Why Stop Now? [2012]

MPAA (UR) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1853643/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120815/REVIEWS/120819988

Why Stop Now? (written and directed by Phil Dorling and Ron Nyswaner) is a well-crafted "indie" film about a young struggling classical musician named Eli (played by Jesse Eisenberg) who's had a really bad day.  Eli's mentor had gotten him a big break, a chance at an audition for a top of the line music conservatory in Boston.  But Eli comes to the audition late and with one of his hands (!) in a bandage.  His mentor asks: "What happened?"  "Well if you've had the day that I've had, you'd understand ..."  The rest of the movie follows.

Eli begins his explanation "Actually my day began the night before.  A rich jerk down the street was throwing a party and I, of course, wasn't invited.  And so I, of course, had to show-up anyway..."  Eli crashed the party, had gotten really drunk, and just as the host was going to throw him out, Eli spotted a piano.  He forced himself to it, sat himself down, played enough bars to impress everyone there, and then stopped and threw-up right next to it.  That of course got him now definitively thrown out of the place and probably more roughed up than he would have been if he had just left the party quietly ...

The next morning, clearly hung-over from the night before, he had to face the tasks of the new day.  He had, of course, the audition sometime in the late morning/early afternoon.  But before that, he had to get his mother Penny (played by Melissa Leo) finally to rehab.  Of course, she didn't particularly want to go, saying, of course "My problem isn't _that bad_, etc."  But even before that, he had to take his little sister Nicole "Coli" (played by Emma Rayne Lyle) to school.  By now you could imagine that Coli would have come to have some "issues" of her own.  And, of course she does: she's made a hand puppet out of a sock (actually put a face on it and all that...) and through this hand puppet friend who she calls "Diego" (I believe), she's been able to vent a lot of anger at the world.  Basically she's been (err.  "Diego's been"...) telling teachers and other school kids to "go to hell" and so forth.  So when Eli and ma (going to rehab ...) come to drop Coli at school, there's her teacher waiting for them, waiting to talk to her ma' (and Eli if ma's really going to go to rehab...) to tell her/them that, well, Coli's "got problems" that need to be dealt with ... Eli tells teacher that well "we know..." but that he has to take ma' to rehab first ... (Folks, if you've ever thought that your life's been a mess ...)

So Coli's been dropped off at school and now Eli and ma' are standing in front the rehab center.  Will ma' actually go in?  Well after some further persuading, she does ... and about 20 minutes later she's steps out again.  WHY????? Well, she hasn't actually used drugs in 4-5 days and so her urine tested clean!  The attending official told her that without dirty urine (and no insurance on her part) he can't let her in.  But he (seriously ... ;-) suggested to her that she "go get some drugs, get high, and come back then with the needed ditry urine" and THEN he could admit her...

It is here where the movie really begins.  Along the course of the rest of the film, we get to meet Ma's drug connections, two brothers nicknamed Sprinkles (played by Tracy Morgan) and Black (played by Isiah Whitlock, Jr) as well as their supplier Eduardo (played by Paul Calderon).  Very much ensues ...

Why Stop Now? proves to be a very funny, well crafted comedy about someone's epicly "bad day."  I also think that Jesse Eisenberg proves here that he may be the true successor to Woody Allen's nerdy on-stage persona.  And Melissa Leo certainly proves again (as she did in The Fighter [2010]) that she can really play some difficult/challenging moms.  Again, if you've ever thought you had it rough ... ;-)

ADDENDUM:

Like many independent films, while "in theaters in major markets," this film is available through the IFC Video On Demand service (type in your zipcode and cable provider to see if this service as available to you) as well as for download (for $6.99) via the Sundance Now service.  Eventually, these films become available for rent in the U.S. via NetFlix or Blockbuster.com.


<< 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 Expendables 2 [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  Roger Moore (1 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1764651/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv093.htm
Roger Moore's review -
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-16/entertainment/sc-mov-0814-expendables-2-20120816_1_expendables-2-meep-jean-vilain

Let me begin by saying that Expendables 2 (directed by Simon West, screenplay by Richard Wenk and Silvester Stalone) is clearly not going to be up for any Academy Awards come winter this year.  There are entire sections of the film that feel like a "1st person shooter" video game (PARENTS DO TAKE NOTE) rightly earning the film a relatively hard-R for violence in the film universe and _definitely_ an M in the video game one.

That said, there is both enough humor and "sappy" trademark Stalone-esque "Rocky style" melodrama in the film, that I'm not at all surprised that it made the top spot in the box office on its opening weekend.  Like many Silvester Stalone products, the editing is _superb_, the pacing keeps one from getting bored, and yes, both the often self-deprecating humor and the doses of sappiness, argh! WORK!  Yes, THESE "Dogs of War" have a heart. It's Blackwater, Inc wrapped in a "Have a Nice Day" Smiley-Face.

Seriously Silvester Stalone, Bruce Willis, Ahhrnald Schwarzenegger and to a lesser extent Jean-Claude Van Damme and Chuck Norris (all in this movie) all know this game and give still relative newbies/wannabes like Jason Statham and possibly Jet Li (both also in the film) lessons on how to become truly transcendent "tough guy" superstars. 

Still, in my line of work (as a Catholic priest) I do have to say that in my assignments in both Florida and in Chicago, I have met real life "tough guys" (some even who have even done or I'd suspect have done some intelligence work before) who fit the "tough guy" but still "loveable" model.  So Stalone and Schwarzenegger (both Catholics incidently), et al, are, in fact, onto something.

Yes, someone like me has to regret the blood in these films/video-games.  And the Church has long sought to find ways to divert, dilute, (and more problematically, occasionally sought to utilize) the bloodlust apparent at times in society. Arguably Pope Urban II's call for the First Crusade was to divert the Christian Knights' propensity to fight and kill each other to a "worthier goal" of winning back Jerusalem and the Holy Land.  I also wonder if the Dungeons and Dragons fantasy role playing game had existed in the time of Richard Wagner fanatic Adolf Hitler's youth, if Hitler and his inner circle Nazi friends, would have been content enough to "form a party" and be 25+ level "fighters", "clerics" and "magic users" in some fantasy world inhabiting the Internet rather than seek to conquer the actual world ...

Yes, I understand that at times this film _is_ appalling.  There's even a scene, when, the group finds itself somewhere in Russia (and combating some really evil, bent on stealing plutonium, sort of guys), Jason Statham's character disguises himself as an Eastern Orthodox priest and then kills a bunch of them using, among other things, the Orthodox priest's ever present incensor ;-).  And I think then of the similarly violent but also clearly stylized sci-fi-fantasy film called Priest [2011] which was based on a South Korean comic book series where an Order of Catholic-looking Priests (Next to the Philippines, South Korea is probably the most Christian/Catholic nation in East Asia with Vietnam following relatively closely afterwards) used martial arts to vanquish a race of humanity threatening vampires.

All this is to say that this film is clearly not for everybody and yes, it is bloody.  But yes, with the twinkle in Stalone's, Willis', Schwarzenegger's, et al's, eyes, I don't think that anybody would really take the film seriously even as it does take-up issues of relatively serious concern -- internationalized mafia networks and nuclear weapons trafficking.

So "Fan boys of the world unite!  You have nothing to lose but a few hours (until you'll probably buy the game, after which you'll probably lose a lot more)."  And it doesn't surprise me at all that when I checked a couple of my favorite movie sites that I've found since starting my blog, that this film has been a hit among the young in Ireland [2] and Russia [Eng-Trans] and for the same reasons as it has been popular here in the States.  It entertains (and yet remains, _thankfully_, fake ;-).


<< 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! :-) >>

ParaNorman [2012]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB ()  Michael Phillips (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1623288/
Michael Philkips' review -
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-16/entertainment/sc-mov-0814-paranorman-20120816_1_paranorman-george-pal-puppetoons-movies

ParaNorman (written and codirected by Chris Butler along with Sam Fell), since it is a movie in a sense about witchcraft, is one that many Catholic and otherwise Christian parents will probably not particularly like.

Yet, Catholics and other Christians did burn heretics and then specifically women accused of witchcraft at the stake throughout Europe during the Middle Ages and up until the time of the Enlightenment.  Further, this practice extended to the early settlers of the English colonies that eventually made-up the United States through the (if we are honest, the "Taliban-like") Protestant sect called the Puritans.  The Salem Witch Trials in the Massachusetts colony are a matter of historical record as are various atrocities committed by Catholic/Christian fanatics across the ages.  Indeed, the Muslims were as appalled at the behavior of Christian Crusaders like Richard the Lionhearted a millenium ago as Westerners (Christians and non) today have been rightly appalled by Muslim fanatics like Al-Queda founder Osama Bin Laden.  (Then ask a Serb Orthodox Christian about what he/she thinks of the (generally Catholic) Crusaders, and you'll _still_ get an earful ...).

So a movie like this, intended for children, does give everyone, including Christian/Catholic parents, a chance to reflect on: (1) what happened? and (2) what do we want to preserve of the Christian message?  The Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus ought to be a message of hope: "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 8:38-39).  This "Good News" ought never to become an excuse to hate one or another or even a large number of groups that are declared to be in some way (and they're _always_ cast as being in some "important way") "different" from us.

Catholics in particular, since they belong to a Church that sees its mission to be UNIVERSAL (hence big enough for all) ought to be (and, again if one is honest, actually _generally_ have been...) very careful in drawing boundaries that would out-of-hand exclude entire groups of people from communion with it.

Indeed, Catholics/Christians have the Christmas tree today because St. Augustine of Canterbury, when coming to Christianize the pagan (and by reputation even _cannibalistic_) Anglo-Saxon "savages" in Southern England decided that ultimately there's nothing wrong with the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) practice of bringing evergreens into their homes in the winter.  The Bible, after all, is full of references to trees.  Why not just "baptize" the symbol and be done with it, rather than _choose_ to condemn the practice as some sort of "nature sorcery?"  Throughout the history of the Catholic Church/Christianity, similar accommodations to local culture/sensitivities have been made to the obvious enrichment of the whole).

The Second Vatican Council's declaration Nostra Aetate declared that the Catholic Church "rejects nothing that is true and holy in other religions." [NA#2].  If then for its past sins, the Church has to "eat crow" for a while, well that's something that average Christian / Catholic experiences in his/her day-to-day life _anyway_ when one realizes that one has failed or otherwise sinned against someone in the past and embarks then on a path toward restitution and reconciliation with the hurt/offended party.  But this is not the end, and indeed, admitting one's sins actually lifts the burden of continuing to have carry them and offers us an opportunity for New Life.  And how Catholic / Christian is that! ;-) ;-)

So then ... returning to the film.  The film's about a little boy named Norman (voiced by Kodi Smit McPhee) with a gift.  He "sees dead people."  Why?  Well probably because film-makers saw The Sixth Sense [1999], and like a lot of others found the gift of the child in that film (again of "seeing dead people") really, really cool and then useful in the telling of this new story.

Norman also lived in a town somewhere in the American North East, a town that was "celebrating" the 300th anniversary of a "witch trial," in which a young girl was accused of witchcraft.  Prior to her awful death (again witches were _burned at the stake_), the girl had cursed those who condemned her to suffer as a result.  In the film, no one among the townspeople particularly believed the legend.  But the town certainly enjoyed the "tourism business" that the legend brought in ... ;-).

Well it turns out (in the story) that there was something to the legend.  Indeed, Norman's family had actually "kept the peace" in the town over the 300 years since the trial and burning of the poor little girl by each year going to her grave to read her a bed-time story (THE LITTLE POOR GIRL HAD BEEN THAT YOUNG...) and this would cause the ghost of the little girl to sleep for another year without rising to wreak vengeance on the town that had so mistreated her.

The year of the film, however, Norman's uncle, the last one to keep up this tradition was no longer able to fulfill this task (he had died just before the anniversary) and so the town was in danger of finally feeling the little girl's wrath, and on the 300th anniversary of all this having taken place, no less!  Enter Norman ... (a little boy who was also rather misunderstood/picked-on in his time...) ... Much ensues ...

Actually, sounds like a nice story, huh?

And one can't help but feel sorry for the little girl who was named Agatha (voiced by Jodelle Ferland): "They used to call me Aggie" she tells Norman.  (And whether the film makers realized it or not, Agatha is actually the name of an early Christian Martyr, St. Agatha, who had been horribly tortured and ultimately murdered for refusing to renounce her Christian faith when Christians were being tortured and killed for holding onto a "new" and "subversive religion.")

So parents, this is a complicated story.  I would understand why a lot of Christian / Catholic parents would not necessarily like it.  However there's a lot to this story that is very nice and it does invite us all to reflect on (and teach our kids) what is actually essential to our faith.  And hopefully hate isn't part of 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! :-) >>

Sparkle [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

Sparkle [2012] (directed by Salim Akil, screenplay by Mara Brock Akil [IMDb] based on the story by Howard Rosenman and is a remake of the 1976 original by the same name).  The story was inspired at least in part on the beginnings of the 1960s Motown girl group, The Supremes.  The current version will probably be remembered for a number of things: (1) as the debut film for 2007 (season 6) American Idol contest winner Jordin Sparks [IMDb] (who plays the title role of Sparkle in the film), (2) another triumph for the African-American husband and wife film-making team Salim and Mara Brock Akil (even if due to the popularity of the 1976 original film in the African American community posed risks for them), and perhaps above all (3) the "swansong" for superstar but increasingly troubled Whitney Houston [IMDb] (who played Sparkle's and her two sisters' mother in the film).  Houston was found dead in her hotel room sometime after the shooting of the film apparently the result of an accident following the her use of cocaine.  Since the dangers of drug use in the context of celebrity was very much part of the story in this film (and Houston herself was playing a character who was trying to impress on her three daughters exactly those dangers that she (the character) had experienced first hand in her own life: "Is not my life enough of a cautionary tale for you girls?" she tells the girls at one point), Houston's [IMDb] death following the making of this film perhaps is even more poignant/tragic.

The film itself is set in Detroit in the 1960s.  It's about three young adult sisters -- the oldest named Sister (played by Carmen Ejogo) who's certainly the most driven/outgoing and the one who one would guess "shows the most promise," Sparkle (played by Jordin Sparks [IMDb]) who's much shier than her older sister but is a smiling and sympathetic songwriter, and Dolores (played by Tika Sumpter) who loves her sisters, will go along with them, but is the one who probably listened to her mother the most and thus (to her mother's relief) has other _more sensible plans_ with her life, plans that _don't_ involve "fame, bar halls and lights." (Honestly, _from a parent's perspective_ SO LONG AS THE CHILD PROVES HAPPY, having a "Dolores" among one's children IS A BLESSING.  Indeed, over the years, I've told not a few couples preparing for marriage that the ideal number of kids to have would probably be about 4-5.  That way one kid could die, another could end up in jail a third or fourth could really end up "going his/her own way" but there'd be _a pretty good chance_ that at least one kid would end up being what "one hoped that at least one kid would end-up being."  Otherwise there'd be an enormous pressure for the 1-2 kids to end up fulfilling all (or at least _some_) of the parents' hopes.  And that could be a lot of pressure on an only child or only son/daughter.  Yet the converse is also sad ... the unfulfilled aspirations of the parents for at least one of their kids).

Very well ... the film starts with two of the sisters -- Sister and Sparkle -- having sneaked out of the house to sing at a club, proving to be rather good, so good in fact, that a young man, Styx (played by Darek Luke) would like to manage them.  But how to explain this to mom?

The rest of the film with much good music and many rather simple but basically true life lessons ensues ...

Parents, the film is properly rated PG-13.  Some of the themes of drugs, domestic violence, etc, making poor choices (and the consequences of poor choices effecting the people you love) would really be too much for little kids, but it'd be a good film for teens (perhaps even with one's parents) to see.  All in all "a good discussion piece" for families with kids of high school and approaching high school graduation age.


<< 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 Odd Life of Timothy Green [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462769/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv092.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120814/REVIEWS/120819995

The Odd Life of Timothy Green (screenplay and directed by Peter Hedges, story by Ahmet Zappa [IMDb]) is a gentle family-friendly story about a couple, Jim and Cindy Green (played by Joel Edgerton and Jennifer Garner respectively), who are trying have a family.

The film begins with them being interviewed at an adoption agency and the interviewer wondering why in the space normally reserved for an extended response answering the question "Why do you think you would be good parents?" the two had simply written "Tim Green."  They answer, "Because the story's so complicated that you'd simply need to hear us out."  The interviewer gives them some leeway ... and the rest of the story continues from there ;-).

Basically, the couple who was living in a small town somewhere in the mountains (I'm guessing in either New England or the American Pacific Northwest) had tried for years to have a child.  After finally being told definitively by their doctor that "no" they'll never be able to have biological children of their own, to cope with their grief, the two decide write down on little pieces of note paper the characteristics of the "child of their dreams."  When they collected a sufficient number of such "hopes" they had for such a child (which included that he'd "never give up", "be honest (to a fault)," have his mother's artistic ability, that "he'd rock!", and at least once in his life, he'd "score the winning goal" in a game, etc) they collected the pieces of paper that they wrote those ideas on, put them in a box and buried it in their garden ... and ... went to sleep.

Well, there was a storm that night.  Waking-up in the middle of the night, they find to their surprise a little boy named Tim all covered with mud with a small number of leaves growing out of his feet.  And he calls them "mom" and "dad" ... Yes, parents probably more than your kids ... you'll struggle with holding back tears at times.

Well much ensues.  It's late summer when the story begins and the leaves on his legs "play a role" (actually a number of roles).  But that's all that I'm gonna say... ;-) 

It's just a lovely, lovely, lovely story about a couple that's really wanted to become parents ... and a kid that came to them quite literally "out of the cabbage patch."  Great, great job folks!  Great, great job! ;-)


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

Killer Joe [2012]

MPAA (NC-17)  Roger Ebert (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (0 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Killer Joe (directed by William Friedkin, screenplay by Tracy Letts based on his play by the same name) is the first movie that I walked out of since I began my movie blog (nearly 2 years ago) and one of only a handful of movies that I've walked out of (or simply shut-off) in my entire life.  The other film that I remember that I also simply had to shut-off at a particular point was the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre [1974] .

I'm not sure about the intent of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre [1974], which may have simply sought to produce a super-realistic film about a mass murdering family, but I'm more or less positive that a good part of the intent of the makers of Killer Joe was to ask viewers how many minutes it would take before they realized that they (the viewers) were being made fun of.  It took me about thirty minutes...

To go any further in watching the film would have required me, the viewer, to participate in the (okay "simulated") rape of a 12 year old.   And yes, folks, we have a right to turn off a tape or walk out of the theater.  We may lose the money (arguably the film makers earned it...).  But there is absolutely nothing other than "pride" or "social control" that would prevent us from saying to ourselves: "Okay, I get it.  The film-maker got me here, but you know what ... I'm done."

Why am I saying that to go more than 30 minutes into this film would have required participating in the ("simulated") rape of a 12 year old?  Because it's filmed that way ...

The set-up of the story is this: A family of "Hick" losers (from "Texas...") decides to hire a hitman named Killer Joe Cooper (played by Texas native Matthew McConaughey) to kill their mother/ex-wife "for the insurance money."  Because, of course, "they're so stupid" that they don't have the money to pay "Killer Joe" upfront, they offer their sister/daughter Dotty (played by Juno Temple) as "collateral."

Well, good ole Joe wants "a date" with Dotty.  And that's when the scene about 30 minutes into the film plays out: Joe comes "over for dinner."  The rest of the family has made excuses so only Dotty's there, who's cooked a "nice tuna casserole" for what she had expected to be a dinner for the whole family.  But again, the "rest of the family's" made excuses and is gone.  So it's just Dotty (who doesn't exactly know that she's been "given" to Joe as "down payment" on the "job" that he's been hired to do).  Joe then asks Dotty to change clothes into the dress that he heard the family had bought for her for that evening.

NOW AS A "GENTLEMAN" _JOE_ actually "turns his eyes away" as she "changes clothes."  HOWEVER, THE AUDIENCE "gets to see everything," watching her get out of her clothes, put on the dress, while Joe, a _police detective_ in his "day job," facing "the other direction" empties his pockets, putting among other things a set of handcuffs on a table..

While she's taking her clothes off (completely, I should add..., and then putting on the dress) Joe makes "small talk."  Among other things, he asks, when she's completely naked (again, _he's_ facing away, while the viewers are seeing everything): "By the way, how old are you?"  This is when, though it wasn't completely clear before (even if there were "indications") she answers: "Twelve..."

She puts the dress on.  He turns around (to face her).  We see him walk over to her, around to the back of her, leans her over against the table ... with both of them now facing the camera so that _he_ was not going to see her anguish as he raped her (but presumably the audience would ...).  I can't tell you what happened afterward, because "twelve" was my breaking point, and I was at the door when he leaned her against the table ... And at this point I was out the door and gone.

As a result of the way the above scene was filmed, the audience (the viewers) was/were actually being asked to participate in the ("simulated") rape of a twelve year old.  AND ARGUABLY THE AUDIENCE WAS EVEN MORE GUILTY THAN JOE.  This is because Joe, in fact, had "turned his eyes away" when she was changing and by presumably "taking her from behind" would not see her anguish, WHILE THE AUDIENCE GOT TO SEE "EVERYTHING."  This then, was the "price of admission" for seeing the rest of the film ...which by my guess probably continued down this exact path, challenging the viewer with the question: "When are you finally going to realize that WE THE FILM-MAKERS ARE MAKING FUN OF YOU?"

And even as I was feeling _somewhat_ "good about myself" for "having had the sense to step out" of the film when I did, I realized that this was the whole point of the story:  "You idiot, (Fr!) Dennis, you went to see an NC-17 rated movie, yes supposedly rated that way 'primarily for the violence' about a 'STUPID/EVIL HICK FAMILY' that was going to kill their mother/ex-wife 'for the insurance money' AND NOW YOU'RE UPSET THAT THE FILM WAS ASKING _YOU_ TO PARTICIPATE (much more than you'd like) IN THAT EVIL?

"Isn't the FIRST EVIL here your own 'buying-into' the assumption that 'Hicks' are so 'stupid/evil' to want to kill their mother/ex-wife 'for insurance money' to begin with?  And if you _choose_ to think so poorly of 'country folk,' heck we'll show ya EVIL but we're gonna ask YOU then to _participate_ in it.  And (presumably...) we're gonna _keep pushing you_ until you finally realize what kind of an idiot you are."

So honestly, Killer Joe makes for an utterly unwatchable film, but it made some very interesting 30 minutes.  And yes, I think I "got it."  Thank you.

And folks, once more.  If you find yourselves in a situation where you've obviously been tricked and are being asked to go down a path to further Evil/degradation, you ALWAYS have the right/opportunity to get up and leave.  We all make mistakes, but we don't have to despair or resign ourselves to continuing on a path to things that are even worse ...


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

Searching for Sugar Man [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125608/

Searching for Sugar Man (directed by Malik Bendjelloul) is the 3rd or 4th remarkable recently released documentary that has passed through Chicago in the last couple of weeks.  This film is about the search for an apparently "washed-up" musician from Detroit in the late 1960's / early 1970s who went by the name of Rodriguez.  After releasing two albums on the Motown label, this artist who all the record producers who had worked with him believed had enormous talent/potential as "the Bob Dylan of Detroit," this painfully shy musician (in live performances, he'd play with his back to the people so that they experienced of him was his guitar and his lyrics) simply disappeared back into obscurity.  As one of the voices in the documentary says "such is the music business..."

HOWEVER, one of his albums made it to South Africa.  By legend, a young woman visiting her boyfriend had brought it there.  South Africa, then under apartheid, was very much isolated from the rest of the world.  His music and lyrics struck a chord.  Soon tapes of both his albums were being distributed among the young white Afrikaner community.  He became so popular that both his albums were eventually released (with some of the tracks scratched out by the Apartheid regime's censorship authorities) with enormous popular acclaim (over there).

Indeed, Rodriguez is credited by one South African musician as having inspired an entire generation of Afrikaner (Dylan, err Rodriguez style) folk singers to the point that this South African musician noted that "in South Africa in the 1970s, there'd be three albums that you'd find in every young Afrikaner's record collection: The Beatles' Abbey Road, Simon and Garfunkel's Bridge over Troubled Waters, and Rodriguez' Cold Fact.  He was that important."

But what happened to him?  That's what the rest of the movie is about, and I assure you, it's a remarkable story.  Further, I would say that MANY older American Hispanics, those who'd be in their 20s-30s "back in the mid 60s-early 70s" would REALLY like this movie.  I honestly think that you'd "get him" and would be (or become) very proud him.  It's a truly remarkable 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! :-) >>

Celeste and Jesse Forever [2012]

MPAA (R)  Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Celeste and Jesse Forever (directed by Lee Toland Krieger, written by Rashida Jones and Will McCormack) is a well-written/crafted/acted film about a young couple in their late 20s/early 30s that's divorcing.  As such, folks, though often funny, this film is not really a comedy, nor (look at its theme...) is it not exactly a "date movie," certainly not a light one.  Still, for a serious couple it's probably worth seeing.

Celeste (played by Rashida Jones) and Jesse (played by Andy Samberg) had been together "forever," certainly all through college (and if I recall correctly, even before).  Yet, sometime before actual story of the film had started, Celeste, a writer and "social trend analyst" had become sufficiently disappointed with Jesse (a commercial artist of sorts) to ask for a divorce.

Perhaps like many couples today, she was definitely "moving (up)" and "knew where she wanted to go," while he was "kinda stagnant" but "happy where he was."  In a telling scene near the beginning of the film, Celeste comes home from work flush from feeling GREAT that her book "Sheitgheist - The Death of American Culture" was about to go the stores, and she finds Jesse in the garage (which the two had previously converted into his studio and where he still lived) sitting on a couch with a beer in his hand watching taped highlights of the "super heavyweight weight lifting competition" from still the 2008 Beijing Olympics (!!) -- Folks it's 2012 and the London Games just took place... -- still doing (for himself) the "German accented sports commentary" that in the past (like around 2008 ...) both Celeste and Jesse probably would have found hilarious.  It's clear that Jesse probably liked things back then and probably hasn't done a lot of "heavy lifting" since then, and Celeste, well ... "has moved on..."

But before beating up Jesse too much, let's underline something key in the film -- Jesse's basically happy (ultimately with or without her...) though he adds to his own problems over the course of the story (but always somehow with a smile), it's Celeste who's the unhappy one.  My hat off to Jones and Mc Cormak who wrote the screenplay.  It's a very interesting insight into many male/female relationships today.

Much, of course, ensues.  The supporting cast -- played by Ary Graynor / Eric Christensen, Elijah Wood / Emma Roberts, Chris Messina / Rebecca Dayan and Will McCormack / Kate Krieger -- is _excellent_.

It makes for a great story ... just, well, kinda sad ... but then look back again at what it's about.  But good job all around!


<< 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! :-) >>

Craigslist Joe [2012]

Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing

I found the remarkable documentary Craigslist Joe (directed by Joseph Garner) by a fluke.  It was listed as playing, one remaining show only, at the Music Box Theater on Chicago's North Side this past Sunday (perhaps it had played on Saturday as well).  Reading the film's plot summary, I immediately saw that I'd be interested in seeing the film, bt the movie was playing at a time that I could not make.  However, googling it, I found that I could rent the film for $5.99 through Amazon's Instant Video Service.  So that's what I did and IMHO it was _well worth_ the effort ;-).

Craigslist Joe is the chronicle of the film's 20-something year-old director Joe Garner's experiment to see if starting with no cash/credit card, no food stock or roof over his head and without any reliance on family or existing friends, he could live an entire month on the products, services and generosity he'd find through the community of world-wide and generally free online classified ads service called Craigslist.   [Note that Craigslist has had its share of controversy in the past because for a number of years its adult and personals pages had become a de facto clearinghouse for prostitution and sex trafficking services.  Yet, I would agree with Joe Garner's premise of the film that Craigslist has always been far more than this.  As Joe points out at the beginning of his film:  "Craigslist has been a place where you could look for a job, get rid of your sofa, and even find friends"].

So armed with simply a smart phone (with a cell number that none of his friends or family knew), a laptop and a cameraman (who he had found, of course, a few days before beginning the project, on Craigslist ;-), Joe began his adventure on a bench on a street corner in Los Angeles one December 1st in the recent past, promising to return to family and friends for New Years!   What an awesome premise!  And, of course, much ensues ...

In the month that follows, he travels from Los Angeles to Portland, OR to Seattle then through Chicago to New York, down to Tallahassee, FL and New Orleans, to San Francisco (where he goes after being invited by Craigslist founder Craig Newmark to come by near the end of his experience to talk to him about it) and finally back down to Los Angeles.  Joe does all this by picking up odd jobs, taking odd rides, and finding people to crash with at various free events that he found, all through Craigslist. 

To Joe Garner's credit, he shows that after a number of close calls over the course of his trip, there was one night near the end when he did end-up on the streets.  There was also one night, in Chicago, no less, when he and his camera man ended-up crashing at the apartment of a woman who, well, "surprises them" ;-).  Still, when they indicate that they were "not into that sort of stuff," she _was fine with it_.  Nevertheless, these episodes help serve as a reminder that this kind of an adventure does carry with it clear dangers.  I would also like to underline for readers here that Joe had the advantage of traveling with a cameraman through his whole journey.  So (1) he wasn't really traveling alone, and (2) the various people who Joe met along the way knew that they weren't simply boarding or picking-up a random person that they met to travel with them but that they were going to be somehow part of this person's film project.  These clarifications/considerations aside, however, Joe Garner's experiment opens-up for _clear headed_ young people the possibility of entering into a "pilgrim" / Depression Era "hobo" / "poustinik" style of adventure that I honestly find both fascinating (!) and also believed was no longer possible.

I invoke the evocative words of "pilgrim" and "poustinik" purposefully because though Joe appears from the film to have probably been Jewish (He does find time to celebrate the closing of the Jewish holiday of Hannukah when he's out in New York, while spending the night of Christmas Eve on Bourbon Street in New Orleans) there's actually an ancient Christian tradition of pilgrimage (Diary of Egeria [4th Century AD (!)], Chaucer's Canterbury Tales [14th Century], the Camino de Santiago de Compostela celebrated in the recent film staring Martin Sheen called "The Way" [2011]) or even simple "wandering" (St. Brendan of Ireland, the poustinik tradition of Russia recalled in Catherine De Hueck's book "Poustinia" and the anonymous 19th century Russian spiritual text "The Way of the Pilgrim").  In all these texts and journeys, the journey itself, and often enough, the people "met along the way" were as important as the goal itself.  One should also note here the great Muslim tradition of the Hajj, where _again_ the journey to Mecca is considered to be easily as important as reaching Mecca itself.

Indeed, it was fascinating for me to note that the people who Joe meets during his one month of travels were almost always "at the margins of society" -- hippies, New Agers, an IRAQI immigrant who family puts him up one night in Seattle, a 30-something year-old African American woman who gives him a place to stay one night when he nearly ended up on the streets in New York (and in the snow) and yes there's that "woman of questionable repute" who puts him and the cameraman up in Chicago ;-).

Yet, that woman becomes actually very interesting to remember because one recalls in the Biblical tradition that it was  "Rahab the Harlot" who is remembered in the Book of Joshua (Josh 2:1-7) as having been the one who gave hospitality to the Israelite spies when they were checking-out Jericho prior to the Israelites' siege to it.  Later only she and her whole family were spared by the Israelites when they eventually sacked the city (Josh 6:17-25).  Later in Jesus' geneology (Matt 1:1-17), Rahab appears as one of the only four women named in the geneology (Matt 1:5), named because she along with the other three women who appear in the course of the geneology turned out to be KEY in the eventual arrival/incarnation of Jesus.  During the course of his own ministry, Jesus _repeatedly_ accepted the hospitality of all, and often enough from people, both men [Zaccheus (Lk 19:1-10) and Matthew (Mt 9:9-13)] and women [(Mk 14:3-9), (John 4: 4-42), et al], again "of questionable repute."  Finally, in the New Testament, in the Letter to/of the Hebrews, there's the admonition: "Do not neglect hospitality, for through it some have unknowingly entertained angels" (Heb 13:2). 

It is clear that Joe himself (as well as his parents, as he recalls his experience to them and his friends at the New Years' Party at the end of the film) becomes aware of the unexpected spiritual significance of his experience.  I'm positive that many of the readers of this blog and subsequent viewers of the film will come to see this as well.

All in all folks, especially young adults, if you find yourselves inspired by this film to try something similar, PLEASE ENTER WITH YOUR EYES OPEN and understand the obvious risks that are involved.  You DON'T have to accept the hospitality of everyone.

Nevertheless, Joe's "experiment" here seems to indicate _to me_ that entering into this kind of "wandering," "depending on God/the kindness of strangers" experience _is possible_ today.  And is that a wonderful thing!  THANK YOU JOE and you did a _wonderful_ 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! :-) >>

Richard's Wedding [2012]

MPAA (UR)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing

Richard's Wedding (written, directed and costarring Turkish-American director Unur Tukel) is an small, generally irreverent, young adult oriented "indie" production about, well, a wedding.

The film begins with Alex (played by Jennifer Prediger) and Tuna (played by Unur Tukel) running into each other "on the El" as they are both heading to their friends' Richard (played by Lawrence Michael Levine) and Phoebe's (played by Josephine Decker) wedding.  As they talk, it becomes clear that both are somewhat skeptical of whether Richard and Phoebe's marriage is going to work and Tuna at least is really worried about the prospect of meeting old friends that he hasn't seen in some time.

Tuna, an unemployed writer, is particularly worried about how he's going to deal with Richard's up-to-then best-friend / room-mate, the somewhat successful, somewhat right-wing and certainly blowhard Russell (played by Darrill Rosen).  Then there's perpetual basket-case and terrible photographer Amy (played by Heddy Lahmann) who, of course, was invited to by Richard to take pictures of the affair and everybody knows that it would just crush her if they honest and told her that she's just plain terrible as a photog.  There's also Tuna's ex-girlfriend Kristen (played by Oona Mekas), who's gonna be there, who even though he was unemployed when they had dated, he had cheated on... Yup, it was not going to be a pretty afternoon for Tuna.  In contrast, Alex feeling herself in a positive relationship with "Daryl" even though he's inexplicably not joining her in going to the wedding feels just fine ... Obviously much ensues...

Now part of what ensues is from my perspective (as a Catholic Priest) rather irritating:  It turns out that Richard is a rather adamant atheist and Phoebe's a somewhat vague but at least _when it comes to her wedding_ Christian.  So they give conflicting instructions to the Minister who comes to officiate at their wedding that they're holding in some random corner of a park in New York.  He doesn't want the Minister to mention God at all in the ceremony (why then call a minister at all then?)  She makes it a point of telling him that "it's OKAY" to mention God (PLEASE).  The Minister, a weak if kind soul with more or less clear struggles in his life tries really hard to find a way to oblige both.  (Note to young Catholics reading this blog: This is why we have a 6 month marriage preparation process and except in truly exceptional circumstances insist on marrying couples in a Church, so that these questions get talked about and resolved _long before_ the wedding day.  And yes, if it becomes clear that the couple really does not want to get married in the Church, we do respect their wishes and _don't_ marry them.  In the Catholic Church, after all, getting married is understood to be an adult decision to be approached in a serious / adult manner.  And yes, the Catholic Church does have standards).

This aside, I did find the dialogue in the film to be quite good and I do sympathize with young people today.

But I will certainly stand by the view that it is far easier to go through life with God in it than to go through life without God.  None of us know what we will come face in life and having God present in our lives when life is not going particularly well can be a great, great support.


ADDENDUM:

While "in theaters in major markets," many "Independent" / Foreign Films and Documentaries are  available for home viewing in the U.S. through the IFC Video On Demand service (type in your zipcode and cable provider to see if this service as available to you) or for download via services like Sundance Now and/or Itunes / Amazon Instant Video.  Eventually, these films become available for rent in the U.S. via NetFlix or Blockbuster.com.   More obscure titles can also be found via Facets Multimedia's DVD Rental Service.


<< 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! :-) >>

Queen of Versailles [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1132362/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120801/REVIEWS/120739997

Queen of Versailles (directed by Lauren Greenfield) is a documentary with a "reality show" feel to it about time-share real estate magnate David Siegel, his "force of nature" wife Jackie and their large (8 kids) family.  "Back in the day" (before the collapse of the real estate market's collapse in 2008) they were on their way to building the largest "family home" in the United States complete with something like 14 bedrooms, countless baths, multiple pools, 2 tennis courts and a bowling alley.  (Hence the reference to Versailles...).

It would be easy to make fun of these people, especially at the beginning of the documentary, which was filmed _before_ the housing market collapse.  Back then David Siegel came across to me as a supremely arrogant man claiming to have "single-handedly" made George W. Bush the president of the United States, saying ON CAMERA that he'd "prefer to not get into exactly how," because (snickering) "what [he] did was probably illegal." (Note to enterprising journalists and/or dare one dream an enterprising district attorney willing to look under a few rocks to see whether there was anything to Siegel's boast there or not.  Siegel is a resident of Florida after all (and back then a very rich and flamboyant one) when Bush was declared the winner of the year 2000 Presidential election after the infamous problems with the vote in that state...).

However, whether or not Siegel ends up serving any time for possibly stealing an election from the rest of the country, "his man," GW Bush, who along with his wife, were shown visiting his/Jackies "smaller home" (half the size of the larger "Versailles" that they were building...) ended up producing Siegel's own downfall: Time-share real estate king that Siegel was, his kingdom collapsed largely collapsed after the financial crisis dried-up the cheap loans on which his business depended.  As soon as people couldn't purchase (or "flip") those time shares that his company was selling, Siegel's own business fortunes dried up as well.

A good part of me smiles, saying "couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy."  Yet, there's something sad about watching a man with a family struggling to pay his bills and keep his home (palatial as Siegel's was...) even if he was a billionaire and had made his fortune, in good part, swindling much poorer people of their money as well.

Siegel's wife Jackie is arguably even more complex.  One _could_ wish to dismiss her as "some kind of ditzy, simpleminded trophy wife" that one could expect to see on a "reality show" style documentary.  But _if one is honest about it_, she's far more complicated/compelling than that: Born in a small town in upstate New York, she was both good looking and driven as a teen / young adult.  As a result, she did really achieve actually quite a bit on her own _before_ meeting Siegel.  She got an engineering degree, worked for IBM as an engineer for some time.  When she found that work _deathly boring_ she went into modeling and competing/succeeding in various beauty contests.  And after she married Siegel, she apparently even won the Mrs America beauty contest one year, before settling down and having her seven kids with him.  Afterwards, she continued to be active in the beauty pageant circuit, as a coach/supporter, etc.  One could initially try to dismiss her, but honestly, she did quite a bit with her life.  And at least on camera, she didn't come across as some sort of a deathly snob.  At the beginning of the film, she was simply up-to-her-eyeballs in money.  Perhaps she could have become someone more like Melinda Gates, wife of Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, that is true.  But Jackie came across in the film as basically "a small town girl" who "really, really made good" (imagine going to _her_ class reuinon ;-) ;-), and yes, with her "billions" (and later simply "hundreds of millions" ... ) she arguably "still shopped at Walmart."

Yes, their house (that thanks to the financial crisis they were unable to complete) was ridiculously extravagant.  But I'd probably focus more of my arrows on her husband than her.

Anyway, Queen of Versailles is not a profound movie.  I didn't and wouldn't necessarily want to pay "full price" to see it.  I'm still not sure I particularly like the family.  The film's definitely of the "reality show" genre.  But, argh!  I can't outright hate it or hate them. ;-)

And there it is ... there's a good part of me that would say that if there EVER WAS "a poster family" deserving of an _extended_ "time share" visit to a Communist Era "re-education camp" then the Siegels would be that family. (I'd love to see David doing some time swinging a pick-axe in some Siberian rock-quarry somewhere.  And there are honestly NOT many people I'd EVER wish that for ...)  But the Siegels do remain "regular folk" too ... Sigh ... ;-)


ADDENDUM:

While "in theaters in major markets," many "Independent" / Foreign Films and Documentaries are  available for home viewing in the U.S. through the IFC Video On Demand service (type in your zipcode and cable provider to see if this service as available to you) or for download via services like Sundance Now and/or Itunes / Amazon Instant Video.  Eventually, these films become available for rent in the U.S. via NetFlix or Blockbuster.com.   More obscure titles can also be found via Facets Multimedia's DVD Rental Service.


<< 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 Campaign [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

The Campaign (directed by Jay Roach, written by Chris Henchy and Shawn Harwell) is without a doubt a very crude film.  As such, the film will be off-putting to a fair amount of viewers, particularly older ones, regardless of political affiliation.

That said, I must say that I share the film-makers' disgust with the current political process in the United States where candidates (and their backers) will say truly almost anything to win.  And I would share to a large extent the film-makers' political view.  I do believe that political money corrupts.

What's my out of this dilemma then?  Honestly, in my daydreams, I've toyed with "revisiting monarchy" because at least then governance would be "left to the King" who we could then ridicule and criticize ... and, yes, I know we'd probably end up in some dungeon ... but we wouldn't be afflicted by the AWFUL political ads that THIS FILM actually so wonderfully, mercilessly, and IMHO _so justly_ lampoons.

What's then is the film about?  Will Farrell plays Cam Brady a four time Democratic congressman from North Carolina recognizably modeled after former presidential and vice-presidential candidate John Edwards.  He's arrogant, morally reckless and not particularly bright, but he runs unopposed.  Why?  Because he knows his District.  He says B.S., says it proudly, with conviction.  But he doesn't do anything, one way or another, to harm his district.  He's basically a mascot, a clown.

He does, however, get himself into trouble by leaving a lengthy over-the-top sexually explicit message on the wrong answering machine (He thinks he's leaving the message on the voice mail box of a campaign worker he had just had <....> with, and instead leaves it on the answering machine of a humble Christian family about to say grace before their meal).  It was an unbelievably stupid mistake.  But then in real life, not a few months ago, Democratic Representative Tony Wiener from New York did something similarly stupid, sending a sexually explicit photograph of himself to a campaign worker, thinking that this would be both somehow "appropriate" and "not get out."  Welcome to the digital age ...

Seeing Cam Brady wounded, the Motch Brothers (played by John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd) modeled after the astro-turf Tea Party financing Koch Brothers see an opening.  They want to turn Cam Brady's 14th Congressional District into basically "China today" by getting wavers to reduce the wage, safety and environmental standards in the 14th District to China levels calling the process "insourcing").

When Cam Brady in a fit of conscience (or stupidity?) refuses to go along with their plan, they decide to put-up a candidate to run against him.  Who?  It doesn't matter to them.  They open their roladex and find an old friend Raymond Huggins (played by Brian Cox).  Raymond's too old and probably too smart to run.  So they decide to go with his nice and somewhat loser son Marty Huggins (played by Zach Galifianakis) instead.  Putting $1 million down in a Super Pac in his name, they figure that they can turn him into whoever they want.  Indeed, they bring in a "fixer" named Tim Wattley (played by Dylan McDermatt) who so completely "makes over' Marty's life that he gets rid of his two little Chinese dogs, replacing them with a "poll tested" Lab and Collie.  Much ensues ...

Most of what ensues has little to do with the people of  "North Carolina's 14th Congressional District."  Cam Brady continues to run on his tried and true slogan of "America, Jesus and Freedom" until he's found to not be able to recite even the Lord's Prayer when challenged by Marty at a debate.

Marty then pushes the "character" issue further by composing a terrible ad featuring him asking Cam Brady's 10 year old son: "Does your father play with you?" The boy answers "no, not really, he's too busy."  Marty continues: "I'll play with you."  "Okay."  "You know you can call me daddy, if you want" "I'm not sure" "Don't worry, if your daddy isn't a real daddy, you call me daddy instead."  "Okay, daddy."  "I'm Marty Huggins, and if your daddy won't step up and be a real dad, I will... and I ever so reluctantly endorse this message..."

Seeing that ad, Cam Brady becomes incensed demanding "He steals my son, I'll sleep with his wife!"  So he does, seducing Marty Huggins' nice, naive and somewhat frumpy wife and puts the resulting pixelated sex tape on YouTube, running perhaps the first political ad with the disclaimer "This Political Ad is intended for Mature Audiences Only ..."

Marty, in turn incensed then comes with a gun to Cam Brady's "hunting photo op" and just shoots Cam in the leg and leaves, not even bothering to make it look like a Dick Cheney-like "hunting accident."  And what happens?  Marty's poll numbers "get a bump of 2-3 points" for shooting his opponent in the leg....

If this all seems appalling, it's because it is.  Yes, the film makers exaggerate.  But honestly not much.  And yes, BOTH candidates eventually catch themselves before completely falling off the cliff.  So there is a "happy ending" of sorts.  But what an ugly mess ... as is, honestly, the political process in the United States today.


<< 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 Bourne Legacy [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194173/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv091.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120808/REVIEWS/120809988

Bourne Legacy (directed and cowritten by Tony Gilroy along with Dan Gilroy based on the Bourne Series of novels inspired by the Bourne trilogy by Robert Ludlum [IMDb]).

To a fair amount of critics and presumably moviegoers, the Bourne series of films really should have ended with the adaptation of the Ludlum's third and final novel in his Bourne trilogy.   In most cases, I'd agree with that assessment.  However in this case, I do actually see a rather compelling (rather than purely financial / profit-making) purpose in continuing the series beyond the three original installments.  This is because as Bourne Legacy rightly points out, the "secret government program" in which the Jason Bourne character had been a member would have been _much bigger_ than simply a single agent named Jason Bourne.  There would have been other agents.

So Bourne Legacy is precisely about "another agent," one whose name is Aaron Cross (played by Jeremy Renner), with similar if ultimately different questions than Bourne.  If Jason Bourne's fundamental quest was trying to figure out who the heck he really was or had become, Cross's questions were "what exactly am I ultimately part of?" and "how many others are there 'like me'?"   So I found Aaron Cross' character easily as compelling as Bourne's was in the first Bourne film, Bourne Identity [2002].  I also do believe that Tony Gilroy had more freedom in exploring the nature and ramifications of the program to which both Jason Bourne and Aaron Cross belonged in making Bourne Legacy than when he was simply making films out of the remaining novels of Ludlum's trilogy.  (I didn't particularly like Bourne Supremacy [2004] or Bourne Ultimatum [2007]).

Here I would add a note of respect for another film that Tony Gilroy had written and directed, Duplicity [2009], which along with the first Bourne film, Bourne Identity [2002], I had found to be probably the most compelling spy story of the past 10 years.  As in Duplicity [2009] (which was actually a semi-serious / semi-comedy about contemporary industrial espionage) so in Bourne Legacy (which gloried in the "compartmentalization" of government sponsored intelligence operations), it would seem to me that Tony Gilroy has as good a knowledge and _intuition_ as anybody today about how contemporary intelligence operations work. 

The compartmentalization of the program to which Jason Bourne and Arron Cross belonged (and its members resulting isolation...) also makes for a relatively simple story to tell.  There were very few characters of consequence present in the current story:  There was Cross, presumably a "field agent" who we meet on a (solitary ...) "endurance training exercise" out in the wilds of Alaska.  There was the program's chief "handler" back at Langley/Washington (played by Edward Norton).  And there was a "biochemist" Dr. Marta Shearing (played by Rachel Weisz), who Cross remembered because he had once been ordered to "come-in" to a lab, presumably somewhere in the Washington D.C. area, where after a physical, she had given him a couple performance enhancing drugs (both physical and mental) to take as part of his regimen from then on.

It was obvious that those drugs had been given to him (and presumably to other agents in the program) to improve his performance (and he seemed to particularly enjoy the intellect enhancing drug that he was given for reasons that are explained in the film).  Yet the larger question of "why" he (and presumably other agents) were being given these drugs wasn't particularly clear (Yes his performance would obviously "improve," but why? why would that be important?)  Yet, he followed the orders, until, of course, it suddenly became clear to him that the program was being "rolled up" (ended) from "far away" (Langley/Washington), for reasons that were, once more, "unclear."  So, of course, much ensues ...


Hence as much as I know that many viewers would wonder "why is there a Bourne movie being made _without_ Jason Bourne?" I honestly think that I "got it."  And I also will maintain that this is probably the best "Bourne movie" since the first one, even if it doesn't have Bourne in it, precisely because it helps present  Bourne's "world" from another (and perhaps larger) perspective.  So give the film a chance.  I think it's far better than one would originally expect it to be.


<< 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: Dog Days [2012]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-I)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2023453/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv087.htm

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days (directed by David Bowers, screenplay by Gabe Sachs along with Maya Forbes and Wallace Wolodarsky based on the children's book series Diary of a Wimpy Kid by Jeff Kinney [IMDb]) is the third installment in the Diary of a Wimpy Kid franchise and IMHO _much_ better (if still racially problematic) than the second installment called Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick's Rules [2011].

Indeed, the previous film began what became a year long preoccupation of mine on this blog regarding the presentation of race in contemporary American children's films.  The almost complete absence of people of color in that second installment had frankly stunned me, especially since nearly half or even _over half_ of the children in the United States today are "of color."

Indeed, the only person of color in "Rodrick's Rules" was that of the "rich Indian kid" named Chirag (played by Karan Barr) who returns (mercifully actually with a much smaller role) in the third film.  In that second film, aside from poor little Chirag (or actually "super rich" Chirag, who actually everyone else in the film was given the permission to _pick-on_.  Honestly how unbelievably appalling that was!!), one could count _on less than one hand_ the number of "people of color" appearing in the film _even as extras_ or _even simply standing somewhere in the background_ in the films shots.  Again, I just found that simply unbelievable.   

This third installment seems to do much better in this regard.  True, the main cast of the series had already been set -- and they were all cast white except for that poor little rich Indian kid.  So not much can be done there.

HOWEVER, the film makers did do two things that help to mitigate the oversight.  (1) In the larger group shots in the film, there almost always some African American extras present.  So the film is no longer "bleached white."  (2) Many times during the course of the film, the film-makers purposefully refer back to the drawings of the children's books in which the "stick figure" drawings in the books are largely drawn in a non-racial sort of way.

Still, I do have to note that the ONLY person of color (except for Chirag) who's given a line to say in the entire third installment is "the receptionist at the country club" to which one of the families in the story belonged.  THAT'S IT, though I suppose _one could say_ that the lack of African American and Hispanic characters of consequence in the story _could_ become an opportunity for film-going families (both "of color" and "white") to discuss with their children why this would be so:  Why would the only African American in the entire picture (and there were no Hispanics at all) be shown as working as the "receptionist" at the "good white people's country club?"

Still, believe it or not, I continue to maintain that this was _better_ than that second installment where no one "of color" except for that poor little rich Indian child had a line or was even present in the picture at all.

And while there were no Hispanics at all even in the third installment, at least part of the plot of the third installment involved the holding of a "sweet sixteen" party for the older sister of one of the characters in the story, which _could_ hint at the Hispanic tradition holding Quinceañera celebrations for Hispanic girls turning 15.  Having presided at something like 4-5 dozen Quinceñera Masses over the years, I would say that since the Hispanic Quinceañera celebrations are so tied-up with both Church and Community (there's a whole "court" of the girl's friends that are called in to participate) the Quinceañera celebrations are generally far nicer, more positive celebrations than the somewhat snobby and certainly "religion free" "sweet sixteen" celebration depicted in this film.  Still at least the presence of the "sweet sixteen" party in the plot of the story could allow Hispanic viewers to think of their own Quinceañera traditions.

Yet I keep trying to say that this third installment is actually better than the second one.  How?  I suppose it's in the interaction between the main characters, the main character / "wimpy kid" George Heffley (played by Zachary Gordon) who'd really just prefer spending his time playing video-games indoors in front of his TV, and his dad Frank (played by Steve Hahn) who'd really like to see him more outdoors, even though he himself wasn't exactly "cool" or particularly athletic when he was young.  There's also George's best friend Rowley Jefferson (played by Robert Capron) and his somewhat snooty parents.  Finally there's George's older and though he thinks that he's so cool, actually quite lame brother Rodrick (played by Devon Bostik) and George's sincere but Sarah Palin-like mother Susan (played by Rachael Harris).  And in this installment, the Heffleys also get a rather entertaining / problematic dog...

It's all quite good / fun actually.  I just honestly wish it didn't all remain so obviously (and needlessly) "white."  It's 2012.  We should honestly be beyond this by now.


<< 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! :-) >>