Once Upon a Time Was I, Veronica (orig. Era uma vez eu, Verônica) [2012]

Unrated (would be R)   Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing 
Adorocinema.com listing: [PT-orig] [ENG-trans]

Once Upon a Time Was I, Veronica (orig. Era uma vez eu, Verônica) [2012] [IMDb] [AC-PT orig.] [Eng-Trans]written and directed by Marcelo Gomez [IMDb] [AC-PT orig] [Eng-Trans] is a Brazilian film that played recently at the 48th Chicago International Film Festival (Oct 11-25, 2012) and could be described as Central Station (orig. Central do Brazil) [1998] meets Gray's Anatomy [2005-] / E.R. [1994-2009].

Recent medical school graduate Verônica (played by Hermila Guedes [IMDb] [AC-PT orig.] [Eng-Trans]) gets a residency assignment at an urban public hospital in her home city somewhere in coastal, north-eastern Brazil.  She lives with her aging father (played by W.J. Solha [IMDb] [AC-PT. orig.] [Eng.-Trans]).  And she also has a lover/boyfriend named Gustavo (played by João Miguel [AC-PT. orig] [Eng.-Trans]) that in truth she's not entirely certain about (and neither is he about her).

The work in the hospital is both challenging and important, hence my references to both the Brazilian film Central Station (orig. Central do Brazil) [1998] and the American television series E.R. [1994-2009] (that was also set in an urban setting in the United States).

However, Verônica is also a young adult trying to make sense out of her life, hence the somewhat "Brazilian Gray's Anatomy [2005-]" feel to the movie, (Gray's Anatomy being an American television series about a group of young medical school graduates).

That being said, someone like me, a Catholic priest from a religious order with a fair number of our priests having worked as chaplains in both Catholic and secular hospitals in the United States, I do have to raise the complaint that both this film and the American teleivion series, Gray's Anatomy [2005-] have presented the lives of recently graduated medical doctors as basically "party time" where the patients actually "kinda get in the way" of their otherwise "dulce vita."

At the end of the film, Verônica buys a house for her and her dad (a point is made that she had already bought a car) and takes a job in a _private hospital_ (where she presumably won't have to deal with that many poor people anymore).  And the film ends with Verônica rolling around with her on-again/off-again boyfriend and their friends at beautiful Brazilian beach somewhere.

That may be "the dream" _both_ in the United States and in Brazil for the past several generations when it comes to "doctors" ... that they simply become very, very rich or otherwise "important."  But that's _not_ what medical doctors used to be.

Medical doctors _used to be_  respected because they _healed people_ at times putting even themselves at risk in doing so.  Today, thanks to the soaps in the United States (and telenovelas in Latin America and elsewhere) medical doctors are generally presented as simply glamorously rich people and working with sick people needing help has become beside the point and even a burden.  

As such, the current film ends rather badly in my opinion.  HOWEVER, this may actually be the intent of the film maker as the title implies that Verônica loses herself.  The title of the film is, after all, "Once Upon a Time Was I, Veronica" (or "Era uma vez eu, Verônica" in the original Portuguese).

In any case, medical doctors, whether American, Brazilian, Egyptian, German, Indian, Japanese, or Russian if they are not taking care of sick people, people who need them then they are not really doing their job.

Finally, I would also note that there is "a fair amount" of nudity in this film.  I do hope that those readers who do see it will understand both my noting it and my rather obvious ambivalence to it, because I think that the nudity in the film was both "beside the point" and/or may actually _accentuate it_: Why does one (or should one) become a medical doctor...? To _help people_ or simply to become rich or otherwise "important"? 


 << 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 ;-) >>

Here Comes the Boom [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Michael Phillips' review

Here Comes the Boom (directed by Frank Coraci, written by Kevin James, Rock Ruben and Allen Loab) is a nice, feel good story about a (fictional) Boston area high school biology teacher, Scott Voss (played by Kevin James) who though initially burnt out and depressed, could not bring himself to give-up on the school, teaching, the kids, others and his own life.

Yes, he was getting older, flabby, _wasn't_ exactly "livin' the dream," and yes he was "tired" at the beginning of the film: When a young, bright eyed Filipino girl named Malia (played by Charice) asked him a question about a discrepancy she had found between what their biology textbook said about something and what she found on the internet, he just responded with some iritation: "Malia, it really doesn't matter.  There's nothing that you're going to learn in this class that you're ever going to apply in your real life."  Saddened / deflated, she just slinks back into her chair ...

But after being first struck by the simple goodness and remaining enthusiasm of an older music teacher, Marty Streb (played marvelously by an older Henry Winkler, who people of my generation remember as the young "Fonz" of Happy Days [1974-1984]), and finding out only a short time later at a faculty meeting that "due to budgetary considerations," the (as Voss) similarly frustrated/discouraged/angry/cynical Principal Betcher (played by Greg Germann) was going to "ax all non-essential extracurricular programs" at the school come next year, including specifically Marty Streb's music program, Voss has had enough.

Typical of Kevin James' roles, Voss initially doesn't have any idea what to do.  But upset at the injustice of seeing perhaps _the only teacher_ on the school's staff left with any enthusiasm about what he was doing facing the budgetary chopping block (and there's really even more to it than that, Marty Streb had told him earlier in the day that in his / his wife's old age -- she was 48, he was simply "old" -- they just found out that they are going to have a baby) Voss was just not going to let this stand.  He tells the Principal "we" (meaning the faculty) will raise the money ourselves (meaning, initially certainly that _he_ was going to raise the money himself)" to save Marty Streb's job/program.  Okay, but how?

Initially,  Voss has no idea.  But as he stumbles along, opportunities open up for him.  He decides on a whim to start teaching a night class again (for immigrants preparing to take their citizenship exam).  It seems like a boneheaded, _completely inadequate_ response to the need to raise $55K before the end of the school year.  (For each class he gets paid something like $75).  BUT one has to start somewhere... In the class, he meets an entire classroom full of adults all, like James, basically simple but hard working/good hearted people trying to eek out a living and, in as much is possible, to "do the right thing."

Among the people he meets is a Slavic or otherwise East European exercise instructor / "trainer" named Niko (played by Bas Rutten).  Niko has a good heart but feeling that he had perhaps more muscles than brains, asks James for more (private) help on preparing for his citizenship exam.  It was an additional, small "gig," but what the heck, why not?

Well when he comes to tutor Niko at his place, he finds that Niko and his friends are there eyes glued to the television set to watch a Mixed Martial Arts match.  The match proves to be a monumental disappointment.  One of the two fighters is pinned/knocked out something like 10 seconds. In disgust, Niko exclaims "and he got 10 grand for that" Voss responds: "For losing??" "Yes!  And the winner got 50K!"  Now for Voss who, flabby as he was now, had wrestled in college _that_ was real money!  And the rest of the movie proceeds from there...

The Principal initially thinks that Voss is an idiot.  But Voss doesn't care.  He tells him, "If I had a better plan I'd take it, but I don't.  This is the best that I can do."  And by subjecting himself to getting beaten up, and yes, progressively improving, Voss slowly becomes an inspiration to the whole school, to everyone, to the faculty including another teacher (or perhaps the school nurse) Bella Flores (played by Salma Hayek) who initially considered Voss to be _perhaps_ a "nice guy" but mainly a "going nowhere loser," to the Principal, to his own brother Eric (played by Gary Valentine) and his brother's family.

Voss even rediscovers his enthusiasm for teaching.  He tells students at one point that even on the cellular level (action and inaction) is contagious: A cell that's progressively becoming more dormant (or dying) puts other cells neighboring it progressively to sleep, while a cell that simply comes to "vibrate" awakens and increases the motabolism of the surrounding cells as well.

It all makes for a pretty good lesson!  And what I particularly liked was Voss' (James character's) willingness _to simply begin_ not with a complete plan, but to simply take the first steps into an unknown ... and then discovering that by simply _willing to try_ "opportunities" open up.  IN MY OWN LIFE, I've found this to be true.  And I would maintain that there is even a theological basis for such optimism/initiative: We're told _repeatedly_ in the Biblical Scriptures to (1) "not be afraid," and (2) to say "Yes" to Life and what it brings us.

So good job Kevin James, et al!  Good job!


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

Argo [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Roger Ebert (4 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024648/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv123.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121010/REVIEWS/121019999

Argo (directed by Ben Affleck, screenplay by Chris Terrio based on an article by Joshuah Bearman) is about the truly remarkable story of how the CIA led by agent Tony Mendez (played by Ben Affleck in the film) was able to get 6 U.S. diplomats who had been taken in by the Canadian Ambassador out of Iran during the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979-81.

Following the 1977 overthrow of the Shah of Iran, who had been reinstalled to the Iranian throne by a coup engineered by the CIA and British intelligence in 1953 after a democratically elected government had moved to seize back Iranian oil concessions to British and American oil interests, the Islamic revolutionary regime was further incensed when in 1979 the U.S. under the Carter Administration had given the deposed Shah _temporary asylum_ in the United States to _undergo cancer treatments_.  The result was the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November, 1979.  During the chaos of the initial hours of the storming of the embassy, six U.S. diplomats who worked in the Consular department of the Embassy (and by luck happened to have access to a direct exit to the street) managed to flee the Embassy compound and take refuge at the Canadian Ambassador's Residence (the Canadian Ambassador played by Victor Garber).   Wonderful, but what now?  To a certain extent, since they were unaccounted for (even though the Iranian regime didn't seem to know about them) they were arguably in bigger danger than the actual hostages who the Iranian regime was holding but was also as a result responsible for.  What now?

Extraction options were minimal.  Back at the State Department in Washington DC and at CIA headquarters at Langley numerous options were considered but none seemed feasible.  What to do?   The idea that the CIA came-up with was to invent buzz about a Canadian film crew looking to see if Iran (of all places) would be a good place to film portions of a (fake) science fiction movie ("exotic desert location, yada, yada, yada...").  Using a contact that the CIA had in Hollywood, a makeup artist named John Chambers (played in the film by John Goodman), Tony Mendez learned what would be needed to put together a credible cover story to make the idea work.  He needed a producer.  John was able to put him in contact with Lester Siegel (played in the film by Alan Arkin).  Then they needed an actual script.  They found and bought one called "Argo."  Then they created an entire "small production company" around the film (well at least an office with a phone in a studio lot somewhere in Burbank, CA).  They then planted a few articles in Hollywood trade magazines like Variety and created a poster as well a storyboard for the key scenes for the film.  They didn't have Tony Mendez (under an assumed Canadian name/passport) go directly to Iran but rather first to Egypt and Istambul and then only "on orders" from Producer Siegel "to simply check on a whim" apply to go to Tehran from Istambul to scout out "possible shooting locations" in Iran.  When Mendez got to Iran (with six other Canadian passports along with six complete fake identities/curricula vitae for the Americans at the Canadian Ambassador's residence) he had only two days to get them out.  It was nerve wracking because they had to pretend to be an actual film crew (despite never having done anything of the sort) in Tehran for that thankfully short period of time.

Obviously it worked and the story of the escape of the six Americans who had been hiding under protection of the Canadians (even though details of this operation remained classified for a very long time) was one of a very few bits of "good news" to have come-up during the whole Iranian hostage ordeal.  Indeed, almost exactly at the same time as these six Americans were able to leave Iran, a larger attempt to rescue all of the hostages failed in spectacular fashion.

U.S. relations with Iran have never really gotten better in the decades since since.  Over the course of the last several years, there has been increasing concern that we may have to go to war with Iran in the near future to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons.  This film does come out at a time when tensions between the United States and Iran have been increasing.

So is this film something of a propaganda piece?  Here I would say that if it is, it is _a very good/effective one_.  I say this because the film both at the beginning at its end seeks to put its story in its proper context.  The 1977 Iranian Revolution didn't come by accident.  It was the result of an Iranian reaction to decades-long U.S. support for the Shah's brutal regime, which was put up by the U.S. and Britain to support U.S./British oil interests.  So the film makes clear the U.S. didn't / doesn't have clean hands either.

Yet over the course of the last 35 years, the Iranian government has needlessly chosen to give itself problems with the United States. This film reminds Americans that we have also been hurt and that we have grievances against Iran too. 

And if it does come to war between the United States and Iran in the coming years, this film will certainly helps to explain, quite soberly, to Americans, why we would have arrived at that point.  So I wonder:  Will this film will be on Ahmadinijad's "Netflix" queue ... it should.


 << 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 ;-) >>  

Sinister [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1922777/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv121.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121010/REVIEWS/121019995

Sinister (written and directed by Scott Derrickson) is a truly disturbing, hard-R movie that's definitely _not_ "for the little ones."  Indeed, I really don't see any particularly reason why an underage teenager should see a film like this except perhaps to "teach him/her a lesson" about the MPAA rating system (that sometimes they really do mean R) along with the advice "you know folks, you _can_ walk out of the film if it proves too much for you...

 About midway through the rather packed showing that I saw, a young couple did pick up and go, and I also packed-up and left before the end as well.   By that time, I honestly saw enough, knew pretty clearly where the film was heading and decided "Ya know I really don't need to see this all the way through..."   I do remind Readers here that there is absolutely nothing (except possibly "social control" ...) that would prevent anyone from doing the same with regards to a film that one's had enough of ...

So what then is the film about?  Ellison Oswalt (played by Ethan Hawke) moves him and his family (played by Juliet Rylance, Michael Hall D'Addario and Clare Foley) into the house where a grizzly multiple hanging (plus the disappearance of a little girl) had occurred some years earlier.  He's a "true crime" writer, having had some success 10 years back with a book called "Kentucky Blood" about some unsolved murders in, well, you can guess by the book's name.  Oswalt had since written a couple of other books, but none of the had the same success as his first.  By taking on this unsolved case (and moving into the house where it occurred) he dearly hopes to recapture some of his past success.

When the family arrives at the otherwise vacant house and begins to move in, he finds in the attic a box with some old super-8 films.  When he plays the tapes, he finds to his horror that they appeared to record a series of very grizzly murders, including the multiple hanging that occurred in the back of this house.  He comes to realize that all these grizzly murders were somehow linked.  Much, often in various shades of darkness, ensues from there ...

While certainly stunning, the grainy Super-8 films evoke a level of horrific realism that I do believe cross a line.  Yes they are "fake" but they are but _one step away_ from real "super 8" snuff films (depicting real murders and the torture of real human beings).  While their effect is certainly _unforgettable_, Readers and Parents especially would probably understand why I would warn them that this film really is a "hard-R" that isn't for the faint hearted and why I honestly question its value other to than really, really, really disturb people and mess with their minds.

Yes, some "true crime" is truly sickening.  Perhaps it even has a truly supernatural basis (which this film certainly suggests).  But honestly, there's no particular reason why one should have to watch it.  Yes, on one hand, this is a truly world class horror film (arguably it makes Scott Derrickson's previous film The Exorcism of Emily Rose [2005] seem like Disney).  On the other hand, to spend $10 on this to try to sit through a film like this at a movie theater?   Honestly, there are a lot of better (less stressful, more enjoyable) films out there to spend those $10 on ...


 << 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 ;-) >>  

Love's Christmas Journey [2011]

Fr Dennis (3 3/4 Stars)

IMDb listing

As a result of my blogging here, I was asked to take a look at / review the Hallmark Channel's Love's Christmas Journey [2011], which is going to be released on DVD on October 30, 2012 along with the release of the Love Comes Softly Tenth Anniversary Collection on the same day.  Both Love's Christmas Journey [2011] and the entire Love Comes Softly series of films are based on the books of Evangelical Christian writer Janette Oke.  Since I've been a life long fan of gentle movies, perhaps because I grew-up on The Waltons (1971-1981) [IMDb] and especially The Little House on the Prairie (1974-1983) [IMDb] television series, fulfilling this request proved to be to be not only "not a problem" but indeed  joy.

Love's Christmas Journey [2011] is a very well done, gentle Christian period piece set in the American West in the late 1800s and made very much in the tradition of the Little House on the Prairie television series.  Viewers of my generation and above will also recognize obvious homages to both the made-for-tv movie The Homecoming: A Christmas Story (1973) [IMDb] (which was actually the pilot later Waltons television series) and Frank Capra's classic It's a Wonderful Life (1946) [IMDb]. 

So what's the story here about?  Ellie Davis (played by Natalie Hall) who had recently lost both her husband and daughter to a tornado, packs up and goes for an extended visit to her bother Aaron (played by Greg Vaughan) who serves as a sheriff in a small Western town at the foot of the Rockies.  Aaron's also recently been widowed but has two young children Christopher (played by Ryan Wynott) and Annabelle (played by Jada Facer) who need someone to look after them.

When Ellie arrives, she finds a bustling town full of life and optimism.  Rumor has it that "the railroad" is going to extend its line to the town and everyone is gearing up to a big celebration of the announcement, which is to come a few days before Christmas.   Everybody is happy because they equate "the railroad" with "fortune."  But there are also problems.  Outside of town, land disputes are beginning to arise as everyone from bankers to small-time ranchers to tenants, arguably squatters are all positioning themselves to be able to sell their land, previously largely worthless grazing ground, to the railroad when it begins to build the line.

In the midst of this excitement beginning to build into violence, Aaron, sheriff after all, decides that he has to check on some land outside of town that has become a source of contention and ... is delayed in coming home.  What happened?  We, the viewers actually know quickly what happened to him but his family does not.  The rest of the story follows, and makes for a poignant and actually quite current parable about priorities.  What really ought to matter in our lives?  That "a train" (progress, potential prosperity) should perhaps one day "come to town" or that "dad" (family, someone we love) would be able to _make it back_ home/to town at all?   

Yes, it all ends well.  Yes, it's kinda a tearjerker at times and yes, it all moves at times kinda slow (It's actually a 2 part movie that goes for a total of 2 hours and 50 minutes).   Still I do think I understand the film's somewhat surprising length (and remember folks that this film was intended originally to play for the Hallmark channel): At a time when TV may be doing a fair amount of parenting in many homes, this is actually not a particularly bad movie to have playing for the kids while ma' is preparing dinner for the rest of the folks or otherwise busy with various other chores.  And also, since the story is such a lovely period piece, I don't think a lot of people would particularly mind if the story lingers at times because it allows viewers to stay a bit longer out there in the Old West with Ellie and her family.

So folks this is a very, very nice movie and certainly is safe for even the smallest of kids.  And it does teach good values and does so in a very nice, gentle sort of way.  Good job!


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

The Oranges [2011]

MPAA (R)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1313139/

The Oranges (director Julian Farino, screenplay by Ian Helfer and Jay Reiss) is a film that's both funny and one that (if one's thinking at all) take one "aback."

Set in respectable West Orange, New Jersey, it's about two middle upper middle class families, the Ostroffs and Wallings, who have been neighbors for years.  Indeed, the parents if no longer necessarily the kids have been best of friends.  David Walling (played by Hugh Laurie) and Terry Ostroff (played by Oliver Pratt) jog, religiously, three times a week together.  Together with their spouses Paige (played by Catherine Keener) and Carol (played by Allison Janney) respectively along with their grown kids Vanessa (played by Alia Shawkat) and Toby (played by Adam Brody) on the Walling side and Nina (played by Leighton Meester) on the Ostroff side (in as much as they are around, more on that below...), they share pretty much every holiday together.  What could possibly get between them?

Well ... in actuality, things are not necessarily as rosy as they may seem, if Vanessa's voice-over introducing us to the story is to be believed.  Yes, the parents are best of friends and Vanessa and Nina may have been best friends up until the middle of high school, but that quite some time ago.  Vanessa may have had talent.  She went on after high school to study interior design in college has harbored hopes of "moving to New York City someday..." to pursue that career.   Nina, on the other hand had looks and moxy.  By midway through high school, she had parted company with Vanessa, joined to "popular group" in school and indeed "stole" (or stole) Vanessa's only true heartthrob in high school.  Then as soon as high school was over, Nina split town going off to study, briefly, at a university about as away from home as possible.  Indeed, she hadn't been "home for the holidays" in something like 5 years.

We first meet Nina as she's calling her parents from San Francisco to tell them that she's getting engaged to her photographer boyfriend Ethan (played by Sam Rosen) someone who the parents had apparently never met and one gets the sense that mom, especially, never ever would have approved of.  "Are you coming home for Thanksgiving?" dad asks, "You haven't been back for the holidays in years."  "The whole gang will be there," adds mom.  "I just told you that I got engaged..." The phone call, to which the Wallings were present, because dad had put it on speaker phone ... ends with the sense that Nina's not coming back.  However, seconds after the call, Nina who had been calling from a party, finds Ethan in a compromising position with someone else ...

So ... a few weeks later, Nina's come home rolling her smart, light, quite fashionable travel bag in tow.  And ma' couldn't be more pleased because the Walling's son Toby, was going to be home as well.  Toby was an accountant apparently, who'd gotten some kind of a job with the Federal Trade Commission in Washington DC.  He seemed "to mom" to be a good sensible catch, unlike that photog boyfriend that Nina had before, and, if Nina / Tobi hit it off, well, that would bring the two families "even closer than ever."

Nina, no doubt counting the minutes before she would be able to leave again, does give it a try.  And Toby is _not_ hopeless.  But it's clear that he's not for Nina.  Who would be?   She doesn't really know but it's clear that "unconventional" is her preference.

Sigh, it turns out that the elders, David and Paige Walling, are having some marital difficulties.  Paige is really involved in the community, and as a result of constantly inviting her projects home, has been pushing her husband, just a regular guy further and further to the edges of "life at home" until he just sets up a "man cave" in the garage, wide screen and cable sports package and all.  And though he doesn't really have a "big plan" for the rest of his life, he knows that at least for the time being, he'd just prefer sit back and watch some sports.  He's worked hard for most of his life, he's earned it, he just wants to relax. 

So into this comes Nina, who's over at the Wallings largely to please her mom and to entertain her mom's dream that _perhaps "a spark" could be made with Toby.  But Toby, who's working hard for the FTC in Washington and beyond, falls asleep while Nina's getting him something from the fridge.  Nina sees David somewhat sadly going off into his "man cave" to watch "Korean Basketball" ... alone.  It seems somewhat clear that Nina "kinda liked/respected" David when she was a kid.  She feels sorry for him now.  So she comes over to his "man cave" with the glass of water meant initially for Toby, and ...

Yup.  Actually they don't anything more on screen than kiss.  And one gets the sense that they didn't necessarily do much more off-screen (both then or later...) either.  HOWEVER... a kiss is a kiss is a kiss and an adulterous (at least in spirit) connection is made.  What the heck now?

Well the sky falls.  It does.  The first to find out is Nina's snooping mom.  And almost immediately afterwards, life as these two quaint, small, suburban families knew it ... was over.  What now?  That's what the rest of the movie is about ...

How could one make sense of this?  Viewers, remember here that this story is being told by David's daughter Vanessa who initially still feels kinda pissed off at Nina for having blown her off in high school and even "stealing" her boyfriend back then.  It turns out that Vanessa has a coworker at the dead-end job at a suburban furniture store where she's been working since graduating _with a college degree_ (in interior design!).  The coworker's name is Henry (played by Hoon Lee) even though he is clearly of Chinese decent.  Hearing her complain about how her life _completely sucks_ now, that her former best friend had not only stolen her boyfriend back in high school but now was in the process of stealing her dad, "out of the blue" he tells her a Chinese proverb: "Sometimes an old cow just needs some new grass."  "What the heck are you talking about! Why _this grass_, why now, and for how long?"  "I don't know.  But is he happier?"

And there it is ... despite having done _everything wrong_, David was happier.  And indeed, others look at David -- Nina's dad (David's best friend), Vanessa (David's daughter), even David's wife (Vanessa's mom) -- And they all can see that.  Nina, fill-in the blank ______, may have been, fill in a nother blank ___________ but she had shaken things up.

Now, for _me too_, a Catholic priest after all, this movie is not the easiest to watch.  AND YET, with a smile I do note that ... while the two did kiss, twice, it's never absolutely clear or even particularly close to being clear that the two, Nina and David, actually slept with each other.

What was clear though that neither David nor Paige were particularly happy in their marriage and this "interlude" gave both the opportunity (an excuse) to go "their own way." 

Without SPOILING THINGS too much (but I give the warning anyway), Paige, already community minded, finds the opportunity to take her interest in reaching out several steps further, while David, who was finding himself at the beginning of the movie so marginalized that he was sleeping in the garage, finds that he actually kinda likes the house that he had worked for (and had largely paid for) and he also finds that not being relegated to the garage any more that he likes being involved in the life of his kids.  And Nina's ma learns to finally leave her daughter alone and even that "If Nina doesn't come home, maybe that makes for an invitation to go out and visit Nina..."

Here I would like to note that during the (Christian) Middle Ages in Europe it was not unheard of for married couples "after the kids were grown" (or otherwise taken care of) to "part ways" NOT TO REMARRY but honestly to enter into a new vocation.  Indeed, several of the Seven Holy Founders of my own religious order apparently did just that -- made provisions for their spouses and kids and then joined the rest of the seven to found the Order.  It could be said that Paige (certainly) and David (possibly) chose to do that.

Something to think about, huh? ;-)

Anyway, what I liked about this movie was that it didn't simply end "with the Apocalypse" (with the destruction of a family) or even with portraying someone (anyone) as being simply "the villain" of the story.  In the language of Vanessa's Chinese friend Henry: "Sometimes you have to burn down the house to see the moon."  And honestly, in our Christian/Catholic language: "With Death comes the opportunity for Resurrection/Rebirth."


 << 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 ;-) >>

Pitch Perfect [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981677/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv120.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120926/REVIEWS/120929989

Pitch Perfect (directed by Jason Moore, screenplay by Kay Cannon based on the book by GQ magazine contributor Mickey Rapkin) is, of course, a "song and dance movie" to a good extent influenced by the wild success of the television series Glee [2009-].  So looking for a particularly nuanced "plot" in this film is largely missing the point here.  The story line exists in as much as it has to, to give us viewers the excuse to watch some very good singing on the part of the young people, in this case, "college students," in the film.

I'd also add that the film has also obvious influences coming from last year's hit movie Bridesmaids [2011] (so the film is certainly cruder than it needed to be) and Dodgeball [2004] where the inspiration for some of the "play by play antics" of the "television announcers" for the various competitions in this film certainly comes from.

Still as a "song and dance movie" it's not a bad one -- the showing at which I saw this film was filled with groups, big and small, of teenage / pre-teenage girls (Glee fans no doubt ...) who clearly enjoyed the film.

However, I certainly could have done without was the rather tiresome Bridesmaids overlay.  At the end of the day, the film was beaten down into a PG-13 acceptable format anyway.  However, in this regard, honestly call me "old fashioned" but in my own life I've _never_ found crudity to be particularly "liberating" ... Often enough, crudity just causes us needless grief, if not immediately then certainly down the road, by gaining purposefully crude people the reputation that they are just a bunch of three-toothed morons...

And given that life carries with it enough troubles as it is, it's generally rather _stupid_ to needlessly choose to add to our griefs as well.  It's not to say that we have to needlessly stiff either, but honestly, we don't have to choose to be _stupid_ either.  People may _laugh with us_ when we choose to act stupid, but WITHOUT A DOUBT, they will _laugh at us_ after we leave ... So honestly folks acting needlessly stupid is rarely if ever a winning approach to life ...

Ok, "end of Sermon" ... ;-)  What's the film about?  The film largely takes place at a "small liberal arts college somewhere out East," a college that has been swept-up in a craze of collegiate acapella singing competitions.  At the school in question there are four acapella groups:  The first is an all-girls group called the "Aca-Bellas" led by seniors, perfectionist Aubrey (played by Anna Camp) still traumatized by a vomiting episode in the national finals of last year's competition, and her happier, more pragmatic, less traumatized BFF Chloe (played Brittany Snow) who just wants to recruit a good team to win this time around.  Their chief rival at the school and the one that in the story ended up winning the national championship after the "Aca-Bellas" vomiting episode are the all mens "Trebble Makers" led by a-hole but proud of it (hey they don't call themselves the "bad boys of acapella music" for nothing) Bumper (played by Adam Devine).  In addition to these two "Class-A" groups, there are also two others, a group of stoners with a name loosely linked somehow to "medical marijuana" and then a group of somewhat basket case nerds, who we quickly see "don't stand a chance..."

The film begins with "Student Activity Day" at the college with the four groups busily scouting for the best talent.  Among the possibilities is freshman Beca (played by Anna Kendrick) who sees her future in digital sound mixing, hates being at college at all and would prefer to just head out to Los Angeles to find a job in a studio there.  The other is fellow freshman Jesse (played by Skylar Austin) who's far less negative about the college experience and dreams of working also in sound mixing but specifically on the mixing of sound tracks of popular films.  His favorite, of course, is the sound track of the teen-film of the ages, The Breakfast Club [1985].

Beca initially finds the whole acapella craze an eye-rolling "boring waste of time," while Jesse finds it kinda cool.  Eventually with Chloe's recruiting persistence and (Beca's dad's insistence) Beca's convinced to, "arrghh...", join the "Aca-Bellas" while Jesse gets happily recruited onto the "Trebble Makers."  Much ensues ...

It's all fun, there's some good singing.  Again, I just kinda wish that the film makers would have not tried so hard to needlessly make the film "Bridesmaids-like."  Most of the kids in the theater where I saw the film were Glee fans anyway ...

So parents, the film's certainly okay for teens.  Just bear with some of the film's needless crudity/stupidity ...


<< 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 ;-) >>

Frankenweenie [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1142977/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv119.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121003/REVIEWS/121009987

Frankenweenie (directed by Tim Burton, screenplay by John August, help with the story by Leonard Ripps based on Tim Burton's very first stop motion animated short film which carried the same name) is a stop motion animated film, marvelously filmed "for effect" in black and white (honestly, who;d think of making an animated film in black and white anymore? ;-) which tells the story of Victor Frankenstein (voiced by Charlie Tahan) a somewhat nerdy kid living in a small town/subdivision somewhere in the United States today.

Victor prefers to tool around with gadgets in the attic of his family's house and playing with their dog, Sparky, to anything else while lovely parents, Mr and Mrs Frankenstein (voiced by Martin Short and Catherine O'Hara) and here especially dad, Mr. Frankenstein, would prefer that he go outside and play some sports.

So Victor goes out for baseball.  At his first game he shows potential, hitting a ball for a very, very long home run.  Tragically however, Sparky, who's used to "playing catch" with Victor runs out to get the ball.  He gets to it before any of the opposing team's players can reach it, but as he trots back to return the ball to Victor, he gets hit by a car.  So Victor, who actually could have become a pretty good baseball player, tragically finds that the game/sport killed his favorite friend in the world, his pet dog Sparky.

The next scene shows a very sad Victor along with his almost as sad and certainly guilt ridden parents burying Sparky in the town's pet cemetery.  What now?  Victor's best friend is dead and Victor will probably not play baseball for a very long, long time...

Well Victor being something "somewhat nerdy," is enrolled in his school's "advanced science class," a class that is filled with some _really nerdy_ and, honestly, _very creepy-looking_ kids, especially hunch-backed Edgar"E" Gore (voiced by Atticus Schaffer).  The teacher is a wild-eyed/crazed mad-scientist-looking _immigrant_ with a Polish name, Mr. Rzykruski (voiced by Martin Landau).  He keeps telling the kids that "this country does not produce enough scientists so it has to _import_ them" (which actually is true, but seriously, Mr Rzykruski is one scary looking dude ...

It turns out that one of the demonstrations that Mr. Rzykruski shows the kids is that he could make a dead frog's limbs move by running electricity through it.  Well, Victor, seeing dead frogs limbs stretch and contract as Mr. Rzykruski sends and then stops an electrical current through its body, gets an idea...

That afternoon, he collects all kinds of random electrical gadgets from around the house and takes them to the attic.  Then at night he goes out to the pet cemetery and digs up sparky's casket.  He connects the dead body of Sparky to all the gadgets that he collected from around the house.  Then for good measure, and with a thunderstorm arriving, he sends up several balloons and kites into the sky each tethered with electrical wires which connects to ... Sparky.  Finally a lightning strikes the kites and sends a frightening surge of electricity through the the wires into Sparky's body, and ... the rest of the movie follows ;-)

I did think the film was a very cute retelling of the Frankenstein story.  I'm not sure that I particularly liked Mr. Rzykruski being so obviously portrayed as first "a foreigner" and then as "a Slav" (Polish at that).  But then the Frankenstein legend written in WASPish England always played-up Frankenstein's German accent/ "foreign mannerisms" in the past.  So this could be a more current adaptation of the same idea.  Similarly, the "ignorant/fearful villagers" of the original Frankenstein story became the _small thinking_ "Hey, don't have your dog run through my petunias," anti-science "neighbors" of Victor (Frankenstein)'s subdivision ;-).   And then there's the portrayal of the really creepy looking "nerds" of Mr. Rzykruski's sceince class ...

Anyway, the film's both cute and somewhat disturbing.  But then it was intended to be a kinda scary story for little kids.  So IMHO, I'm giving it a pass and I do think it works, and works well!  Good job Mr. Burton!


<< 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! :-) >>     

Taken 2 [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1397280/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv118.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121003/REVIEWS/121009988

Taken 2 (directed by Olivier Megaton, screenplay by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen) as a PG-13 action flick is, IMHO, about the best as they come.  Indeed, while I know that there'd be many who'd disagree with me, I'd say that this film is _better_ than the original.

As in the first film, Taken [2008], retired presumed former CIA assassin Bryan Mills (played by Liam Neeson) is having difficulty coping with normal life.  The beginning of the film has him coming over to the home of his ex wife Lenore (played by Famke Jannsen) and their daughter Kim (played by Maggie Grace).  Kim had failed her driving test twice and they had an appointment to help her work on her parallel parking.  But Kim's not home.  "Why?"  "Well she has a boyfriend."  "A boyfriend?"  "She didn't want to tell you.  Promise me that you're not going to interfere."  "How could I?  I don't know she is."  "Well you flew to a city of 12 million and two days were able to find her."  Hmm... the next scene has Bryan knocking on the door of Kim's new boyfriend Jamie (played by Luke Grimes).  "Promise you're not going to kill this one" Kim asks in front of him ;-).  The daughters of overprotective fathers in law enforcement all over the world probably could relate ;-).

Anyway the movie really starts rolling afterwards.  Lenore who had been remarried confesses to Bryan a few days later that her second marriage is at its end.  Apparently husband #2 proved to have his own issues.  The immediate problem, however, was that soon to be ex-husband #2 in a pique of anger had cancelled the reservations for the vacation that she, hubby #2 and Kim were to take and she didn't know what to do.  As sensitively as a former CIA assassin, who's marriage to Lenore had collapsed no doubt to his previous lack of sensitivity, could offer ... Bryan suggests "Well, I'm going actually to Istambul for a couple of days next week to do 'a job.'   I could stay there for a week or two afterwards with you two if you'd like.  No pressure.  Just call me before the job is finished and I'll stay on.  If not, I'll just come home again."  In the next scene, we see an Arab sheik thanking Bryan for his security detail work for him in Istambul.  Brian checks his phone, there are no messages.  So he shrugs and appears to be ready to get his specialized suitcase with all his "gear" to head home to the States when his ex-wife and daughter surprise him.  They came out to Istambul afterall!

Now all would go like a nice family vacation (if on a rather blank credit card ...) if ... it had not turned out that the Godfather of the Albanian clan that had run that sex trafficking ring in Paris that had abducted Kim in the first movie and which Bryan had so thoroughly "dismantled" / rampaged through in the first movie did not take the deaths of so many of his clansmen, family members and even his own son so "personally."  Never mind that the son had run an evil sex trafficking ring, a son is a son, and Bryan had killed him.  So the father of this Albanian quasi-mafia clan (played exquisitely by character actor Rade Serbedija) wants revenge.  When he finds out from his sources that Bryan is in Istambul, well ... the rest of the movie follows ...

Parents do note here that the movie is, appropriately in my opinion, PG-13.  So there's a lot of shooting, a lot of glass breaking, a _great_ car chase scene where Kim (who, remember, had failed her driving test _twice_) had to drive. "Dad, I don't want to drive."  "Well, do you know how to shoot?" "No." "Then drive!" ;-) ;-), and some quasi-torture scenes (when Brian and his wife do fall into the hands of the Albanian quasi-mafia clan).  However, the camera never lingers and much is (thankfully) left for the imagination.

All in all, as I wrote above as far as an action flick goes, this is honestly an excellent one.  It's all the better when one realizes that underneath it all is basically the story of a father trying really hard to return back to his family, while his family is slowly coming to appreciate what their largely "absent father/husband" had to do "for a living" to "put food on the table."  The first movie really, really clicked with a lot of viewers.  I have a feeling that this one will too. ;-)


<< 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 Perks of Being A Wallflower [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (written and directed by Stephen Chbosky [IMDb] based on his acclaimed 1999 novel by the same name) is worthy of the book about a quiet high school kid with some "back-burning issues" named Charlie.  And IMHO it will almost certainly receive Academy Award nominations in at least a one or another of the following categories: best adapted screenplay (!), best actress in a supporting role (Emma Watson for playing "Sam," Charlie's friend, who he has a terrible and largely unattainable crush on), best actor in a supporting role (Ezra Miller for playing "Sam's" gay step-brother Patrick) and _possibly_ though it'd be more of a longshot, best actor in a leading role (Logan Lehrman for playing Charlie).

By mentioning that one of the key characters in both the book and the film is portrayed as gay, I'm positive that I will have immediately "caused concern" to a fair number of readers who will have found my blog.  On the other hand: (1) that's been part of my point of creating it - to give readers and often especially parents a clear idea of what a film is about so that they can approach it (and their teenage charges) in an informed way and (2) having immediately noted that one of the central characters in the story is portrayed as being gay and further noting now that both the film and the book portray Charlie testing the waters of both sex and drugs, I'd honestly ask parents to reflect back to their teenage years and then seek to assure parents that the descriptions of these escapades given in both the film and the book are IMHO completely believable.

For complete disclosure there's a sequence in the book that was apparently filmed but deleted from the "final theatrical cut" of the film involving Charlie's couple years older but still in high school sister Candace (played by Nina Dobrev) getting pregnant and her asking Charlie to take her to the abortion clinic to have an abortion.  (Parents be _more or less certain_ that this sequence will probably be present in the film's eventual release on DVD/BluRay...)

Yet about 80% of what is described in both the book and the film I lived myself when I was a teenager and I'd give the author/director the benefit of the doubt on the other 20% because I was a somewhat more sheltered kid than than Charlie (though not much more) and more to the point, I was _not_ omnipresent.  So what I did not experience directly, I certainly heard/discussed/debated/argued/whispered about during lunch time conversations in school, on the track during practice after school or in pizza parlors on Friday/Saturday nights.

Now this film [2012] was made some 12-13 years after the book [1999] was written and the book itself was set in suburban Pittsburgh, PA in 1992 (The film continues to be set in suburban Pittsburgh but basically today).   I know from my own experience that one's perspectives do change with time.  One fairly significant difference between the book [1999] and the film [2012] is in its portrayal of the family's faith practices.  In the book [1999], there is only fleeting mention of Charlie's family's Catholicism.  Charlie's family's Catholicism plays a significantly larger (and IMHO ultimately _positive_) role in the film.

To be sure, there is a scene about 1/2 into the film where the director directly compares Charlie's reception of Communion at Christmas (Midnight) Mass to taking LSD.  And I admit that as I watched this scene, my heart sank as I thought angrily to myself "WHY(!) did you have to do this to your film?" But that was only the first reference (an introduction) to the family's religion and further references became increasingly positive.  There's a scene in which Charlie comes to school after having obviously received ashes on his forehead on Ash Wednesday and his more "worldly" vegan/Buddhist girlfriend of the time (as only a high school Caucasian kid from "suburban Pittsburgh" could be a "vegan/Buddhist") Mary Elizabeth (played by Mae Whitman) who was increasingly coming to annoy him, tries to wipe the ashes off (to his even greater irritation).  Reference is made later to Easter (and therefore Resurrection...) and the family is shown several times as praying at dinner. (Indeed, the increase in focus on the family's Catholicism _may_ have played a role in cutting the original book's above mentioned "abortion scene" from at least the theatrical release of the film).

I found the increased reference to Charlie's family's Catholicism both admirable and sensible.  After all, even though the film was in its most general sense a "log" of a somewhat nerdy kid's (a "wallflower's") freshman year in high school, there were definitely "issues" going on.  We're told at the beginning of the film by Charlie that he had "been away" (at some sort of an institution) for the good part of the previous (8th grade) year after his best friend had committed suicide.  Then it was obvious that Charlie had been grieving for the loss of his favorite Aunt Helen (played by Melanie Lynskey) who had died just before Christmas when he was 7 years old.  The last person in the family that she had talked to was Charlie ... So there were _definite issues_ going on in Charlie's family and therefore it is _not_ surprising to me at all that Charlie's family's religion would come into play in its coping with (1) the tragic loss of a beloved Aunt (though as the reader here would suspect, there was certainly more to the story than I'm letting on here ...) and (2) dealing with specifically Charlie's coping with loss of his aunt at 7 and then his best friend (to suicide) some 6-7 years later.  Further, it wouldn't surprise me that the author/director would see this religious aspect playing out a little more clearly in one's early 40s when making the film as opposed to in one's late 20s when he was writing the book.  We grow...

So all in all folks, this is a very good movie.  Parents, I do think that the PG-13 rating, though perhaps somewhat borderline (to R), is appropriate.  I say this because while I do think that parents should be aware of what their kids are watching, this _may_ be one of those films that would be best to leave both teens (and parents) to watch separately / by themselves.  (There's a great scene in the book but not in the movie) about Charlie's father's "big talk" to Charlie as Charlie heads off on his first date (with above mentioned Mary Elizabeth).  Charlie's dad does all the talking, says little but canned if doubtlessly _sincere_ "good advice," and then pats Charlie on the back and says "Good talking to you son..." :-)  But teens just wait, you'll be parents or of your parents' age one day! ;-)  I find the whole film to be like that.  It makes for a wonderful story, but it's one that I'd probably _die_ if I had to see it together with my folks when I was still in high school ;-) ;-).  I had many more reservations with last year's film The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo [2011] which I described then as a hard-R and didn't see any particularly compelling reason for a teen under-17 would "need" to see it.  In contrast folks, this film may honestly become the current generation's The Breakfast Club [1985] / Dead Poet's Society [1989].  Yes, it's that good.

So good job Stephen Chbosky and good job rest of the cast!


<< 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! :-) >>   

House at the End of the Street [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review

House at the End of the Street (directed by Mark Donderai, screenplay by David Loucka, story by Jonathan Mostow) is a rather good "horror story" of the Hitchcockian mold.

Recently divorced Sarah (played by Elizabeth Shue), a nurse, and her teenage daughter Elissa (played by Jennifer Lawrence) move to a very nice spacious rental at the "edge of the woods," indeed at the edge of a State Park, near the "end of the street" in some suburban or upstate New York town.  The geography is important.  Bad things tend to happen "at the edge of town/civilization."  Perhaps even a somewhat "political" statement is being made here because we're told that "the edge of the woods" is actually "the edge of a State Park," hence "government owned" and in some American circles today, "government," _any_ "government" is equated with chaos, evil, sinister intent, etc.  So Sarah and Elissa are moving "to the edge of all that is good in this world."

Now the house is rather large for what a nurse could normally afford.  However, this particular house is something of a bargain because of what happened at the neighboring house, the true "house at the end of the street."  A couple of years ago, the very troubled teenage daughter of the family that lived there had brutally murdered her parents and then ran off into those woods at the edge of the street and never came back.  It was assumed that she somehow drowned in a nearby (again, presumably  public) "reservoir."  In any case, her body had never been recovered.

We're told that the townspeople, especially those who lived near the house where this awful event took place were, above all, upset because it "drove down their property values."  So here, presumably stereotypical "yuppie Republicans" were upset not so much that something deeply tragic had happened nearby, but rather that it hurt their pocketbooks.  (I find analyzing the "subtext" in horror films to always be "quite fun" ;-).  In any case, the sordid tragedy that happened in that "house at the end of the street" is presumably the main reason why Sarah and her teenage daughter could afford to rent the place next door...

To their surprise and to Sarah's horror soon after moving-in, the two discover that "the house at the end of the street" is _not_ abandoned.  Instead, the son of the murdered parents lived there now.  The son, named Ryan (played by Max Theriot) himself had something of a troubled past.  We're told that he had been sent to live with his aunt a number of years prior to the daughter's (his sister's) subsequent murder of the parents.  Now an adult, he chose to quietly live there in the house following the deaths of his parents and presumed death of his sister even if the townspeople and especially its young people really hated Ryan on account of his/his family's sordid past.

Into this local drama, of course, enter the recently divorced Sarah and her daughter Elissa, who are completely from out of town and who moved there only because Sarah got a job at a nearby hospital.  Elissa in particular enters the story nursing anger/resentment over the failed relationship of her parents.  Sarah on the other hand is working through the anger over having been more or less obviously betrayed and/or mistreated (in any number of ways) by her former husband.

These two, perhaps inevitable, stews of resentments come to clash over their perceptions of their new neighbor, Ryan.  Elissa sees a victim, who was arguably mistreated by his parents in some unspecified way even before their murder, and now is being horribly mistreated by the townspeople including many of her classmates in her new school.  Sarah who had been "burned" (mistreated/betrayed/both?) by her former husband sees Ryan as simply an unexpected and certainly unwanted danger to her and especially to her still "young/naive" daughter.

Who turns out to be right?  Well see the movie ;-)

I found the movie to be surprisingly good, and (as is often the case) even better after sitting down to write about it.  It certainly won't win any Oscars, and I didn't (and wouldn't necessarily want to) pay full price for it.  But I would imagine that it would make for a pretty good older teen / young adult date movie, or something to definitely bring home and watch at home when it becomes a rental.

I don't think that the film is suited for the very young (you pretty much would have to be at least a teenager to understand its dynamics) but I do think that the PG-13 rating is appropriate.


<< 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! :-) >>   

Looper [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv116.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120926/REVIEWS/120929993

Looper (written and directed by Rian Johnson) is a characteristically dark but rather compelling science fiction movie that uses the concept of time travel to invite viewers to reflect on the consequences of actions (and of our actions).  As a Catholic reviewer, I do have warn readers here that the resolution of the story is legitimately unsettling and a fair question could be asked: "shouldn't there have been another way?"   To say more than this would result in giving too much away, but Catholic readers who do see the movie (especially of my age and older) would immediately understand why the film's resolution would pose some problems.

But let's to the story ... Sometime around 2044 time-travel was invented.  However, it was immediately declared illegal presumably because of its sinister possibilities.  But as is often the case, outlawing something only puts that something into the hands of outlaws.  So, the mafia of the future (circa 2074) finds a way to use this technology to dispose of people to get rid of.

The mafia does so by sending the people it wants eliminated thirty years into the past to a specific location at a specific time, where a hit man (called a "Looper") is waiting for the victim and quickly dispatches him.  Indeed so efficient is the process that the well prepared Looper comes to the site with a a time piece, a gun and a fairly large sheet of canvas laid out at exactly the location (in a cornfield) where the victim would materialize.  After shooting and killing the victim, the Looper would simply wrap the victim up in the canvas sheet throw the wrapped-up body into his truck and take them to an incinerator for complete disposal. 

Occasionally, the mafia would send the Looper back 30 years in time to be eliminated by his younger self.  This was called "closing the loop."  The young Loopers would then realize that they have exactly 30 years to live.  What happens if the younger self does not kill the older self?  Well that's what the movie is about.

Joe (played by Joseph Gordon-Lewitt) is a Looper living in 2044.  How does he feel about his job?  We don't really know.  In a voice-over near the beginning of the film we hear from Joe that "Loopers don't generally think things through."  On the other hand, Joe does seem to have plans.  After going out to his appointed cornfield at the appointed time, immediately shooting the victim who materializes before him, wrapping him up in the tarp which he had meticulously placed over the exact site where the victim materializes, and throwing the body wrapped in the tarp into the back of his pickup truck, he goes to a diner, where he orders a meal and practices his French.  Apparently shooting people materializing in his present from the future is not all that he aspires for...

After getting a sense of Joe's routine, we the viewers are informed that apparently a new mafia boss in the future, known simply as "The Rain Maker," is apparently on a vendetta against the Loopers.  So suddenly a lot of them are finding their older selves being sent back to Joe's present to be expired.  Now some of the Loopers don't seem to care (because they feel assured of 30 years of more life).   A friend of Joe's, also a Looper, named Seth (played by Paul Dano) gets freaked out by the implication of killing his own older self and finds he can't do it.  However, the mafia won't tolerate "loose ends" and so Seth and his older self (played by Frank Brennan) end really, really badly that only reconciliation of time travel paradoxes could adequately portray (Yes, Parents take note ... Seth's and his older self's ends are quite gruesome...).

Still shaken by the death of his friend, Joe finds his own self materialize at the appointed place and time before him, and is unable to shoot him either.  It's not so much that he wasn't willing to do so it, but that the Older Joe (played by Bruce Willis) materializes ready to quickly defend himself.  (Remember that Joe "thought things through" a bit more than the other Loopers....)   And the Old Joe came back to 2044 with a mission.  He was going to find and kill that mafia "Rain Maker" as a boy so that he doesn't grow-up to harm either him or Joe's wife in the future, named Summer Qing (played by Qing Xu).

Old Joe comes back knowing that "The Rainmaker" was born in a specific hospital on a certain day.  It had been 10 years since the birth of the child in question and three boys had been born in that hospital on that day.  However with help of his wife Joe had done his research.  He came back to 2044 knowing where each of those three 10 year old boys were living.  And he came back to kill them all believing that this would change both his destiny and that of his wife.  But to save himself and his wife, the Older Joe would have to kill three little boys.  And of course those three boys have mothers who love them.

This then is the paradox that the younger Joe faces, does he help his older self save himself and his wife (who the younger Joe had not yet even met) or does he help a single mother named Sara (played by Emily Blunt) protect her son?   

He finds a solution.  Again, I did find it problematic and I suspect that many people would find it problematic as well.  Still it does make you think.  What would you do? 

Parents, this film is an appropriately R-rated movie for its violence and occasional nudity / hooker sexuality.  One can also wonder why the future is so often portrayed in such adark way where the men are generally assassins and the women generally hookers.  In any case, though the film does "make you think" it's definitely not "for the little ones."


<< 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! :-) >>   

Hotel Transylvania [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB listing

Hotel Transylvania (directed by Genndy Tartakovsky, screenplay by Peter Bayhman and Robert Smigel, story by Todd Durham and Dan and Kevin Hageman) is an animated parable about exclusion, reconciliation and ... finding a way to positively/happily move on.

Dracula (voiced by Adam Sandler) a vampire, having lost his wife to a mob of angry villagers terrified of him, retreats to the woods with his and his wife's infant daughter Mavis into the words where he uses his fortune (he is a count after all) to build a retreat called "Hotel Transylvania" intended _exlusively_ for "monsters" who could go there and "to be themselves."  The hotel becomes  very popular place for the "excluded" -- Frankenstein (voiced by Kevin James) and his wife Eunice (voiced by Fran Deschner), Wayne and Wanda Werewolf (voiced by Steven Buscemi and Molly Shannon) and their brood werewolf cubs (they are "animals" after all ...), Griffin the Invisible Man (voiced by David Spade) and assorted zombies (often working as "staff" ... :-).  But it _also_ becomes a very isolated and lonely place for Mavis (voiced by Selena Gomez) as she approaches her "teenage" 118th birthday ;-).

What to do?  Dracula tries to protect his daughter as best he can from the evil threat of bigoted humans who he believes hate them.  But one day, a bumbling "Euro-traveling" human named Jonathan (voiced by Andy Samberg) finds the hotel and finds it kinda cool!  Wasn't he scared of the zombies protecting the perimeter?  Of course not, he found them quaint.  And worse, at 19-20 he's the same age in "human years" as Mavis.  Much ensues ... ;-).

Parents, this is a lovely story for pretty much everyone except possibly the smallest of children.  The monsters are scared of the humans and think that they are evil.  But it's been 100-200 years since the Gothic novels about Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolfman were written.  And today's humans kinda find them cool and kinda would want them to be part of their lives.  So what to do?  What to do? 

Honestly, it makes for a lovely, lovely and _hopeful_ children's story!

Finally, parents, like many recently released animated films, this film has been released in both 3D and 2D.  IMHO the 3D continues to _not_ be necessary to appreciate the story (I saw the film happily in 2D) though I would imagine that the 3D would probably be quite good as there are scenes in this animated picture that would appear to me would probably have looked really, really cool in 3D.  HOWEVER, I still continue to believe that 3D films are being made primarily to give the studios an excuse to charge an additional $3-4/ticket.  And I wish to tell parents here that the 2D version worked just fine ;-).


<< 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! :-) >>  

Liberal Arts [2012]

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

IMdb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1102140/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120919/REVIEWS/120919981

Liberal Arts (written / directed by and starring Josh Radner) is a lovely film about college life though it must be said it largely takes the perspective of someone approaching middle age looking back.

At the beginning of the film, we meet Jesse Fisher (played by Josh Radnor) a mid-30 something New Yorker and former liberal arts major who's not exactly "living the dream."   Yes, he does have a job, copy-writing for ad agency or public relations firm.  But he's also getting divorced and that gets him an apartment, yes "still in Manhattan," but one that requires him to go to the laundramat to wash his clothes ...

Sitting in a book store, in a new shirt that he had to buy because someone had run off with his laundry, feeling kinda down, Jesse gets a phone call from Professor Peter Hoberg (played by Richard Jenkins) an old professor friend of his from the "small liberal arts college way out in Ohio" where he had gone to school.  Professor Hoberg was retiring and he needed somebody to say a few nice words ("to lie" ;-) about him and the kindly old Prof thought that "no one could lie better [about him] than Jesse."  So he invites Jesse to come over for his retirement party.  Having nothing better to do Jesse accepts the invite as he jokingly puts it from his "second all time favorite professor." ;-)

A few weeks later, in a rental car (no one in one's right mind, unless one was super-rich would own a car in Manhattan because ... where the heck could you afford to park it?) Jesse arrives at his sweet little alma mater, and ... the experience ... energizes him.  Yes, he knows he no longer belongs there ... but ... he can relate _exactly_ to the 19 year olds that passing all around him. 

Yes, he meets a bright-eyed optimistic student there named Zippy (played by Elizabeth Olsen) who's a daughter of some other friends of the retiring Prof. Hoberg who are also attending the party.  And yes the two initially "hit it off" and much of the film that follows is about "will he or not ..."  But he also meets a couple of other students including the bookish, brooding Dean (played by John Magaro) who may have been "kinda like" but perhaps even more bookish, brooding than Jesse when he was at school, and Nat (played by Zac Efron) who's something of a "stoner" but above all happy and probably very much _unlike_ Jesse when he had been at school.

Much lovely nostalgia (and the putting of nostalgia in its proper place...) ensues.  Among other things, Jesse meets his "all time favorite professor," Romantics Prof. Judith Fairfield (played by Allison Janney) ... and learns a thing or two.

I have to admit that I loved this movie, and as has been the case so often as a result of this blog, I've come to love it all the more as a result of sitting down and writing about it.

YET ... even though I think that Zippy's character was very well drawn and perhaps a lot of young women could learn something from her, I do think the film remains one that takes the perspective of "the alum" over
"the student."   

Still for most of us college is a time in our lives that is 4-5 years (My time was actually much longer more like 15 between college, grad school and back to the seminary...).  But then we have then decades upon decades, the rest of our lives ... to reminisce ;-). 

And you know what?  That can be kinda nice ;-).  Good job Mr Radnor!


<< 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! :-) >>