concerns about viewership? I probably wouldn’t see much value in very, very young kids seeing the movie. But regarding others, I do believe that this movie is "as American as (a crusty :-) apple pie."


<< 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! :-) >>

Jane Eyre

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229822/
CNS/USCCB review -
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110316/REVIEWS/110319990

I confess that I’ve always loved the story of Jane Eyre first published as a victorian novel by Charlotte Brontë in 1847. I’ve seen three of the film versions of the story – the 1944 version written by John Houseman and Aldrous Huxley with Orson Welles playing Mr. Rochester, the 1996 version by directed by Franco Zeffirelli and featuring William Hurt in the role of Mr Rochester and now the current 2011 version, screen play by Moira Buffini, directed by Cary Fukunaga and featuring Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre. Each version had its different take on the story while following its basic outlines.

That there would be 15 screen adaptations of Jane Eyre made around the world testifies to its enduring power. Indeed, it would be interesting to compare Jane Eyre with Victor Hugo’s novel Les Miserables (first published in 1862 or 15 years after Jane Eyre) because thematically the two tread similar ground and both stories have spawned a cottage industry of film and theatrical productions by every generation since the stories’ first publication (There have also been over 50 screen adaptations of Les Miserables made around the world since the novel’s publication).

What makes Jane Eyre work? It’s obviously the story. Jane Eyre, an orphan, first cared for by an unloving aunt, is sent a girls’ "boarding school from hell", where the school master publically orders her to be "shunned" for disobedience and her only friend dies in her arms of typhus. After completing such schooling, she takes a job as a governess at the home of Mr Rochester.  Despite treating her initially with distance (which could be interpreted as disdain) because of both her gender and her lower rank, Rochester gradually warms up to her and falls in love with her. It does not work-out however. (Those who’ve read the book or seen other screen versions of the story will know why.  Those who don't, read the book or see the movie). She leaves the Rochester mansion and is helped by the family of a clergyman who sets her up as a teacher in a local charity school. The clergyman himself falls in love with her but she doesn’t fall in love with him. He does not understand why. She then seeks to return back to the Rochester household...

Remarkable about Jane is that despite her age, rank (social class) and gender, Jane always holds her own. Throughout her life, everybody initially underestimates her but she makes it through life and even achieves happiness without ever resorting to vengeance. As such, she’s a character that is appealing to anyone who hasn’t had it exactly easy in life (not unlike the character of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables) and offers hope that the beatitudes "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (Mt 5:5) and "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy" (Mt 5:7) are indeed true.

Every new version has its own take on the story. The current film version by written by Moira Buffini and directed by Cary Fukunaga tends to underline the more the feminist / gender relations aspects of the story than previous versions. Notable here is simply that the principal star of this version is Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre rather than the actor (in this case Michael Fassbender) as Rochester.

Indeed this is the second movie in a year in which Mia Wasikowska has played the lead role in a beloved woman centered story from the 19^th century. Last year, she played the lead in a updated / re-imagined version of Alice in Wonderland. In both cases, she was excellent and brings to fore the insights and concerns of our time, while remaining true to the character of the past. It will be interesting to see what Wasikowska will able to achieve in the future as her career proceeds.

I’d recommend this movie to everyone teenage and above, especially to families with teenage daughters. It’s a lovely story of both hardship and hard-won redemption but with "malice toward none."  In short, it offers a great example to young people about how to face "the tough times" with kindness and grace.


<< 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! :-) >>