The Wedding Ringer [2015]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (D)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

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

Alas The Wedding Ringer [2015] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Jeremy Garelick along with Jay Lavender) is the kind of film that tends to get released in January after frenzied last weeks of December when most of the year's "Oscar contenders" get released to meet the end of year deadline for "award consideration."  The Wedding Ringer is a comedy, often a very low-brow comedy, that nevertheless does give viewers a grinning alternative to the often far more serious (and yes, often far more boring ...) "Oscar contenders."

And comedies often have their often subversive point.  So it is, exasperatingly, if often somewhat truthfully, with this movie which is about ... a big wedding. 

Doug Harris (played by Josh Gad) a soft-spoken, fundamentally decent if almost certainly previously quite boring, late 20-something to mid 30-something "tax attorney" finds himself engaged to Gretchen (played by Kaley Couco-Sweeting) a smiling, mid-to-late 20-something daughter of one of his clients (played by Ken Howard). 

Wonderful.  Isn't nice that the two would have found happiness with each other?  However, past (and mostly contemporary cultural) expectations get in the way: 

Gretchen, the daughter of a rich guy, grew-up with expectations of a nice even gloriously big wedding.  But look at who she's marrying: a decent enough guy, someone who's honest, probably won't cheat on her, and as a successful tax attorney (with even her father as one of his clients) almost certainly one who's going to be "a good provider" allowing her to live out the rest of her life "according to the standard that she's been accustomed to."  However, he's also kind of a shlep, one who's again a decent enough guy, but for various reasons (which become explained in the movie) never really was (or even had time to be) "the life of the party."  

So why's she (or why are they) getting married?  For the Wedding or for the Marriage that follows?  Actually this is a very good question ...

But the "immediate crisis" becomes how to _survive_ the upcoming wedding.  Yes, rather stereotypically gay wedding planner Edmundo (played by Ignacio Serricchio) sees a train-wreck coming.  So discretely suggests to Doug to seek-out a friend of his, Jimmy Callahan (played by Kevin Hart), who, for a price..., is able to provide "best man" and even "wedding party services" for those who'd otherwise, well, "not meet expectations."   This then sets up the film ... where much, of course, ensues.

But again, where does it say _anywhere_ that a wedding _must_ be large?  That a wedding _must_ include the "toasts" of _perfectly "cast"_ "best men" and "maid of honors"?  That a wedding _must_ include a rather large rehearsal dinner where both sides of the wedding party _produce_ (almost in a Hollywood or even BOLLYWOOD sense) including _well made_ and "appropriately embarrassing" roasts of the bride and groom?   And yes, that a wedding _must_ include the bachelor / bachelorette parties that have now become staples of Hollywood's films on weddings?

OMG ... THE PRESSURE!  I've come to think that main the reason why "bachelor / bachelorette parties" have become what they've become is to simply blow off the inevitable steam resulting from all the pressure accumulating with preparation of the "big wedding."  To some extent, they may be modern day expressions of the same phenomenon that in the Middle Ages produced the annual celebrations of Mardi Gras / Carneval before the arrival of Lent.  

But do weddings have to be so big?  NO.  Even a Church wedding need not be big (all that's needed, is proof that the two future spouses (one male, one female) are free to marry (not married to someone else somewher else), a church minister and two witnesses.  The "exchange of vows" could be done in 2-3 MINUTES).  Yes, there is MARRIAGE PREP. in the Catholic Church.  But it actually focuses FAR MORE ON THE MARRIAGE THAT FOLLOWS THAN ON THE WEDDING THAT INITIATES IT.


Is Marriage then "worth it" if PULLING OFF "THE PERFECT WEDDING" IS SO HARD?   This is the question that many more conservative "people of faith" may worry about, when hearing of a film like this.  However, I do believe that we're talking two different things here.  Marriage is generally good FOR BOTH SPOUSES (as well as the children produced in marriage) as it sets down IN LAW that rightful expectations of said spouses and their children.  These rightful expectations become confused outside of marriage.

Anyway, this film if (almost inevitably) often quite crude (the R-rating is deserved) is also often honestly quite funny and is fundamentally about managing the often _crushing expectations_ of the proverbial "big wedding."

But again, if you want to get married ... the wedding need not be big and what matters most are the years "till death do you part" that follow.  In the mean time, 20-somethings, enjoy the ride here (at another thankfully fictional couple's expense ...)


<< 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! :-) >>
 

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night [2014]

MPAA (R)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (B. Sharkey) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night [2014] (written and directed by Ana Lily Amirpour), an IRANIAN (exile) VAMPIRE MOVIE (filmed in Bakersfield, California) is probably the COOLEST "genre movie" released this year.  In Chicago, it's had a 2 week run at the Gene Siskel Film Center.

Filmed entirely in high contrast B&W in said Bakersfield, CA substituting for a random, troubled Iranian oil town named simply "Bad City" somewhere in the Desert, the cast of characters is quite small, but unforgettable:

There's the central protagonist Arash (played by Arash Marandi) a young Iranian potential James Dean type if only he didn't have to take care of his heroin addicted father Hossein (played by Marshall Manesh).

There's Saeed (played by Dominic Rains) a drug dealing pimp with the word SEX tattooed on his throat.  He's kept Arash's dad supplied with drugs even as he takes Arash's _really cool_ "50s era-car with tail fins" as collateral for Arash's dad's accumulating debts.   When not shaking down Arash's family for money, he's keeping his local aging street-walker (mom?) named Atti (played by Mozhan Marnò) "unbalanced" / "in line" (it's probably time for her to start looking for another kind of work, but how when she seems to always owe Saeed money?).

There's a little kid with a skateboard (played by Milad Eghbali) who, since his parents never seem to be around, seems to be always outside, even at night, watching everything play out.

And ... then there's ... a teenage to early-20 something girl who turns out to be a demure "Vampire in a really-cool striped shirt and a chador" (played magnificently by Shiela Vand), who ALSO seems to live alone -- honestly, where are ANY OF THESE PEOPLE'S PARENTS except on drugs or walking the streets as hookers...? -- who LIKE THE LITTLE KID is always outside at night obvserving everything, EXCEPT UNLIKE THE LITTLE KID she finally decides to do something about the way things are in the town: Basically deal-out blood-sucking vengeance "on the guilty."

Oh yes, and there's A REALLY CUTE CAT who seems to be somehow aligned with the Vampire ;-)

Much, often in very dead pan if quite predictable yet VERY, VERY COOL FASHION, plays-out ;-)

Honestly, this is probably the coolest SUBTITLED FILM (yes, the film plays-out ENTIRELY IN FARSI ;-) that an AMERICAN TEENAGER (or really, ANY TEENAGER) really ought to see!

It's basically "A Rebel Without A Cause [1955]" only IN HIGH CONTRAST BLACK AND WHITE, IN FARSI and WITH VAMPIRES.  Honestly, how cool is that? ;-) ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Selma [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review

BET coverage
Ebony coverage
Essence.com coverage
TheSource.com (D. Green) review

ChicagoTribune (M. Philiips) review
RogerEbert.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Rolling Stone (G. Edwards) interview w. director Ava DuVernay
TheSource.com (S. Moscovitz) interview w. director Ava DuVernay


Selma [2014] (directed by Ava DuVernay, screenplay by Paul Webb) arriving in time for the 50th anniversary of the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the second of the two most important pieces of Federal legislation that were passed as a result of the African-American Civil Rights movement of the 1950s-60s (and, yes, perhaps coincidentally / perhaps not ... during the early part of the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration ...) reminds the United States (and the world) what life was like for African Americans in the Deep South of the United States prior to the passage of such legislation that finally allowed African Americans unhindered access, more-or-less, to the ballot box.

I say "more-or-less" because there has been steady if mostly thankfully "rear guard" battling over "voter registration legislation" ever since.  And I do believe that the continued shenanigans are real: As I noted in my review of the recent film Kill the Messenger [2014], the 1980s "crack cocaine crisis" gave white racists in this country an excuse to once again disenfanchise MILLIONS of African American voters by making possession of ANY AMOUNT of "crack cocaine" (but significantly NOT powdered cocaine generally prefered by white people...) to be a "felony" giving States permission to take away their Civil Rights, INCLUDING VOTING RIGHTS, essentially FOREVER.  More than a million African American male "crack convicts" in Florida (not / no longer in jail, but with their voting rights denied them FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES on account of their "felony conviction") or ONE THIRD of the voting age African American male population in the State was not allowed to vote in the 2000 Presidential election, an election that was "decided" by a margin of less than a 1000 votes in Florida...

However, even this apparent "crack" (felon) loophole in the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 pales in comparison to unblushing systematic denial of African Americans the right to vote that existed in the Jim Crow South prior to the marches / protests in Selma that made such practices no longer tenable and resulted in the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 quite shortly afterwards. 


To the film ...

Much controversy has been made with regards to this film's treatment of Lyndon B. Johnson (played in the film by Tom Wilkinson).  I would suggest to readers here to please read the two interviews of the director Ava DuVernay that I list above.  Apparently, the original screenplay (and probably historically more correctly) portrayed Johnson in far more positive light.  However, the director says in those interviews that she really didn't want to make a movie about a "White Savior" (Johnson...), that in fact, the biggest changes that she made to the script was _to add_ BLACK LOCAL WOMEN to the story like lowly, honest / church-going Selma resident Annie Lee Cooper (eventually played in the film by Oprah Winfrey).  

With regards to Johnson, the director sensed (again IMHO almost certainly correctly) that ultimately the Civil Rights movement was NOT his top priority.  Instead, Johnson's TOP PRIORITY was his hoped-for War on Poverty (which would seek to improve the lives of ALL POOR PEOPLE OF ALL COLORS).  Hence EVEN IF HE WAS SYMPATHETIC (and _I_ certainly believe he was ... Johnson did in a year / two in office what Kennedy seemed incapable of doing in pretty much his entire term ...) the Civil Rights Movement was something of a distraction:  SO ... "let's just get the Civil Rights legislation passed as fast as possible (and be done with it)."

AND LET'S FACE IT ... THAT IS THE HISTORICAL RECORD: The Civil Rights Act (which _didn't_ pass under Kennedy) passed RAPIDLY under Johnson in 1964 and the VOTING RIGHTS ACT again passed RAPIDLY after that in 1965.

So ... after 1965, Johnson had three years to focus on what he really believed was important: The War on Poverty.  (Of course, good will there got eaten-up by the concession(s) that he made to the American Right in ALSO allowing American involvement in the War in Vietnam to proceed...)

Was this "War on Poverty" worth it?  Did it even succeed...? Well, it's almost impossible to imagine TODAY what life would be like for American Seniors if not for Johnson's War on Poverty program Medicare (a health insurance "entitlement program" for Seniors that has honestly helped JUST ABOUT EVERYONE).

And truth be told, even Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr (played in the film by David Oyelowo) in his final years was coming around to the understanding that many / most of America's problems were not simply racial but economic -- for progress for African Americans to go forward, progress for poor whites had to go forward as well.

But be all this as it may, progress for African Americans COULD NOT GO FORWARD without more-or-less unhindered access to the ballot box.  And that then set the stage for the Civil Rights actions in Selma.  And this film ...

And yes, a lot of whites watching this film will certainly wince at seeing white police officers (of then still an ALL WHITE Selma police force) wrapping their batons with barbed wire and beating blacks seeking to peacefully march over a bridge ...

Now the film is also a lot about tactics -- Why put so much focus on what seems to be an insignificant (if county seat) like Selma?  Why simply a march?  Why not retaliation for violence inflicted on the marchers? -- and the result is an appreciation of the mind/thinking of Martin Luther King, Jr and the Southern CHRISTIAN Leadership Conference (my emphasis on Christian) the banner group with which he lead the Civil Rights Movement.  After all, there were alternatives -- the more militant Black Muslim Malcolm X (played briefly in the film by Nigel Thatch), and arguably more purely-legal approaches like that of the NAACP perhaps represented in the film by young "Obama-like" "community organizer" Andrew Young (played by André Holland).

The film's director, Ava DuVernay, noted in one of the interviews (given above) that since she was NOT "from the (rural) South" but rather "from Compton (the inner city), California," her own sympathies growing up were more with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers (an excellent if, all around challenging film about the Black Panther Party called For the Cause [2013] played at the 2013 Chicago Black Harvest Film Festival).

The director wished to underline in her film that the tactics chosen by and Martin Luther King, Jr and the SCLC were NOT merely "pie in the sky" but rooted in practicality and potential for success: "One can't fight tanks with beebee guns," a "violent struggle" could not succeed.  However a morally based struggle appealing to the "better (and in this country CHRISTIAN) angels" of the white majority COULD (and did) SUCCEED.  To the director's credit, she did _underline_ the presence of white clergy / religious in the Selma marches:  I PERSONALLY KNOW MEMBERS OF MY RELIGIOUS ORDER WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THOSE MARCHES OF THE 1960s AND I'M IN GOOD PART A CATHOLIC PRIEST TODAY AS A RESULT OF THEIR EXAMPLE.

So what then to say in a final analysis about the movie.  Did it "diss" Johnson too much?  I honestly don't think so, because I do believe that the director _was right_.  This film needed to be ABOVE ALL ABOUT THE PEOPLE like Annie Lee Cooper (played in the film by Oprah Winfrey) NOT "the big shots..."

So good job Ms DuVernay!  Good job!  And if any want to read-up more about the Selma marches, Rev/Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, the Civil Rights Movement, or President Lyndon B. Johnson just do a search on Amazon.  There are plenty of books to read on all of them ;-)



<< 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! :-) >>

Leviathan (orig. Левиафан) [2014]

MPAA (R)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing

KinoNews.ru listing*    KinoPoisk.ru listing*
Kino-teatr.ru listing*     Kritikanstvo.ru listing*
Megacritic.ru listing*

Gazeta.ru (V. Lyaschenko) review*
TheHollywoodReporter.ru (N. Karcev) review*
NovayaGazeta.ru (L. Malyukova) review*
RossiyskayaGazeta.ru (V. Kitchin) review*

ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
Cine Para Leer review*
CineVue (J. Bleasdale) review
EyeForFilm.co.uk (A.W. Murray) review
Slant Magazine (C. Bowen) review
Variety (P. DeBruge) review

Leviathan (orig. Левиафан) [2014]  [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* (directed and cowritten by  Andrey Zvyagintsev [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* along with Oleg Negin [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]*) promises to be an absolute darling to Western Liberals.

Yes, the story set in a small picturesque Russian town somewhere on the Arctic coast (and yes, the scenery is often breathtaking) is at least initially about corruption in contemporary Russia:

A lowly fisherman / auto-mechanic named Nicolay (played by Aleksey Serebryakov [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*) with a simple fisherman's house that he inherited from his father, finds to his horror that the local mayor (played by Roman Madyanov [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*) has come to covet said house for the only covetable quality that is has -- a view.  So he's decided to use the power of the local government force lowly Nicolay to relinquish said house for an obsenely low price, nominally to allow a "communications center" to be built there (but nobody seriously believes that.  The local mayor just wants to build his own house there).

Now Nicolay isn't completely without friends or resources.  So at the beginning of the film he has his old army buddy, now a hotshot Moscow lawyer, named Dmitri (played by Vladimir Vdovichenkov [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*) come up to challenge the confiscation of the house.  Dmitri is, in fact, not naive.  He comes up to the town not only with a legal case to defend Nicolay's claim on the property (or at least that he'd be compensated appropriately), but he ALSO comes with a dossier of dirt collected about the Mayor.  To no one's surprise, Dmitri loses the appeal for Nicolay.  HOWEVER Dmitri's dossier on the mayor does grab the mayor's attention.

What to do?  Well, the mayor goes _to the local Orthodox priest_ for advice.  AND THE ADVICE THAT HE GETS FROM SAID PRIEST IS (I'm not kidding): "Don't be such a baby!  All power comes from God, USE IT."   And so WITH THE PRIEST'S MAFIA-LIKE BLESSING, that's what the mayor does: He gets his thugs together, they pay a visit to the lawyer, drive him out of town and ...

Now tragically before being "driven out of town," the lawyer manages to seduce Nicolay's wife Lilya (played by Elena Lyadova [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*) -- Why would he do that?  Were there not enough women in Moscow to sleep with, and Nicolay was supposed to be his friend ... -- which after he "disappears from the scene" causes continued problems between Nicolay and his wife.  Those problems come to provide the Mayor a final / definitive means to simply get rid of Nicolay.

Wonderful, the director himself has stated that his film was inspired by the Biblical Job and the Thomas Hobbes' treatise Leviathan (a giant sea-monster that actually appears at the end of the Biblical Book of Job but in the Hobbesian conception it also represents the Power of the State).

So what's there to object to?  After all, this is (on the surface) a quite brave denunciation of the state of corruption in Russia today.  HOWEVER, note here that ultimate blame for said corruption doesn't fall on the thuggish mayor of the town, BUT ... ON THE ORTHODOX PRIEST (who arguably was just missing a tail and horns in the film).

So this is just catnip for both Western Liberals and perhaps a remnant of the ATHEIST Russian "Old Guard" still pining for the "Law and Order" that existed back in the "Good Old Days" of the Soviet Gulag.  Hence a film nominally about State corruption nonetheless gets funded by the Russian "Ministry of Culture." ;-)

Hmm... There's even a reference to Pussy Riot in the film.  What's going on here? 

I suppose that the question that the film asks is: To what extent is the Russian Orthodox Church complicit in the corruption that exists in Russian society today? 

HOW CAN AN HONEST WESTERNER POSSIBLY SEEK AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION?

Well a search of the term коррупция (corruption)* on the Moscow Patriarchate's official website* indicates quite that the challenge of corruption in contemporary Russian society is certainly not "off the radar" or even somehow a "verboten" subject in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church today.  And this really should not surprise anyone (unless one simply insisted on BEGINNING with the assumption that the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Church in general, Christianity and/or Religion in general simply HAD TO BE "EVIL").

Now how well is the Russian Orthodox Church doing in voicing opposition to corruption in Russian society today?  Well that is a fair question and I simply do not know enough about Russia or the actual workings of the Russian Orthodox Church to answer that.  However, let me offer a suggestion:

While there are fanatical groups like SNAP ("Survivors' Network for those Abused by Priests") in the United States who don't seem to recognize _even the possibility_ of a "good Catholic priest" in the United States today (just those who are "guilty" and those who are in "denial"), the National Catholic Reporter has for decades served as a "watch dog" / independent voice seeking to keep the Catholic Church in the United States honest not only with regard to the various priestly sexual abuse scandals but also with regards to its (obviously) FAR LARGER MISSION, notably to "bring good news to the poor."

There is no reason why such a newspaper of website could not exist (or come to exist, IF IT DOES NOT ALREADY, perhaps if need be OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA) that would seek to keep the Russian Orthodox Church accountable in its role as "the conscience of Russian society."  I have personally known plenty of good (AND EDUCATED) Russian Orthodox believers (My own grandfather was Russian Orthodox).  I simply do not believe that a "(Russian) National Orthodox Reporter" would be impossible to create (if it does not de facto exist already).

Would it be enough?  Well the National Catholic Reporter certainly did not prevent the sexual abuse crimes to occur in the United States.  But it did and does remind everyone willing to listen that there are American Catholics who _do actually believe_ and do actually want a Church that's accountable for its actions here on earth.

The Russian Orthodox Church may be being tempted by the same Devil's Bargain that the Catholic Church in the United States has been tempted by the American Right in these years after the sexual abuse scandals:  "We'll support you on such 'beside the point' matters as 'Gays,' just don't say a word anymore about the Economic Justice (or Corruption)."  The problem with that bargain is, of course, if the Church does not stand for the poor and oppressed then its other "teachings" become _meaningless_.    The Church's Power comes from standing-up for the weak:

You shall not oppress or molest a stranger, for you were once strangers residing in the land of Egypt.  You shall not wrong any widow or orphan. If ever you wrong them and they cry out to me, I will surely listen to their cry. My wrath will flare up, and I will kill you with the sword; then your own wives will be widows, and your children orphans.  -- Ex 22:20-23

So one could dismiss this film (and in fact the _provocative_ actions of Pussy Riot) as simply a "diatribe against the (Russian Orthodox) Church"  OR ... one could see it as a challenge to the (Russian Orthodox) Church stand-up and FULFILL its job to TRULY BE "The Nation's Conscience."  It seems obvious to me that the more useful / constructive interpretation would be the second one.


* Reasonably good (sense) translations of non-English webpages can be found by viewing them through Google's Chrome browser. 

<< 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 3 [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChiTribune/Variety (1 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune/Variety (M. Lee) review

Taken 3 [2014] (directed by Olivier Megaton, screenplay by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen) continues, IMHO quite unsatisfactorily, the Taken franchise through its third installment: 

Perhaps it was just that everyone involved in the story, especially lead actor Liam Neeson coming back, _again_ as _retired_, (presumed) _former_ CIA assassin Bryan Mills, seemed tired. (Hey, generally people don't "retire" for nothing ... they retire because they're "gettin' old for this sort of stuff ...");

Perhaps the story was beginning to "run out of places to go." (In the first installment, the story "shot itself out" in Paris, in the second in Istanbul, this time simply "just a few blocks down-the-street from the studio" in (presumably) the "Mills' Southern California");

Or perhaps simply this installment finally "just got sloppy" revealing just how improbable the whole franchise story always was ...

In any case, the story just felt flat, with key characters like Mills' ex-wife Lenore (played by Famke Jansson) being killed off (_she_ won't be coming back again) and the rest of the cast largely going through the motions.

The installment begins, quite endearingly, as the previous ones did (that's part of the franchise's schtick), with the Mills' each trying focus on their "regular lives."  Mills is shown busily trying to buy something for daughter Kim's (played by Maggie Grace) birthday.  She's in college now, apparently living with her boyfriend (worried actually that she may be pregnant), but she's still "his little girl."  So he settles on buying her a big stuffed panda and a bottle of champagne.   Mills' ex (and Kim's mother) is apparently having trouble with her second husband, but is trying "really hard" to make at least that second marriage work, and Mills is as "supportive" as a first (former) husband could be in a situation like that.  He DOESN'T try to "take advantage" but almost certainly he's smiling inside (thinking no doubt "I always knew it wasn't _simply_ me" ;-).  The second husband (played by Dugray Scott) even comes over, early on in the story to ask Mills to "keep out of the(ir) mess."  And Mills, gently, nonthreateningly (in as much as a _former CIA assassin_ could be "nonthreatening") assures him that he _doesn't_ want to get involved.

But becoming involved he must ... as a few days later Mills gets a text from Lenore asking him to stop at some neighborhood coffee shop "get some bagels" and come home to his apartment because, presumably, "she wants to talk."  Well, he gets the bagels, comes home and ... finds Lenore dead, in his bed.

What the heck happened?  He doesn't have a whole lot of time to ponder this because a few seconds later the LAPD is there (called apparently by SOMEBODY ...) yelling at him to "put his hands up."  Still not understanding what had just happened, but expecting that he wasn't gonna be able to figure things out as easily in a police lockup, he (former special forces, a former CIA assassin) decides "to make a run of it" ... does ... and the rest of the installment follows...

Of course, in the course of his running away from the cops (led by a LAPD inspector played by Forrest Whitaker) and later by his slinking / running around Los Angeles, there's _a lot_ of shooting, "glass breaking," and a fair number of "high speed chases."  And of course, (not much of a SPOILER here) ... EVENTUALLY he has to clear his name.

BUT ... while SOMEHOW (and in retrospect, with some embarrassment) these "shoot 'em up / chase scenes" seemed to "work for me" when the story was set in Paris or Istanbul, I FOUND THEM UTTERLY BELIEVABLE NOW THAT THEY WERE SET IN L.A.

Say what?  Don't these kind of scenes play-out in all kinds of Hollywood crime dramas set in Los Angeles?  Yes, but USUALLY these scenes involve chasing a "bad guy," not a "good guy trying to clear his name."

There's a scene in this film with the Police still chasing Mills as their prime suspect in which all kinds of "civilian cars" and even a huge semi-truck are wrecked on a freeway.  I simply can't imagine Mills, EVEN IF INNOCENT OF THE ORIGINAL CRIME (the death of his ex-wife) "WALKING AWAY" INNOCENT after CAUSING SO MUCH CARNAGE _RESISTING / FLEEING ARREST_.  At least SOME of those innocents crushed in some of those cars would have relatives WITH LAWYERS who would sue the LAPD (at minimum) "for compensation" and ASK QUESTIONS about "what the heck was that chase about?"  

Just IMAGINE even one of presumably MANY court cases that would follow that high speed chase:

My client's wife Molly was driving their 18-month year old toddler Jenny (look at my Molly's and my client's wedding pictures ... they got married in Santa Barbara, went to Oahu for their honeymoon ... ) to her mother's before heading off to work (Molly worked second shift at a Bob's Big Boy off of the 210 in Glendale, and look at all the pictures of their little Jenny playing with her little ducky in the bathtub at grandma's ...) when OUT OF NOWHERE THEIR CAR WAS CRUSHED BY A SEMI THAT SPUN OUT OF CONTROL AS A RESULT OF A HIGH SPEED POLICE ACTION with LAPD chasing some "shadowy figure" named Bryan Mills (it's all on the transcripts of the Police Radio of the time) who LAPD now maintains "committed NO CRIME."   My client's beautiful wife and 18-month-old toddler -- again look at all the lovely family pictures  -- ARE DEAD and LAPD and the District Attorney are NOW SAYING that Mills is "innocent."  HUH????   If he didn't resist arrest, my client's wife and kid would be alive today...

So at least this installment in the story seemed to me completely ridiculous (and with some embarrassment, I have to admit now that the two other installments set in Paris and Istanbul pretty much _had to be ridiculous_ as well).

Sigh ... it was a good run ... for a while ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Top Five [2014]

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

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

BET coverage
Ebony coverage
Essence.com interview
TheSource.com coverage

Top Five [2014] (written, directed and starring Chris Rock) is an appropriately R-rated, often quite funny (and in my position often quite frustrating to review) film about "a(n important) day in the life" of Andre Allen (played by Chris Rock), a (black) comedian trying to be taken as _more_ than "just a comedian."  (Arguably, the film covers similar ground as the Michael Keaton starring Birdman [2014] ;-)

So Andre Allen's portrayed in this film as having written, directed and starred in a _deathly serious_ 12 Years a Slave [2013] like Epic called "Upri^se" about Haiti's War for Independence, the largest and most successful Slave Uprising (the slaves _won_) in history since Spartacus or The Exodus.  This "important day in the life" of Allen was the day in which this film was to have been released to the theaters ... But was a film about a vast number of very upset, machete wielding black people putting-down / slaughtering thousands upon thousands of terrified white people really gonna be a "big draw" in the United States today ...? ;-) -- think Apartheid-era Zulu [1964] in reverse ;-)

THIS WAS PART of what 's on Andre's mind on this, very important, day.  The OTHER part was the, a few days hence, the "reality show wedding" that he's consented to do with his reality show star / fiancee' Erica Long (played by Gabrielle Union). 

But the reality show wedding IS "a few days hence" (though at the end of the day he has to "drop by" a (scripted?) "reality show bachelor party" - with friends / comedians Adam Sandler, Jerry Seinfeld and Whoopi Goldberg expected "to be present").  IMMEDIATELY before him was an interview with New York Times whose reviewer had previously HATED Allen's STUPID but INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL Allen in a head-to-toes-bear-suit "Hammy the Bear Superhero / Comedy" films.

To Allen's relief, the NYT reporter who steps out of the cab to meet him was not the 50+ year old white-anglo-male-patrician blowhard that he expected but a young/earnest African-American reporter named "Chelsey Brown" (still a very anglo name, but less threatening ... played by Rosario Dawson).  She asks if she could "shadow him" for the rest of the day so that she could write her piece about him at the end.  Having no particular reason to reject someone who was both attractive and seemed to be someone who probably would give him a fair-shake, Andre consents to this "shadowing-style interview."

The rest of the movie ... that (as per rogerebert.com reviewer Susan Wloszczyna) _does_ feel A LOT like the "Before Midnight" series of films (great insight there!) ... ensues.

The banter / conversation between the two, often more sexually graphic than it needed to be (again, the R-rating is certainly deserved as are the CNS/USCCB reviewer's concerns), is nevertheless often very, very good and both of the characters seem quite real.  But then, what exactly is "reality" here?

"Chelsey" turns out to be a young, hustling African American woman (of Latin American, hence Catholic heritage), a once teenage now still unwed mother and recovering alcoholic, who's still having all kinds of trouble with men, writing (quite successfully actually) for all kinds of magazines (amusingly from "Cosmo" to "the NYT" ;-) though under _all kinds of pen-names_.  (When was _she_ going to be able to "step-out" into the world under HER OWN IDENTITY?)

Allen began his life "in the projects" (there's a scene where his dad shakes him down for money) who had succeeded in first becoming a stand-up comedian, then a comedic actor (even if he had to _cover his own face_ to do so ...) and now was trying _really hard_ to become a serious actor even as he's getting married to a "reality show" star WHO HE ACTUALLY DID FEEL SOMETHING-FOR BECAUSE SHE _DID_ ACTUALLY HELP GIVE HIM DIRECTION EARLIER IN HIS LIFE WHEN HE WAS "LOST".

So portrayed is an intriguing and often quite honest-looking, multi-dimensional "mess" and truth be told, a story whose elements are not altogether far from what one continues to hear in the Confessional ;-).

So while I do wish that some of the dialogue and _some of the situations_ were "a little bit cleaner," nevertheless I do think that the film is quite good and deserving of many of the critical accolades that it has received.  So over all, good job folks, good job!

And I'd like to END BY THANKING Rosario Dawson for first _keeping her stage name_ ROSARIO and then allowing her character in this film to remain Catholic.  Yes, her character still had some "issues" (don't we all...).  BUT IT WAS NICE TO SEE that in her character's quite orderly (4 years in AA) apartment a Crucifix and a statue of Mary in places where one would expect them to be in a nice orderly Catholic home of today.  This may seem like "a little detail," but I certainly caught it AND APPRECIATED IT.  So again, good job there Rosario, 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 Gambler [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (R. Moore) review
RogerEbert.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  

Anyone who's played a little Blackjack in his/her life (HOPEFULLY for FAR, FAR LOWER STAKES THAN IN THIS FILM) will find the opening sequence in The Gambler [2014] (directed by Rupert Wyatt, screenplay by William Monahan based on the screenplay for the 1974 film by James Toback) PAINFUL:

Still looking somewhat rich, if disheveled, 30-something Jim Bennett (played by a surprising and impressive Mark Wahlberg) walks into a late night seaside Southern California illegal gambling establishment with a wad of big bills, asks for several tens of thousands of dollars of chips, gets them, proceeds to a blackjack table, places a $10,000 chip on the table and ... wins.  Then, HE KEEPS THE $10,000 there along with his $10,000 winnings and plays again ... and ... wins again.  Then keeping his bet and his winnings on the table again (now up to $40,000 (!)) ... and ... dealer looking toward his supervisor for advice (who nods to give the okay) ... plays again ... and ... wins again.  KEEPING NOW $80,000 on the table he asks to play again ... gets his cards and ... loses it all.  A few hands later, he's LOST EVERYTHING that he's come to the Establishment with.

OMG ... this guy is insane.  There's NO "SYSTEM" to his playing.  HE JUST "PLAYS" UNTIL HE LOSES _EVERYTHING_.

And to make the point, after insulting a smiling, immaculately dressed, shaking-his-head (at Bennett's recklessness) African-American loan-shark named Neville Baraka (played by Michael Kenneth Williams) and after being reminded by the illegal gambling establishment's owner "Lee" (played with magnificent understated "east Asian mafia fashion" by Alvin Ing) that Bennett owes the Establishment $240K and "someday" (soon ...) he's gonna have to pay that back, Bennett goes back to said still smiling, still-shaking-his-head loan-shark to loan him $50,000.  Now grinning-from-ear-to-ear over the insanity of it all, Baraka explains to him that he'd expect full payment plus 2 points ($20,000) in a week.  Bennett agrees, takes the $50,000 and proceeds to lose those $50,000 IN  EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT HE LOST THE $50K that he walked-in with.

Honestly WT(F) ??   Honestly, WHO PLAYS LIKE THIS?  An "ADDICT"?   No, someone with a death wish.  But why?

Well that's the rest of the film.

Now (of course) there are people (enablers??) who despite hating him / fearing him / fearing what his "problem/predicament" could DO TO THEM remain ARGUABLY FASCINATED by him (or just want to "help" him) -- his mother (played by Jessica Lange), a student of his (played by Brie Larson) and a THIRD "underworld figure" (played by John Goodman).

But can one really help someone who seems to be dead set on dying (and apparently insisting on doing so in "dramatic fashion")?  The police know a similar phenomenon quite well: "Suicide by cop..."

This all said, there's ANOTHER MORE "STRUCTURAL" DILEMMA: This is a "Hollywood movie" after all and "Hollywood" prefers that its films "end well."  So what does Hollywood / the filmmakers do with a story like this?  Do the filmmakers THEMSELVES pull their lead character out of his predicament ... or ... do they allow the film to run its more natural / inevitable course a la Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas [1995]? 

I'm not going to tell you ;-) ... but in any case this is a film that DEMANDS to be discussed after it's over.  And in that sense, Great job!


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