If I Stay [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (L)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C-)  Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

As I watched, If I Stay [2014] (directed by R.J. Cutler, screenplay by Shauna Cross, based on the novel by Gayle Forman [Amzn] [IMDb]) my mind wandered in many directions, among them I thought of how both the publishing industry and the Catholic Church in the United States panders society with their uses of the apparently quite elastic term "young adults." 

When I was, IMHO _actually_ a young adult, that is, in my mid-20s, I thought that the Catholic Church had it right: Young Adulthood was a period when the schooling was basically done, when one was taking-up actual responsibilities (moving out on one's own, getting a real job, etc) and discerning one's true life direction (discerning who to marry or as in my case whether to enter into religious life).  In my day, it was actually rather "cool" to be a young adult, either in Los Angeles (where I was in went to grad school before I entered the Servites) or back in Chicago (where I was originally from).  Perhaps it was too cool, because since coming back to Chicago, I've found that a lot of formerly young adults of my generation continued meeting as "YOUNG ADULTS" even as it became increasingly difficult to justify the stretching of the definition to include "those under 35" and even "those under 40."  Don't get me wrong, I UNDERSTAND THE CAMARADERIE.  It was FUN being part of a Catholic Young Adult group when I was in my 20s.  IT REMAINS FUN BEING WITH THE SAME PEOPLE NOW THAT I'M 50.  Just please, let's be honest, we're NOT "young adults" any more and haven't been for a long long time.

So the reader here could appreciate my bemusement with the American Publishing industry's pandering its audience in the other direction.  LET'S BE HONEST, the American Publishing industry has redefined TEENS as "Young Adult Readers."  And let's also be honest about why this was done: Situations and subject matters that would seem _wildly inappropriate_ if clearly TARGETED TO TEENS (most of whom ARE MINORS!) become "possible" when the target audience is "redifined" as (wink, wink) "young adults."

Case and point with the story that plays-out in the current film based on a "Young Adult" novel.  The story is about a somewhat geeky, cello playing, teenage girl named Mia (played in the film by Chloë Grace Moretz) growing-up in Portland, Oregon, her parents being nice, salt of the earth, somewhat counter-culture-ish ex-hippy/punk/granola/grunge people (played by Joshua Leonard and Mireille Enos).  She also had a younger brother, who didn't have a particularly large role in the story, except to round the family size to four.  The key shtick in the setup of the story was that Mia's parents were perhaps more open/liberal, certainly more extroverted than the shy, somewhat frightened, somewhat more conservative Mia herself.

Enter the one-year-older teenager from the same high school, Adam (played by Jamie Blackley), a guitarist in a small-time rock band who becomes Mia's love interest in the story. 

Now it would have been interesting actually to keep things honest.  Where would a seventeen year old rocker-to-be play?  The number of venues would have been limited to garages, perhaps a parish festival or two.  But that's kinda limiting to a story.  So his band is portrayed as more successful than would probably be expected.  And so his band is portrayed as playing in bars (again, at 17 ...).  Then, perhaps even more improbably, Mia's soon joining him (as Adam's girlfriend) in the bars as well.  IT'S ALL POSSIBLE but CERTAINLY FAR MORE COMPLICATED THAN PORTRAYED.

Then, honest portrayal of the romance between the rather shy, initially sophomore, later junior in high school Mia and her one year older boyfriend Adam would most likely be "rather boring."  So it too had to be ginned-up.  Thus we have a rather improbable scene in the film with Adam and Mia sharing presumably post-coital "sweet nothings" to each other, naked if covered, in Mia's bed in her home with presumably Mia's parents being somehow "cool with it."  Come on.  Imagine the dialogue: "Mom, Adam's here and we're going to go upstairs to do some math homework and then to make sweet love to each other before he goes home."  "Ok dears, have a nice time..." (WOULD ANYBODY IN THE U.S., EVEN TODAY, BELIEVE A SCENARIO LIKE THAT...?). 

Thus this is a young adult story that would work if the protagonists were college students or otherwise ACTUAL YOUNG ADULTS (in their 20s).  But as 15-17 year olds?  Come on.  And this then is the problem.

Okay, sure, there's plenty of other drama.  Mia's and her family have a terrible car accident and so forth.  But the fundamental setup of the story is simply not credible.

Finally, honestly parents, just because a book is labeled "Young Adult" does not mean that it is suitable FOR A TEEN.  The "Young Adult" label is a word-game ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For [2014]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  ChicagoTribune (2 Stars)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars w. Expl.)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

To understand Sin City: A Dame to Kill For [2014] (screenplay and codirected by Frank Miller [IMDb] along with Robert Rodriguez based on Frank Miller's [IMDb] "Sin City" graphic novels) one has to, strangely enough, link it with another unfortunately "overdone" sequel, 300: Rise of an Empire [2014] associated with Frank Miller's [IMDb] work:

Unquestionably technically superior to the graphic novel inspired Sin City [2005] original, the current film suffers from the same badly chosen over-the-top violent excesses of above-mentioned sequel to the 300 series' 2006 original.   And it's a shame, because the needlessly brutal and ultimately off-putting violence of the film obscures the technical triumphs of the film -- WATCHING THE FILM, ONE FEELS LIKE ONE IS TRANSPORTED INTO THE LARGELY BLACK-AND-WHITE WORLD (color present ONLY SPARINGLY and OBVIOUSLY to ENHANCE THE IMPACT OF THE STORY) of the comic book (er, graphic novel).  If only the similar wisdom was used in the employment of violence in the story as well!

As I've written several times in this blog, I myself do not mind the use of graphic imagery -- violent or sexual -- as long as such imagery does serve the story (For an example, see my review of The Wolf of Wall Street [2013]).

I do think that viewers see more of actress Eva Green (who plays Ava, the film's "Dame to Kill for") than they really need to.  However, I'D BE WILLING TO GIVE THIS A PASS, as we see what we see of her IN HIGHLY STYLIZED, HIGH-CONTRAST B&W AND _WITH THE POINT_ OF UNDERLINING WHO SHE PLAYS IN THE STORY: A REALLY, REALLY DANGEROUS SULTRY-AS-CAN-BE "FEMME FATALE" who commands by her sexuality ANY SITUATION that she finds herself in.  For a PG (and "far more clothed") version of the same Archetype, consider Milla Jovovich's portrayal of the Milady De Winter character in the most recent cinematic incarnation of The Three Musketeers [2011], a character who had her own mind / agenda and honestly NO ONE (or, more to the point, NO MAN) could trust ;-).  Then Cameron Diaz plays a similar character in The Counselor [2013] with utterly _perfectly manicured_ STAINLESS STEEL COLORED NAILS and a LONG, LONG "leopard spot" TATTOO beginning at her heck and meandering down, spot by spot, back-and-forth, across her back, all the way to her a...  I'd put Eva Green's portrayal of Ava in this film, and even of her portrayal of the fierce, "out for revenge" Greek "turn coat" leader of the Persian fleet Artemesia in 300: Rise of an Empire [2014] in the same league.  We're talking about Archetypes here and I do think that Ms Green plays the Archetype of the fiercely independent woman and thus utterly uncontrollable by men very, very well.  Call the Archetype a female patriot, a "Malcolm X" with a "V" ;-) : "by any means necessary."  And yes, like the Archetype personified by the historical Malcolm X such a female version would scare the daylights out of a lot of people.

That said, the portrayal of the rest of the women and then of the violence in the film is far less justified: Okay, Ava's character is perhaps "special" and perhaps the organizing principle around which the rest of the story was built.  BUT DOES EVERY WOMAN in the admittedly FALLEN CITY portrayed HAVE TO BE A VICTIM OR A PROSTITUTE (and sometimes both)?  Similarly, with the violence.  Okay, one of the characters in the first film, Manute (played by Dennis Haysbert), had a "glass eye."  Was it really necessary (SPOILER ALERT) to see in IN THIS FILM, IN ABSOLUTE GRAPHIC DETAIL, HOW HE CAME TO LOSE SAID EYE?

It's the stupid excess of the violence in this sequel that will make this film unwatchable to most readers of this blog (and most viewers in general).  Yes, I understand that "conventional wisdom" DICTATES that a sequel MUST INCREASE that which makes the first film memorable and PART of what made the first film memorable was its visceral portrayal of "life in a corrupt/fallen city."  But I wish that this sequel had kept to the level of violence of the first film and simply chose to highlight the new film's FAR IMPROVED VISUAL TECHNIQUE.

If not for the film's stupidly excessive over-the-top violence, this film could have been a contender for such technical awards as best editing, best cinematography, even (perhaps) best animated film.   The film could have been used as an example of a fascinating blurring in recent years of the boundary between animated and live-acted films.  Now such a discussion could be done only with a large number of the discussion's participants holding their noses.

So bottom-line, the current film offers film-makers much to consider in terms of visual / story-telling technique.  I just wish the film didn't sink into pointless, truly gratuitous violence.  A far more compelling product could have resulted here if only the film's makers had not chosen to dial up the violence "to eleven."


<< 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! :-) >>

What If [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB ()  ChicagoTribune (2 Stars)  RE.com (2 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


While I would have rated the film R for content (the film really is for the college age to mid-twenties crowd, not for young teens) the lovely, well written and superbly acted Rom-Com What If [2013] (directed by Michael Dowse, screenplay by Elan Mastai, based on the stage play by T.J. Dawe and Michael Rinaldi) offers a surprisingly good message regarding friendship, relationships and the value of marriage (yes, "even in our day" ...).

Why?  Well both of the film's central protagonists Wallace (played by former "Harry Potter" Daniel Radcliffe) and Chantry (played by one of my favorite young actresses Zoe Kazan, I loved her in Ruby Sparks [2012]) experienced during the course of the film the pitfalls of being "involved with someone" without getting married:

Wallace finds himself rather brutally dumped at the beginning of the film by a girlfriend, Nicole (played by Mackenzie Davis), who in her mind apparently thought herself to be "trading up."  Chantry, on the other hand, spends _most of the duration of the film_ living "together" (for 5 years apparently) with her boyfriend Ben (played by Rafe Spall) who it becomes increasingly obvious loves, above all, his job:

There's a scene in the film where the Chantry and Ben are together in a restaurant where he begins talking about how long they've been together and "grown together" ... and so on and so forth.  Yet, when he practically drops on his knees, it's NOT to propose, but to tell her that he got a _really good job offer for a 6 month assignment in _another part of the world_ (in Dublin, Ireland though they live and the film plays out mostly in Toronto, Canada).  She herself, an cartoon animator, had turned down a promotion if only she would be willing to relocate FOR THE SAKE OF THE RELATIONSHIP.  But Ben takes a different path ...

This is "a flag" folks ...

So while Ben goes off to Dublin, Wallace and Chantry, who previously met at a party and despite obviously hitting it off very well, agree to remain "just friends."  Yet how long can the two be just friends when it is obvious that they are each other's true Significant Others?  One doesn't have an S.O. and the other's "S.O." is an ocean away "pursuing HIS thing ..."

Folks the one irritant that I do have in this film is the "faux fidelity" that's being defended here, for a while, until it collapses under its own weight.  Chantry and Ben WERE NOT MARRIED.  It was more or less obvious that Ben WASN'T INTERESTED IN GETTING MARRIED.  So ... honestly THERE WAS NO "FIDELITY" TO HONOR / DEFEND.  Living together is NOT "just like marriage."  It isn't.  By it's nature it is still temporary and largely consequence-LESS.  If one or the other decides to "pick-up sticks" and leave, THE OTHER HAS NO RECOURSE but to take it.

So women ... if you're living with a guy in HIS HOUSE, APARTMENT OR FLAT and HE DECIDES HE'S DONE WITH YOU, yes, YOU STAND TO BE OUT ON THE STREET and THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU CAN REALLY DO ABOUT IT.  On the other hand, if you're serious enough to buy property together, for goodness sake, would it not be just easier to get married?  At minimum, YOU'D SAVE THE NEEDLESS / EXTRA LAWYER FEES...

There was actually an excellent recent Czech film (that probably no one in the States will now see, as it toured through here this summer and is now gone) called Like Never (orig. Jako Nikdy) [2013] that was largely about exactly this: A woman in her 40s who had been living for many years with a significantly OLDER artist but had never gotten married to him was now watching him die and realizing that when he dies, she's going end up on the street, because EVERYTHING SUBSTANTIAL (the house in particular) was IN HIS NAME and he had no intention of changing this EVEN AS HE WAS DYING.  (And legally, there was NOTHING that she could do about it).

The current movie offers a similar message giving YOUNG PEOPLE a great reminder that (1) relationships OUGHT TO BEGIN AS FRIENDSHIPS (or else what do you really have in common TO BUILD ON?) and (2) THERE IS SIMPLY NO (_EASY_) SUBSTITUTE TO MARRIAGE. Until one is married one's relationship with another is by definition precarious and based on good will.  And if it falls apart, one has no legal recourse but to suck it up, pack one's bags and move on.

In marriage one _does_ have legal rights that have to be respected EVEN IF THE MARRIAGE FALLS APART.  (And this is actually _exactly_ why homosexuals have been petitioning for the right to marry as well).  Outside of marriage there are no protections if one's partner decides FOR WHATEVER REASON to (in his/her mind) "get a better deal elsewhere."

Great and sobering film (even amidst the laughs)!


<< 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 Hundred Foot Journey [2014]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Chicago Tribune (2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune/Variety (J. Chang) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

The Hundred Foot Journey [2014] (directed by Lasse Hallström, screenplay by Steven Knight, based on the novel by Richard C. Morais [IMDb]) is a lovely, feel-good movie about the blessings that come with ethnic / cultural diversity.  It is a film that cheerfully proclaims to all who would listen that we do "complete each other" (the writers of Jerry Maguire [1996] didn't invent that line.  That sentiment is expressed in pretty much all the universal religions and philosophies including Judeo-Christianity c.f. Gen 1:26-31, 1 Cor 12:12-26, Rom 5:3-8, Col 1:24, Rev 7:9-14, Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Non-Christian Religions "Nostra Aetate" [1965]).

Alas, the story begins, sadly enough, in the still largely sectarian/divided/fallen world of today (Yes, the world's religions and philosophies many proclaim a "Brotherhood of Man" but often enough THEIR (or our...) particular "Brotherhood..."): A good humored/innocuous Muslim family from Mumbai, India finds itself driven out of their home/business after these are burned down in a sectarian riot. 

Where do they go?  Widowed as a result of the anti-Muslim pogrom, Papa (played with magnificent comic timing by Om Puri) takes the family to England first.  But "the karma's" just not right ;-).  Explaining as they're at the border crossing at the famous Chunnel between England and France why they are leaving England for France, eldest son and culinary prodigy Hassan (played by Mashan Dayan) explains to a bemused (presumably) English border official that the vegetables in England "just don't have life."  His headscarf-wearing late-teenage sister Mahira (played again magnificently by Farzana Dua Elahe) explains to another (presumably) French border official that, no, she's not being taken across the border "against her will" for an "arranged marriage" explaining "Believe me, nothing in our family is particularly well arranged" ;-)

And so it is, this moderately sized Muslim family -- widowed Papa and his 5 children ranging in age from early 20s to 8-10 (with Mother guiding them from above) -- originally from Mumbai now all packed into a rickety European minivan, cross into France from England in search of a place to set down roots.  And they literally crash into a small provincial French town in the foothills of the Alps. 

There they find a place at the edge of town start a restaurant.  But alas, it's across the street from ANOTHER, and very well respected French restaurant run by (also a widow) Madame Mallory (played by Helen Mirren) with stately precision in honor of her late husband. 

Is a lovely / picturesque provincial French town with much history/beauty ready for "an invasion" of an, again, lovely Indian Muslim family, coming from a culture also with much history and color, as well as its own music, dress and spices?   That's, of course, the question of the film.  And if the story of the film sounds a lot like Chocolat [2000], it's probably not an accident as both films were made by the same director.  However, I would note that this current film is much, much, much gentler.

Now some of the critical opinion above laments some of the schmaltziness of the current film.  The film's set-up for multiple _family friendly_ romantic trajectories.  Besides the inevitable one involving the widowed Papa of the family and Madame Mallory, there's also a cheerful if also serious "sous chef" named Margerite (played masterfully by Charlotte Le Bon) working for Madame Mallory, who also happens to be Hassan's age.

But I honestly loved this film through and through, and readers of my blog would know that I have really big soft spot for "schmaltizness" ;-).  The film's producers included both Steven Spielberg [IMDb] and Oprah Winfrey [IMDb].  I understand why they wanted to get involved and I simply have to applaud the result.  This film shows us _what is possible_ if we open ourselves to the possibility of learning from others.

Again, all the great saints, mystics and philosophers across the ages have understood the message here.  I come from a Catholic / Christian tradition, so I wish to simply add here that in our best days we (Catholics) definitely agree.

"No one is so rich as to have nothing to learn from others, and no one is so poor as to have nothing to offer to others" -- St. Pope John Paul II


 << 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! :-) >>

Magic in the Moonlight [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III) ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (2 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review

Fans or at least followers of Woody Allen films will find in Magic in the Moonlight [2014] (written and directed by Allen) a typically well-crafted, well-acted film, musing about and perhaps cumulatively building upon typical concerns of his -- Is there a God?  Is there a Here-After?  And how to make-do in life if one finds oneself having great difficulty in believing in them.  A believer could choose to be OFFENDED (How dare W.A. and his moneyed/richer than God, swinging from the chandeliers, hedonistic Hollywood backers ask these questions?), DISMISSIVE (most of us know more about W.A.'s personal baggage than that of our friends and neighbors' ...) or perhaps INDULGE HIM, perhaps sigh/roll one's eyes, but let him tell his story and perhaps honestly take some notes, because we _all_ have amiable friends and relatives with similar problems / concerns when it comes to faith.

So W.A. begins his tale set in the 1920s Europe with Stanley (played by Colin Firth) a very British "The Sun Never Sets on Our Empire" magician (illusionist) who prefers to perform his "good fun" performances in "Asian face" (painted slanty eyes, pig-tail, pasted Confucius style goatee beard...) as "Wei Ling Soo" Why?  Perhaps in his very certain mind, no self-respecting post-Enlightenment Britisher would indulge in such things except, of course, "in jest"... (Honestly, Colin Firth plays Stanley, this film's Woody Allen-stand-in, to a magnificently pompous extreme .. I'd like to imagine Stanley as having a portrait of Bertrand Russell hanging over his bed ;-) 

But even all-knowing / utterly-ever-certain Stanley appears to understand the sad awfulness of his situation: Having eliminated the possibility of any truth (let alone God or a Here-After) existing outside of the bounds of a (his...) strictly rationalist system, he's consigned himself to a prison of meaninglessness and a rather fleeting one at that. (A GREAT visual reflection on the central Buddhist concept of "impermanence" of all things is the recent film Samsara [2012])

But no matter, at least one's smarter (while one's faculties hold-up) than others ... So as a "side interest" though indulged by him in his true, very "English face" and in his true name, STANLEY (one really can't get much more "British Colonial" than embracing the moniker of (Lord) Stanley...), he devotes his life to "debunking frauds" in his own words "from the Vatican to spiritualists." ;-)

Enter then an old friend, fellow Enlightened/sporting/bored illusionist Howard Burkan (played by Simon McBurney) who comes to Stanley with a problem/challenge: There appeared to be a young Kalamazoo, Michigan ("nowhere's-ville") born spiritualist named "Sophie" (played  with wide-eyed, small town huckster magnificence by Emma Stone) who's been making the rounds among moneyed English Expats summering on the French Riviera and though "she had to be a fraud," good ole Howard found himself "stumped."  So good ole Howard arrived at Stanley's London brownstone doorstep with the request to go down to Southern France with him to debunk her once and for all.

So Stanley does ... go down to Southern France to do just that, and ... it all "gets complicated" ;-).  And it's not necessarily that Stanley comes to a conclusion that he could be wrong about his very rationalist conception of the world / reality.  It just becomes patently obvious, even to him, that there's a cruelness to insisting on being Right all the time.  Stanley's Aunt Vanessa (played by Eileen Atkins) who knew Stanley in his childhood BEFORE he became "such a tired bore..," helps him out in this regard.

IMHO this is a very fun, well-filmed period piece.  The cars, the houses, the clothes, and the views of the sea (the French don't call the Riviera the Côte d'Azur - "the Coast of Blue" for nothing ;-) are all very beautiful.  And the film does have a very nice point: There is a deflating and dehumanizing cost to killing the Life / Hope of others and insisting on being Right all the time (indeed, insisting on being "one's own God").


<< 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! :-) >>

Guardians of the Galaxy [2014] / And So it Goes [2014]

As part of my contribution in our parish's participation in the Archdiocese of Chicago's Campaign "To Teach Who Christ Is," I've decided to forgo seeing (and therefore reviewing here) one or two movies a weekend and instead contribute the money I would have spent to the campaign.

I'm trying to be strategic about this, picking movies that would "hurt somewhat" to miss, that is, films that are not "so bad" that I wouldn't see them anyway nor movies that I really would need to see/review or else my blogging effort would cease to be worthwhile.

As per my custom, I will try to provide links to usual line-up of reviews that I also consider as I write my own.

This week I chose to not see ...

Guardians of the Galaxy [2014] - MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (3 stars)  AVClub (B)

And So it Goes [2014] - MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C)

Both films have had modestly good reviews.  And So it Goes [2014], starring Michael Douglas and Diane Keaton aims to be something of a romantic comedy for "viewers of a certain age," while Guardians of the Galaxy [2014] starring Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana has proven to be a surprising delight for many/most reviewers as it's both something of a send-up of the "Space Opera" / Superhero genre and yet as a Marvel Comics product offering the possibility that some of the Guardians may end up appearing in other (can one say "more serious"? ;-) projects in the future.

But I have to draw the line somewhere and so I chose to sacrifice these two films, figuring that if they proved important later on (as in taking some of the characters/performances into account in my end-of-year Denny Awards) I can check them out on video.


 << 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! :-) >>

Get On Up [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (D+)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing

Ebony (M. Allen) review
RollingStone (P. Travers) review

ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review 
RE.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

Crosswalk.com (S. Ellingburg) review

BET coverage
Ebony articles
Essence.com articles
TheSource articles

Get On Up [2014] (directed by Tate Taylor, screenplay by Jez / John Henry Butterworth story by Steven Baigelman and Jez / John Henry Butterworth), which seeks to tell the story of Legendary, One-of-a-Kind, Trail-Blazing, Seemingly Ever-Smiling (even if EVERYONE knew that he had a temper) Mad,Mad,Mad GENIUS African American singer/entertainer/businessman James Brown, who by acclamation carried the moniker "The Hardest Working Man in Show-Business" for an entire generation (and honestly, who could challenge that?), is a certainly a tall order.

Does the film measure up?  I do believe that the two communities that would have the most credible say in the matter would be the African American community and the Pop Music community and the reviewers for both Ebony and Rolling Stone magazines try hard to not be scathing... both recognizing the challenge to ANY director / team of screenwriters to do justice to such a complex man, but ...

How does one tell the story of someone who was a perfectionist and a wife-beater, who spent time in jail for stupid drug and weapons charges, even as he was a truly PULLED-HIMSELF-UP-BY-THE-BOOTSTRAPS SELF-MADE MULTIMILLIONAIRE (with a 6th grade education) PATRIOT who HELPED KEPT THE PEACE IN BOSTON (while MUCH OF THE REST OF THE COUNTRY _BURNED_) AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR by KEEPING TO HIS SCHEDULE and HOLDING HIS SCHEDULED CONCERT IN BOSTON GARDEN THE NIGHT AFTER MLK's ASSASSINATION and having THE ENTIRE CROWD SING TOGETHER "Say it LOUD, I'm BLACK AND I'M PROUD."   (This is a REMARKABLE STORY and is immortalized in several documentaries including The Night James Brown Saved Boston [2008] [IMDb] [Amazon Instant Video] and the concert itself James Brown Live at Boston Garden [1968] IMDb] [DVD-Amazon.com]). 
 
Who can honestly forget his showmanship (and by all accounts _sincerity_) in singing the rambunctious "Living in America" in the Silvester Stallone film Rocky IV [1985].  (Yes, I know that there are 10,000 other examples I could give but I choose this one because James Brown born dirt poor in the heart of the Jim Crow South and abandoned as a child by both his parents could have been a veritable poster-child for Revolution (in Malcolm X's famous words "by any means necessary") but instead Brown chose to be a Patriot, flying out to Vietnam to play for the troops in the summer of 1968 and he supported both Nixon and Reagan in his time).  A very, very complex man.

So how the heck to you put that complexity on screen?  The film-makers _chose_ to make the film's chronology disjointed.  The film flies backwards and forwards in time.  At times, the film-makers have James Brown (played in the film by Chadwick Boseman) pull himself out of the scene and "break the fourth wall" to talk directly to viewers about one point or another. 

The use of these devices can make for a jarring experience for viewers, but I think they were chosen intentionally to express the complexity and even contradiction in the man.  To tell his story, one would perhaps have to go backwards and forwards in time and perhaps need him to explain himself directly to the audience to make sense of it all.

There's also a suggestion in the use of these techniques that the film-makers thought James Brown to be, at least in part, crazy.  Yet, well ... the line between genius and madness can be thin.  Still it's doubtful if he couldn't have achieved all that he achieved (he wasn't _just_ a singer / entertainer, he was also a businessman) if he was "simply nuts."  And yet precisely his manic activity in so many directions caused him troubles (those stupid drug and weapons convictions and though he was never actually charged with tax evasion, he did have the IRS's attention...).  But then he grew-up dirt poor in a situation where virtually absolutely nothing in his life was stable (again, both his parents abandoned him, and in the film he was largely raised by an aunt "Honey" who ran a brothel) so "he learned to survive..."  (In the film mom is played by Viola Davis, dad by Lennie James, and auntie by Octavia Spencer).

But then, HOW does one survive growing out of such an environment and even become famous / thrive? 

Well, the film clearly shows that James Brown did have the fortune of coming to have some very good friends including life-long band mate Bobby Byrd (played by Nelsan Ellis), manager Ben Bart (played magnificently if also certainly with some comic flair by Dan Aykroyd) and his (second) wife DeeDee Brown (played by Jill Scott).  But the film also suggested these friendships were often one-sided -- These people (and others) did care for James Brown.  But did / could James Brown really care for them?  This question then becomes the heart of the movie.  Yes, Brown became a success, but would the wounds from his childhood (above all THE TRUST ISSUES) eventually conspire to bring him down?  Well, what would you think?

This is not a perfect movie, but it does try (in as much as one can in two hours) to present the life of a very complex, gifted and challenged man.  Does it succeed?  In my opinion, if you like music, and do have a heart, it's worth the price of admission.

Finally, though the film is rated PG-13, I find that rating absurd.  Granted, the film is not necessarily a hard R.  The language is generally clean, and the drug use / sexual situations are kept more or less off screen.  But we do see him, from the back, having very, very _consensual_ sex as a young man "with a preacher's daughter...") AND THE GUY GREW UP IN "AUNTIE'S BROTHEL..."  So I honestly don't understand the PG-13 rating.   From a personal life standpoint, he certainly was no role model.  

But he was (like most of us) more than just the sum of his failings and sins.  When he sang, NO ONE could deny that he sounded "good, so good" and he "got us all" to feel good as well. ;-)

Despite his various (and perhaps multitude) of sins and failings, I always liked James Brown.


 << 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! :-) >>