Goodnight Mommy (orig. Ich Seh, Ich Seh) [2015]

MPAA (R)  Fr. Dennis (1 Star)

IMDb listing
Film-Zeit.de listing*

Critic.de (U. Lupelmeier) review*


Goodnight Mommy (orig. Ich Seh, Ich Seh) [2015] [IMDb] [FZ.de]* (cowritten and codirected by Severin Fiala [IMDb] [FZ.de]* and Veronika Franz [IMDb] [FZ.de]*) is an Austrian horror film that apparently will be Austria's submission to the 88th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film.  It's currently making the "art house" circuit in the United States, playing here in Chicago at the Music Box Theatre.  I found the film become all but unwatchable and left it with still 20-30 minutes to go...

The plot is simple enough: In the story, Lukas and Elias (played by Lukas [IMDb] [FZ.de]* and Elias Schwarz [IMDb] [FZ.de]*) twin boys, about 10 years old, living with their mother (played by Susanne Wuest [IMDb] [FZ.de]*) in a secluded rather modern / somewhat impersonal looking house somewhere in the Austrian countryside get it into their heads that their mother, recently divorced and recently having undergone some rather significant cosmetic surgery was not really their mother: She was being rather irritable, and for the first third of the film her face was covered by bandages.  Looking through an old photo album, they find a picture of their mother when she was in her 20s with another woman, who looked a lot like her, but wasn't her, a woman who they never knew, and they become convinced that this "other woman" had now come into their lives and was pretending to be their mother.

All right, according to Ulf Lupelmeier of Critic.de (link above),* the film was at least partly inspired by a recent (presumably German language) "reality TV" series in which mothers were separated from their families for about 8 weeks to undergo radical beautifying cosmetic surgery and apparently _young children_ were often confused when reintroduced to their suddenly different (if perhaps "more beautiful") looking mothers.

Well "good ole" 10-12 year old Lukas and Elias decide to tie-up the woman who they believe is posing as their mother (with unused gauze bandages left-over from her cosmetic surgery) in her bed as she as was sleeping one night, and then PROCEED TO TORTURE HER into confessing that she's not really their mother.

I left after the two had burned a hole into her cheek with a large magnifying glass, and then _superglued_ her mouth shut so that she would stop screaming.  They were going to open her mouth again to feed her, using a box cutter, as I was heading out the door ...

What the ...?

It obviously becomes BESIDE THE POINT whether this poor woman was their mother or not.  I left wondering if the two children had become almost "poster children" for a re-institution of a CHILD DEATH PENALTY as part of me would say that even _death_ was probably _not good enough_ for these "little monsters."

But then, it was also obvious that these "little monsters" as AWFUL as they were honestly didn't know the full implications of what they were doing that NO ONE deserved to be tortured the way they were tormenting that poor woman who honestly was still most likely their own mother.

I also began to wonder if part of the subtext of the film was still a residual search for understanding of how THE NAZIS came about:

In this film, these two kids simply "got it into their heads" THE CRAZY IDEA that their mother was "not really their mother" and proceeded to _torture her_ until she "confessed" that she was not (whether that was the case or not).

Similarly, the NAZIS "got into their heads" THE CRAZY IDEA that Germans were somehow qualitatively "racially superior" to the other people / peoples around them and SIMILARLY went onto TORTURE / MURDER / INDUSTRIALLY LIQUIDATE BY GAS (!!) MILLIONS of people, JEWS (6 MILLION) in particular, IN "SERVICE" of that CRAZY IDEA.

Anyway, I found the film to be WILDLY DISTURBING and by midway through the story UTTERLY UNWATCHABLE.  If one "has to" watch this film at all, I'd suggest renting it, so that if by the end, one "just wants to turn it off" one could do so without wasting a great deal of time or money ...


* 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! :-) >>

99 Homes [2014]

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

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


99 Homes [2014] (directed and cowritten by Ramin Bahrani [wikip] [IMDb] along with Amir Naderi [wikip] [IMDb]) plays like a "Horror movie of Another / neo-Realist (think Bicycle Thieves [1948]) Kind."  Monsters and Victims, they're _all_ completely, utterly _human_ [TM] and sadly, awfully, horrifically, the adult viewer will understand them all.  

Set in the Orlando, Florida area (think Disney "Happiest Place on Earth...") in 2010 (!) in the wake of 2008 Financial Crisis / Housing Collapse (which hit places like central Florida especially hard), Rick Carver (played to archetypical / certainly Oscar nomination deserving heights by Michael Shannon) is Real Estate Agent turned Mephistopheles / the Angel of Death: After years of "making a Living" (by his own admission) _happily_ "putting people into homes," he's now MADE A KILLING dragging people out of them, buying-up their shattered dreams for a pittance and "flipping" them to out-of-state / transnational Monsters greater than he.  What the heck happened to him?  Exactly.   And yet, again, AWFULLY, "one understands."

"Don't get personal about real estate," Carver tells former / hit-on-hard-times construction worker Dennis Nash (played again with magnificent moral disorientation / confusion by Andrew Garfield) who he hires as his henchman "Igor" figure (after taking away his house in the opening 20 minutes of the film), "There are big boxes and small boxes, but they are just boxes."  Yet, of course, to most people, most VIEWERS, those "boxes" are HOMES ... and taking away those "boxes" from PEOPLE proves as soul draining as any bite by a "Dracula" figure in a classic b-level horror film.

This is honestly a brilliant "look at what we've become" sort of a film.  And yet, one is left with the awful question "You may be right, but what the heck to do...?"


<< 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 Martian [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller-Seitz) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review  


The Martian [2015] (directed by Ridley Scott, screenplay by Drew Goddard based on the novel [GW] [WCat] [Amzn] by Andy Weir [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]) is an uneven, if generally inclusive (though I don't think the Russians will be particularly happy with the film...) near-future sci-fi epic about a largely U.S. led, with some European involvement (there's a German astronaut as part of the crew), manned mission to Mars, where after 18 days on Mars' surface something goes terribly wrong:

A martian sandstorm brews-up suddenly and the crew has to quickly evacuate the planet.

In the chaos of getting to the craft that would take them back into orbit, one of the astronauts, Mark Watney (played by Matt Damon), is knocked down by debris (which turns out to be a piece from their base's dish antenna...) and his "smart space suit" reports to the others that his space suit had been breached.  Unable to see / locate where he'd be lying and with dust and debris flying about everywhere, putting their return vehicle increasingly in peril, the mission commander on the ground, astronaut Melissa Lewis (played by Jessica Chastain) makes the call to launch without him.

Of course, Watney turns out not to be dead.  Yes, he had been partly impaled by a rod from the back of said "dish antenna" but between his own blood and the piece of the debris that had impaled him, the two actually sealed the hole in his suit.  So, he did not die ... but ...

... now he found himself alive on the planet and apparently with no means of communicating with either earth or his crew-mates still presumably orbiting (for a while anyway) above him.  

What to do?

Well, first and foremost with basic medical supplies left at the living / working quarters of the small base (still more or less intact) where he and the other five astronauts -- the previously mentioned commander Lewis along with pilot Rick Martinez (played by Michael Peña), German mission specialist Alex Vogel (played by Aksel Hennie), computer specialist Beth Johanssen (played by Kate Mara) and Chris Beck (played by Sebastian Stan) -- had largely residing during their sojourn on surface of the red planet, he quickly stitches himself back together.

He then had two problems, (1) he had to figure-out how to re-establish contact with ... ANYBODY (his crew-mates / EARTH) ... and (2) realizing that this was probably not going to be easy, he has to figure out how to first stretch and then even grow his own food.

Now to be honest, I don't quite understand why reestablishing communication was going to be such a problem.   We are told in the film that that the Mars base itself was constructed by means of MULTIPLE (unmanned) mission sending down supplies that would be needed by the astronauts when they arrived.  This would mean that there would be MULTIPLE sets of communications gear leftover from those previous unmanned missions that he could cannibalize, if need be, to get a signal out to his crew-mates / earth.  And then I'd find IT HARD TO BELIEVE that a MANNED NASA MISSION (AND THEN TO MARS !!!) WOULD SOMEHOW DEPEND ON A _SINGLE_ "DISH ANTENNA" for communications.  Even NASAs unmanned probes flying to the outer planets were ALWAYS designed with MULTIPLE communications devices.  Perhaps one would be "preferred" but there were always back-ups (and sometimes, as with the Galileo / Cassini missions, the backups ended up being the communications means primarily used).

But we're being asked to accept here that Watney found himself alive / alone on Mars and (and at least initially) with _no means_ to communicate with Earth and his crew-mates.  Of course, he eventually finds a (rather ingenious) way ... re-establish contact.

Now what was happening on Earth?  Initially, NASA assumes that Watney is dead and NASA chief Teddy Sanders (played by Jeff Daniels), flanked by his "Mars Missions" head Vincent Kapoor (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Press Secretary Annie Montrose (played by Kristen Wiig) announces this to the world.

But, after about twenty days, comparing martian satellite photos of the area around the base, NASA image analyst Mindy Park (played by Mackenzie Davis) discovers clear indication that Watney is still alive -- as someone seems to be moving around the base's rover/truck.  What now?  The rest of Watney's crew is already on its way back to earth.  Over the next several days / weeks, NASA officials mission specialists observe Watney apparently methodically working out a plan that they discover _could_ actually help him re-establish contact with them.  Without getting into details (spoilers) here, he succeeds ...

Okay, they've re-established contact, and soon, of course, the whole of NASA and especially the JPL, including a team led by NASA engineer Bruce Ng (played by Benedict Wong) are helping him "with the day-to-day."  They are absolutely amazed that Watney's figured out a way to grow food (make soil, MAKE WATER to WATER SAID SOIL) on Mars.  And in a similar spirit, they help him improve his day-to-day life even more.  But ...

... none of this would help much in the end, if they couldn't assemble some kind of a plan to rescue him.  That then becomes the rest of the movie.  The Chinese provide assistance as well (and pointedly NOT the Russians ... not because the Russians would be hostile, but presumably because they'd be for some reason "irrelevant"...).  [Apparently in Hollywood's calculations, China's movie market would larger than Russia's and, well, presently we find ourselves in something of a "mini Cold War II" with Russia ...].

Much still has to happen, and ... recognizing that this is a Hollywood movie and one that involves NASA "can do" spirit (even if we don't seem to fund NASA to do much of anything anymore ...) ... So without too much of a spoiler, let's just say that the story ... (has to) ... end well.

Now clearly there are many positive even salutary aspects to the film.  The CGI is spectacular (!)  and NASA's (previously) famous "can do" ethic / ingenuity certainly shines through.  But ...

Still, I found the scenario flawed at time even incredible on multiple levels:

(1) even the "initial emergency" seems exaggerated to me, a martian sand storm that would be so strong that the crew would have to evacuate (LAUNCH DURING A SAND STORM ...) immediately,

(2) I find it next to impossible to believe that Watney would really find himself initially _completely_ out of contact with NASA (again, one would assume that there'd be all kinds of redundant communications (!) systems built into the mission planning,

(3) If a martian storm could really knock-out ALL of Watney's communications gear, then it could certainly do even more damage than that (Watney would have almost certainly found his living quarters breached or otherwise destroyed),

(4) Where was Watney's family in the picture?  Or really any of the other families? ... There are some references to the other families, but NOT NEARLY ENOUGH to be realistic.  Portrayed in the film was a NASA mission which had a lot go wrong with with it.  There would be family members from all the astronauts' families who would have become REGULAR FIXTURES on all kinds of Cable TV / Cable News networks before the story completely played itself out.

So while there are good aspects to the film, I'm disappointed by the final result.  Yes, the film tries to be optimistic, and that's good / great.  But there are just too many things, technical, human, even geopolitical, that just don't seem right ... sigh.


<< 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 2 [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (R. Bentley) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (J. Hessenger) review


Hotel Transylvania 2 [2015] (directed by Genndy Tartakovsky screenplay by Adam Sandler along with Robert Smigel) continues this "animated Twilight [1] [2]-like story for kids," focused on the father / daughter relationship, Dracula (voiced by Adam Sandler) and his daughter Mavis (voiced by Selena Gomez), both vampires, after Mavis falls in love with and marries a "California backpacking / skate-boarding dude" human named Jonathan (voiced by Andy Samberg). 

In the first film, blissfully (if also somewhat mindlessly) "trekking through Transylvania," Jonathan had by sheer accident stumbled-over to Dracula's carefully hidden "WAY, WAY off the beaten path" Hotel Transylvania.  Dracula had opened said hotel "for monsters (ONLY!)" so that monsters could have a place to rest / vacation in peace away from humans who he could only assume continued to hate them.  (In the first movie, we find out that Dracula's wife / Mavis' mother had been murdered by torch-carrying villagers ... Frankenstein (voiced in the story by Kevin James) had to similarly flee in front of torch-carrying villagers.  Other monsters, including werewolves, mummies, etc didn't fare much better).

'Cept here was smiling from ear-to-ear, happy go-lucky (and perhaps not particularly bright) Jonathan, who just found Dracula's CASTLE (err ... Hotel) and then Dracula's DAUGHTER (!) "way cool!"   What to do about a human who HONESTLY doesn't hate [you] anymore?  (Maybe it's just because he's just DUMB, but MAYBE it's also because he honestly finds NO REASON to hate anybody anymore, someone who just enjoys life / "his mellow" ;-). 

So at the end of the first film, despite past fears / prejudices against humans, Dracula consents to allow his beloved (and ONLY) daughter Mavis marry this rather odd, new kind of human.

... At the beginning of this, the second installment of the story, Mavis gives birth to her / Jonathan's first son, Dennis (voiced by Asher Blinkoff).  But now, is he "a Monster" or "a human"?  He's got rather pale skin (good sign, from Drac's POV) but he also curly-red hair.  So he doesn't look much of a Monster.  But Dracula, kinda hopes "Maybe he's just a 'late fanger'"

To be fair, Jonathan's parents Linda and Mike (voiced by Megan Mullaly and Nick Offerman) while trying really hard to be "open minded" / "supportive" and hence would not be too too upset if their grandson turned-out to be "a monster" make it (repeatedly) clear that they "wouldn't mind" if little Dennis turned out to be "normal" ;-) ;-) as well ;-). 

Sooo then, what is little Dennis (or as Dracula calls him, "little Denisevic" ;-) going to be?  A monster like "Papa Drac" or 'normal' like his Santa Claus, er Santa Cruz ;-), residing human relatives ;-).

And mind you, it's NOT just "Dracula" against this horde of "kinder gentler, more enlightened / more supportive human relatives from California" ;-) ... Drac has his own problems ... notably his own OLD SCHOOL vampire Dad named Vlad (voice by Mel Brooks, the BEST (!), MOST INSPIRED CASTING CHOICE IN A LONG LONG TIME ;-) who'd just assume DRAIN / EAT Jonathan's parents / relatives rather than _even try_ to "get to know them" ;-). 

It all makes for ONE FUNNY, "COMPLEX" BLENDED FAMILY MOVIE ;-)

Brilliant Adam, simply brilliant.  And soooo, soooo much better than the summer's Pixels [2015] ;-).   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! :-) >> 

Everest [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McCarthy) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (K. Rife) review


Everest [2015] (directed by Baltasar Kormákur screenplay by William Nicholson and Simon Beaufoy) plays like a classic Hollywood blockbuster "now in 3D" (could it be any other way today?) Disaster [TM] film.  'Cept, UNLIKE most other such "disaster films," this one recalls _actual events_ that of the 1996 Mount Everest Disaster whose circumstances leading-up to the tragedy, and then of the tragedy itself, really did play-out like a Hollywood disaster film. 

I remember the story, reading about it with honestly some jaw-dropped horror in the Int'l Herald Tribune (then jointly owned by the NYT / Wash Post) in my last year at the Seminary in Rome (My religious order, the Servites, run the Marianum in Rome).  Two NYT articles from the time, one originally from the AP, reporting on the disaster can be found here [1] [2].

Basically, what was happening and then had happened was that (1) climbing Mount Everest was becoming for the first time a(n admittedly still "extreme") tourism business, and (2) as many as thirty such "adventure tourists," led by some still very professional mountaineering guides from several professional outfitting firms based in New Zealand (Adventure Consultants), the United States (Mountain Madness) and elsewhere, found themselves caught in a sudden storm still high-up on the slopes/ridges of Mount Everest in the late afternoon as they were _coming down_ (after having reached the summit) to their forward-most camp. 

The storm hit the climbers (of varying experience / capability) at exactly their most vulnerable time.  Most were exhilarated (from having reached "the top of the world") but were already tired from the climb / weakened by the conditions and _some_ were already experiencing the disorienting effects of high altitude (snow blindness and the scarcity of oxygen).  In better circumstances, they would have just slogged it down _more or less safely_ as best / as carefully as they could.  But now they were dealing with a storm -- high winds, driving snow/ice and terrible visibility -- and with companions who were not necessarily in the best of shape and who didn't necessarily know what they were doing. 

The tragic result ... _became_ predictable (in hindsight / after-the-fact) and really did fit into a classic scenario of a Hollywood disaster movie: well-meaning professionals being lulled by "previous successes" into a sense of complacency finding themselves dealing with (and responsible for), again, basically good if naive "tourists" and certainly _amateurs_ who proved to be _way outside their element_ in the face of the storm.

This film is available in various formats -- 2D, 3D, IMax.  I saw it in 2D (the cheapest format), but I would say that probably the 3D / IMax versions would have been spectacular (and well worth the extra money if you have it). 

The performances in the film were also quite good -- Jason Clarke (as Rob Hall [wikip] [IMDb]) who led the New Zealand based (Adventure Consultants) group; Keira Knightly (as Jan Arnold [IMDb], Rob Hall's then pregnant wife back in New Zealand); Jake Gyllenhaal (as Scott Fischer [wikip] [IMDb] who led the U.S./Seattle-based (Mountain Madness) group); Josh Brolin (as Texas family man / medical doctor and yet also "adventure tourist" Beck Weathers [wikip] [IMDb]); John Hawkes (as Doug Hansen [IMDb] a three time Mount Everest "loser" (never quite made it to the summit) who Rob Hall of Adventure Consultants did feel sorry for, in civilian life he was a small-town mailman / school teacher from the U.S.) and Naoko Mori (as Yasoko Namba [wikip] [IMDb], a middle-aged Japanese woman who had already climbed six of the seven summits on the seven continents of the world, Everest being the one that was "still missing" for her of the fabled seven). 

Among these people are certainly some wonderful / poignant stories which (without revealing here who lives / dies) turn-out to be almost crushingly sad.

So this is a film that deserved to be made and then to be made in "Hollywood Blockbuster" almost Titanic [1997] fashion.  For it has the mix of sincerity / naivete, arrogance / folly out of which most compelling and shatteringly sad tragedies are made. 

So very good job folks, very, very good job.  But "bring a hankie" or two ...


<< 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 Intern [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


The Intern [2015] (written and directed by Nancy Meyers) was a GENERALLY very nice -- parents see the end of my otherwise glowing review -- dramedy about 70 year-old, widowed for several years retiree, Ben (played wonderfully throughout by Robert DeNiro in probably his BEST (!) performance in 10 years), who after several years of said widow(er)hood / retirement, decided that he's not yet ready to throw himself on the funeral pyre and/or "just die."

Walking back from a morning of Tai Chi in a park in his native Brooklyn, he comes across a flier posted on a kiosk by a local (fashion) e-commerce startup company called "About the Fit" looking for "Senior Interns."  Interestingly, the flier asks that applicants be seniors (65 and older) but also asks them to submit, electronically, a video clip of themselves talking of their experience / job expectations.  It's an interesting request which seeks to utilize the wisdom of seniors while asking them to be also interested / capable of presenting themselves in a savvy manner in the present.

Ben, like MANY other Seniors (with experiences of following their grandkids on Facebook, et al ;-), acknowledges a little help from said grand-kids, but puts together a pretty good, indeed dead-on, video of himself to submit for the job ... and he gets it.

Now, of course, if his character couldn't do this, there'd be no movie.  But writer/director Meyers, reminds us that we shouldn't be surprised that Ben, a 70 year old retiree, but who had spent 30+ of his 40+ years of working in middle management would probably find the skills to pull this off, which, of course, Ben does.

So then Ben lands the senior intern job and for the first time in years has someplace to (regularly) go to.  But would he be accepted at the job?  This then is the rest of the movie. 

Now the film is NOT harsh, indeed, it is WONDERFULLY KIND.  But still there is that question:

Can a 70 year old, that yes, knows how to know, reasonably well, how to get around a laptop function effectively indeed CREATIVELY in the world of 20-30 something run e-commerce startups?  And his boss Jules (played again wonderfully by Anne Hathaway), said fashion e-commerce startup complany creator isn't particularly convinced, certainly not at the start of this "Senior intern experiment" foisted on her by one of her also late-20 / early-30-something partners.   (Note of course, that earlier in her career Hathaway herself famously played an intern (to Merryl Streep's) in another fashion oriented film called The Devil Wears Prada [2006] ;-).

In the current film, it's clear that "business is booming."  At one point Jules shares to Ben / Viewers that her company had started a few years before with "a group of 12" and now had over 200 employees.  But it was almost booming too much.  "Back in the day" (only said 2 years past...), Jules could be totally engaged / involved in everything from shipping to web design to customer service.  Now with 200+ employees that was untenable.  What to do?  How to get help, quickly, at low cost?  Well that was part of the reason why Jules' partner suggested getting a couple of "senior interns" (who had a lot of experience) and why he also suggested looking into finding even a C.E.O. (not her) to manage the implementation of the decisions of the company (the partners).

But could she let go?  It was "ALL SOOO EASY when things were still small."  Add to the mix the reality that Jules, as a young, vibrant, late-20 / early 30-something, was married, her husband, not at the firm, being Matt (played by Anders Holm) and together they had a cute as a button 5-6 year old Paige (played by Jojo Kushner).

So this was Jules' WONDERFUL but "bursting at the seams" world ... And yet, how does one manage all this, without eventually "crashing and burning(out)."

Enter, of course, wonderfully, 70-year old intern Ben, who can't possibly move anymore as fast as Jules, but has the experience to appreciate what she's achieved and make sense of it (for her) so that it can be sustained.

THIS IS A GREAT MOVIE about the Value of Wisdom.  And who knows, if the film's marketing folks are smart enough, they'll have it available for streaming / DVD purchase come Christmas time for the film's fans' parents and grandparents.

So generally good / great job over all.

HOWEVER, I do have to note to PARENTS OF YOUNG KIDS AND TEENS that I do agree with the CNS / USCCB's reviewer John Mulderig that a couple of the scenes involving the company's late-40-something / early-50 something masseuse Fiona (played by Rene Russo) are needlessly / even stupidly "over-the-top" and take the film that would have been A LOVELY PG movie for the whole family into ARGUABLY R-rated territory.  This is unfortunate and forces me to give the film 3-stars rather than the 4-stars or even 4+ that it would have otherwise deserved.

Still this is a lovely film that 20-somethings and above should be able to appreciate and view with their parents / grandparents.


<< 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! :-) >>

Meet the Patels [2015]

MPAA (PG)  ChiTrib/Variety (3 Stars)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing

ChiTribune/Variety (A. Barker) review
RogerEbert.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (T. Robinson) review


Meet the Patels [2015] (codirected and cowritten by Geeta Patel and her bother Ravi Patel, with additional writing credits given to Matthew Homachek and Billy McMillian) is a _kind-hearted_ and well-crafted comedic documentary about late-20 something American born-and-raised Ravi Patel's quite sincere attempt to please his kind (but increasing, ahem, "concerned" ;-) Indian immigrant parents and "just find a nice Indian girl" (and preferably _another_ Patel ;-) to marry. 

Wait a minute, "another Patel?"  Wouldn't that be a bit strange?  No not really.  Ravi explains that "Patel" is like "Smith", and there's an entire state in India -- Gujarat -- where pretty much _everyone's_ last name is Patel.  And further, to avoid too much consanguinity, there are "rules":  If you're a Patel whose family descends from "this or that" part of Gujarat, you look for / marry someone from another part of Gujarat ("across the river," say ...). 

THIS MAKES SURPRISING SENSE TO ME.  My dad's family (actually, more specifically, my paternal grandmother's family) originates from a small village in south-central Bohemia.  Now thanks to Hitler's Nazi-era race policies, during Nazi occupation, all Czechs (and really everyone "in the Reich" or under occupation, the Nazis preferring to call their occupation of the Czechlands a "Protectorate" ... but "I digress" ;-) had to document their ancestry back five generations.  Well, among what we discovered, (IMHO quite amusingly ;-) was that NEVER did any of my ancestors "marry from the same village."  It was always that one married someone from "across the hill" in the next village or even two-or-three villages down.   So even if one's general horizons were limited back then to perhaps a 20 mile radius from where one was born (remember, one's talking about "regular village folk" in the 1800s or even late 1700s), the gene pool remained quite mixed. 

So that's what the (arguably) _nation_ of Patels basically do in the Bohemia-sized Indian state of Gujarat ;-)

Now, of course, there are specific cultural particularities at work as well.  The Patel "family" is large enough in number to be a small nation, and yet it is definitely _more familial_ than simply a nation.  To illustrate the point, Ravi shares with viewers the story about how when he was young, his (immedtiate) family (mom, dad, sister Geeta and he) were driving on a vacation in the United States, and at the end of the day they stopped at an Indian, PATEL-run motel somewhere in (say) "Tennessee." 

Well since the Ravi's family were Patels and the motel was run by OTHER PATELS, their one night stay included being invited over the the motel-running Patels' living quarters, sharing, indeed cooking a meal together and spending the rest of the evening exchanging stories in a manner that one would share with well, "one's cousins."  FOR EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD NEVER MET EACH OTHER BEFORE (or quite possibly since) THEY WERE FAMILY FOR AT LEAST THAT ONE NIGHT.  And to the outsider it would have seemed that the very purpose of Ravi's family's travel through Tennessee was precisely to visit that other Patel family (who they had not met before the trip) at whose model they stayed.  The story describes a remarkably closeness that certainly stretches the bounds of most Westerners' conceptions of even extended family!

And so this is then the kind of _nice_ familial "magic" that American born-and-raised, but Indian indeed Patel-descended Ravi had difficulty letting-go of. 

To many Americans, the quaintness of "ways of the past" may be difficult to fathom.  But if one's born into it, experienced it, and one does appreciate some of the beauty of it, it is hard to let go of, and _certainly_ one does not want to let go of it all.

So this then is the story of Ravi, again American-born-and-raised, trying _really hard_ not to disappoint his parents, while at the same time recognizing that he's not living (for the most part) in India anymore (though the family does go to visit) or, for that matter, in more "traditional times."  How does one negotiate the current with the past, respecting and indeed _loving_ both?

Great film!


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