Storks [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


Storks [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Nicholas Stoller along with Doug Sweetland) makes for a remarkably insightful (or at least hopeful) children's parable about priorities.

Where do babies come from?  Well, storks, of course, bring them to families that wanted them.  I don't know if that was the explanation my folks used when I first asked this question, but I always liked it as a nice age appropriate explanation for young kids who couldn't possibly understand the real answer ;-).

Well if this was the case -- that storks bring babies into the world to families that wanted them -- in the past generation this has proven to be a problem: Both storks and (potential) parents found babies to be ... well kind of a hassle.  So ... (potential) parents _stopped_ asking for babies _and_ storks led by a particularly "business savy" head stork (voiced by Kelsey Grammer) "repositioned" the storks into "delivering" less problematic items -- consumer electronics -- for a new (and omnipresent) Amazon-like company called "cornerstore.com";-). 

And nobody, neither the storks nor people, seemed to mind until ... a somewhat neglected little boy named Nate Gardner (voiced by Anton Starkman) asked his ever-on-their-cell-phones parents Henry and Sarah (voiced by Ty Burrell and Jennifer Aniston) -- running some sort of a real estate business out of their home -- that he'd REALLY WANT "a baby brother" to play with.  How to fit _that_ in?  The parents initially are _definitely_ NOT "on board."  So ... Nate decides to "write the storks" himself. 

Well the storks "aren't in the baby delivery business anymore" anyway.  So the letter is destined to be "returned to sender" BUT ... BY HAPPENSTANCE ... this letter manages to get through, and the LONG MOTHBALLED "baby making machine" up there on a perch on a faraway mountain in the clouds, starts-up and makes a CUTE AS A BUTTON baby for Nate.  And ... seeing this cute as a button baby ("after all these years") despite calls by the "head stork" to "not get distracted" and just continue to deliver the consumer electronics that they're now delivering, the CUTE AS A BUTTON baby proves FAR MORE INTERESTING (first to the storks and _eventually_ to potential parents) and ... the rest of the story ensues ... ;-)

It's honestly A LOVELY STORY ... PEOPLE (and especially KIDS) prove FAR MORE INTERESTING than "stuff" ;-)

Great job folks!  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! :-) >>

Bridget Jones's Baby [2016]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J.P. McCarthy) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review 

Bridget Jones's Baby [2016] (directed by Sharon Maguire, screenplay by Helen Fielding, Dan Mazer and Emma Thompson, based on story and characters by Helen Fielding [wikip] [GR] [IMDb]) is a charming (if not necessarily demanded) "Part III" of a story that charmed "back in the day" fifteen years ago when the first film, Bridget Jones's Diary [2001] first came out.  But there it is.  Clutsy, endearing, everywoman/everyperson Bridget Jones (played wonderfully as ever by Renée Zellweger) finds herself "celebrating" alone, yet again, on her 43rd birthday (How?  See the movie, and most will immediately understand... It could honestly happen to anybody, but it still hurts). 

But our often unlucky heroine didn't not let her, yet again, quite lousy birthday get her down ;-).  She now had a (pretty) great job as a producer of a "hard-hitting" (if tabloidish) News Program called "Hard News" where her über-focused / no-nonsense anchor Miranda (played by Sarah Solemani) would take her guests (often enough quite awful/unsavory despots and/or their henchmen) to a (quite comfortable-looking) "sofa" for questioning.  (Think Monty Python's "Spanish Inquisition" -- "Bring out ... the comfy chair" ;-) ;-).   Of course, Bridget, the producer, would often get distracted by other things and feed Miranda (into whose earpiece she'd be talking) wildly inappropriate questions and comments that would, of course, "make the show" even as the questions / comments would undermine it.

Miranda, about the same age as Bridget, thankful for Bridget's unscripted goofiness (as it paid _her bills_ as well), decides that what Bridget really needs is to "hookup with a man" and get one epic ...  So she takes her to a contemporary Woodstock-like music festival complete with quite tidy Mongolian hookup "yurts" (part of the thematics of film appeared to be how everything today, even raunchy no-holds barred hedonism is actually quite scripted and sanitized today).  There she does, in fact, hook-up with an American looker (played by Patrick Dempsey) named "Jack."  A week later, at a far more traditional / staid Christianing she runs into her old and far-more stiff  British boyfriend Mark Darcy (played by Colin Firth).  Despite her/their better judgement, the two end up spending the night together as well. 

A number of weeks later, Bridget finds herself pregnant, and of course, doesn't know by whom, and ... in typical Bridget Jones fashion can't seen to find an easy way to tell either of the other.  Much of course ensues ...

It makes for _a strange_ sort of comedy to write about (positively) on a Catholic blog ;-).  But underneath the story is actually a more-or-less consistent bias toward the traditional.  Yes, Bridget is a klutz.  Yes, her good yet ever-stiff ex is often incredibly boring (even to himself).  BUT ... in the end both are more authentic, more "made for each other" than the faux "über-self-realized" (nominally "far more perfect") others who surround them.


Strange as it may be, this is a goofy, middle-aged rom-com that leaves one with much to think about ;-).  (Pretty) 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! :-) >>

Blair Witch [2016]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review 


Blair Witch [2016] (directed by Adam Wingard, screenplay by Simon Barrett) is a rather benign "20 years later" sequel (wow, it's been nearly twenty years...) to The Blair Witch Project [1999] which, "back in the day" had really "turned heads" / caught the attention of movie goers and movie producers alike.  Yes, the original BWP was the very first film built around the "lost footage" device that has become part-and-parcel of horror / "scary movies" ever since. 

So how does the sequel do?  To be honest, "Eh, pretty well..." IMHO ;-).  Indeed, I'm somewhat surprised at the R-rating (for language mostly and, yes, least one of the "college aged couples" going out into Maryland's "Black Hills Forest" in search of "what really happened to Holly" (one of the college aged women who disappeared in the first film) more-or-less clearly set-out to do so with the expectation of sharing a tent together (They die, of course ... But then, in the "Shakespeare as a teen" (as HE _could_ have been "back in HIS DAY...") ETHOS of the whole "lost footage genre" ... they ALL "kinda have to die ..." ;-)

The technology of course is updated, reminding us today of JUST HOW HUGE the "state of the art" handheld "minicams" of 1999 still were.  In the current film, the characters wear "flash cams" mounted to blue-tooth style earpieces, the batteries powering them presumably being no larger those powering today's hearing aids.  One character even brings along a little plastic "Walmart Special" four propeller helicopter drone ;-). 

None of this technology, however, is a match for the well-timed-to-be-scary "wind gust" or random howl of some random animal, wild or domestic, in the distance.  Add rain (and the mud it produces) and between shaky cams and shaky flashlights, it all makes for one heck of a low budget, and quite believable "scary high school / college camping story" ;-). 

The best comment about the film that I've heard came from the teenager who sold me the ticket as I went to see it.  I asked: "So did you see it yet?"  "No, and I don't plan to.  I'm just a big scardy cat" ;-)  Scardy cat indeed ... ;-)

Folks, this is not Citizen Kane [1941], nor even Psycho [1960].  But for teenagers and those who _were_ teenagers "back in (some) day" who used to go hiking or camping, it spins a pretty good tale ... ;-)

Not bad really, not bad at all ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Snowden [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (J. CHang) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review  

Snowden [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Oliver Stone along with Kieran Fitzgerald based on the books The Time of the Octopus [GR] by Anatoly Kucherena [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] and The Snowden Files [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Luke Harding [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a film that's destined to be controversial simply for the persons involved.  Both Edward Snowden himself (whose demeanor was IMHO captured _spot-on_ in the film, and arguably to Oscar nomination heights, by Joseph Gordon Levitt) and director Oliver Stone have their (often quite reflexive) "haters."  Yet, I admit that I both like and honestly _admire_ both of these inconvenient / disturbing messengers.

Everything that I have seen / read of Snowden indicates to me that he was a sincere and _measured_ "brainiac" who saw what was being done in terms of (near universal) surveillance at the NSA and thought (rightly!!) that _at least the American public / world ought to know_.  I'm not excited that he finds himself in Russia.  I do think that despite his best efforts _some_ secrets above and beyond his control will (or already have) gone to the Russians. 

But after seeing this film, I would like to see Jennifer Lawrence and Selena Gomez, et al, make a "Hollywood Star" CLASS ACTION FOIA inquiry into _simply_ "the meta-data" of the NSA / CIA's "searches" over the past 5-10-15 years, to simply get a sense of HOW MANY TIMES _THEY_ were "searched" by said "NSA / CIA geeks" using their "google search OF ALL" search engines.  For this would be _the simplest_ explanation of _how_ these Stars' iPads, tablets, cell phones were "hacked" for all their private photos ...  Honestly, who (most) else (outside of the world's intelligence communities) would even know where / how to look?

And yes, after seeing this film, one would be INSANE to not have a piece of electrical tape over one's "comes installed in your laptop" webcam.  I'VE HAD SAID PIECE OF ELECTRICAL TAPE OVER MY "PART OF THE EQUIPMENT" WEBCAM on my Laptop since 2 days after buying it (a dirt cheap Dell model that I've come to call a "NSA SPECIAL" :-).  I did so because 2 days into buying it, SUDDENLY a light started shining at my face from my laptop (I didn't even know up to that point that a webcam was there... it didn't even come with CD Drive, that's how simple / bare-bones it was) and I could not shut it off.  

Then, "Julius Caesar" / "Richard III" Shakespearean in style as Oliver Stone [wikip] [IMDb] has been in his films, I do believe that he does _nail_ the essential personality traits of the characters in his biopics.  Indeed, I do believe he absolutely _nails_ the essences of the key personalities of the G.W. Bush Administration in "W" [2008] in a way that both helps one understand "what happened" during that Administration and arguably makes one even feel sorry for some of the key characters present.  

SO ... in this film we're presented with Stone's understanding of the "essential Edward Snowden" presenting him as both a patriot and a geek who does come to see THE POWER that HE (and OTHERS AROUND HIM at the NSA/CIA) had come to have (the "power to KNOW ALL" about ... just about EVERYBODY) and becomes deeply disturbed by it.  Yes, OTHERS were not as concerned... Even his own girlfriend (again played quite credibly / honestly by Shailene Woodley) in as much as she knew what Ed was part-of at his job (and she did not know much), was NOT particularly concerned that the NSA could have 'pictures of her boobs...' ... she was a young 20-something spritely / generally cheerful photog ;-).  But Edward Snowden KNEW that this was entirely possible, even probable, and he was ONE GUY (and it only takes one) WHO REALLY BELIEVED THAT "PEOPLE OUGHT TO KNOW" (that this kind of surveillance REALLY WAS HAPPENING). 

The rest of the story follows.  It plays out like a "Jason Bourne for geeks" ;-).  But the warning of the story is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: The NSA (and OTHER intelligence services around the world) IS / ARE WATCHING YOU ... WATCH OUT FOR WHEN THEY DECIDE _TO ACT_ / TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT THEY'VE SEEN ...

GREAT / THOROUGHLY THOUGHT PROVOKING 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! :-) >>

Don't Breathe [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Tang) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  

Don't Breathe [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Fede Alvarez along with Rodo Sayagues) is a rather nihilistic indie thriller in which _no one_ comes out particularly good.

Three random and not particularly bright / good Midwestern teens to early year olds - Rocky (played by Jane Levy), her nominal alpha-male boyfriend Money (played by Daniel Zovatto) and their perhaps more sensible (or just weaker) beta-male friend Alex (played by Daniel Minnette) -- are on a two-bit home burglary spree through the Rust Belt with only a vague goal of _eventually_ "making it to California." 

Well they get word of a particularly juicy target: a blind Vet (played by Stephan Lang) who recently had come into some serious money (a million dollars) for the wrongful death of his beloved daughter.  Since he was blind, he had demanded the sum in cash, which he presumably kept somewhere in his house (on a street of rundown abandoned homes somewhere in Detroit).  If they came in there, who'd know? Who'd care?  Heck the man was blind?  They could do the robbery _in daylight_ while he was there.  What could possibly go wrong?

Well, true, the man was blind, but he was also some sort of a special forces vet.  The house, which he knew _intimately_ was small.  And he had a trusty and vicious pit-bull of a guard-dog. Finally it turns out that as a Vet, he was not only blind, but had some rather significant psychological "issues ..."

So by midway through the film, not only did the original "plan" (in as much as there was one) of the three rather stupid "teenagers without a clue" go _really, really wrong_ in a hurry, it turned out that the Vet was not exactly "a good guy" either.

Who to root for in a story like this?  And even more to the point _why_?  There's actually even a rather oddly expressed "religious message" to the story.  The by then blood covered old blind man (who had already killed two of the teenagers who had broken into his home and was methodically hunting for the third, who he's spared but now wanted "to keep" for another, rather insane, purpose...) declares: "When one stops believing in God, all things become possible."  

Wow.  Sigh.  Yuck.  What a future to look forward to ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Ignacio de Loyola [2016]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing

The Jesuit Post (D. Gustafson, S.J.) review
Jesuits West article / review


Ignacio de Loyola [2016] (directed and screenplay by Paolo Dy, collaborating director Catha Azanza, story by Paolo Dy, Catha Azanza, Pauline Mangilog-Saltarin, Emmanuel Alfonso and Ian Victoriano based on the Autobiography [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] of St. Ignatius of Loyola [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]) is a really quite excellent English language film made by the Jesuits of the Philippines about the early (young adult) years (and quite interesting conversion...) of St. Ignatius of Loyola [wikip] (the founder of the Jesuit Order).  The film has enjoyed a two week run to fairly, even _impressively_ large audiences here in Orange County, CA (at the AMC Orange 30 Theater).

The film presents young Ignacio (Iñigo) of Loyola [wikip] (played in the film quite excellently by Andreas Muñoz) as a brash to arrogant / entitled feeling young man from the environs of 16th century Pamplona, Spain, who steeped in the chivalric romances of the then still relatively "recent past" would have actually had a lot in common with his contemporary Miguel de Cervantes [wikip] and more to the point, with Cervantes' character/creation Don Quixote [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]:

It is clear that young Iñigo (of Loyola) was a dreamer, and one who from the very beginning _dreamed_ / believed himself to be destined for "great things."  What those "great things" would be, were yet to be determined.  However, at least initially he was pretty much certain that they would probably play out, somehow "on the battle field."

HERE, HONESTLY, AND I WRITE HERE WITH SOME "EXPERIENCE," young even 20 year-old Iñigo would _not_ be all that different from the teenager / young adult OF TODAY who having spent the last 5-10 years playing the "Call of Duty" video game and having then seen American Sniper [2014], would have decided to run to an Armed Forces Recruitment Office convinced that Glory / Destiny awaited him (or her) "on the battlefield" / "behind enemy lines" / piloting "drones" (or other robots) on behalf of God and Country.

I honestly found brash / young Iñigo (of Loyola) TOTALLY RELATEABLE and EVEN KNOW and _could point out_ SIMILARLY LOVELY, HONEST, SINCERE / PATRIOTIC young people from _my own parishes_ who'd almost be JUST LIKE HIM

Iñigo's dreams of battlefield glory came to a rather inglorious end with a wound with a cannonball that injured / messed-up his leg, leaving him with a limp for the rest of his life.  What to do now?

Well folks, that's the rest of the story, AND IT'S A GOOD ONE:  As a GOOD / WELL BROUGHT-UP (even arguably somewhat pampered) SPANIARD of the 16th century he turned to God.  But HOW?  Well, having read (and dreamed) of being part of all those Medieval / Chivalric / Arthurian Romances he already had a very active imagination.  So he quite literally started to live his life working out in his mind  -- IMAGINING -- the answer to a question, very well known TODAY: "What would Jesus do?" (and its corollary: "What is Jesus asking _me_ to do?").  Indeed, he came, on his own, to develop a method (his since famous Spiritual Exercises [wikip] [GR]) for the "discernment of spirits." 

Yes, getting his method approved and _not_ getting "burned at the stake" for it -- this was 16th century Spain of the Spanish Inquisition after all ... and at least initially, Ignatius was just a "War Vet turned itinerant preacher" (who hence today could have been initially dismissed as having "PTS issues" ...) -- proved a challenge.  But it also explains _why_ Ignatius of Loyola went _back_ "to School" and arguably _why_ they Jesuits have put so much emphasis on learning ever since: If you know your facts and (come to) be "the smartest / best ecdcated person in the room" _eventually_ your opponents have to let you be / concede. 

Anyway, the film becomes one that could prove very interesting _many_ young people dreaming of Glory / "making a difference" in this world and may help them to seek to do it in a manner that would be honestly pleasing God. 

Great film!  IMHO the best (Catholic / Christian) religiously themed film of the year thus far!


<< 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! :-) >>

Sully [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
L.A. Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  


Sully [2016] (directed by Clint Eastwood, screenplay by Todd Komarnicki based on the memoir Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Chesley "Sully" Sullenburger [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] and Jeffrey Zaslow [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is an very well crafted / well acted film -- again Hollywood at its "A-Game" -- that (re)tells the story of US Airways Fl 1549, piloted by Chesley "Sully" Sullenburger [wikip] (played in the film by Tom Hanks) which on Jan 15, 2009, three minutes into its flight from LaGuardia Airport in New York (to Charlotte, NC), struck a flock of geese causing both engines of the plane of fail, forcing the pilot to land the plane (too low in altitude to safely glide back to LaGuardia or another nearby airport in New Jersey) to instead land on the Hudson River alongside Manhattan just south of the George Washington Bridge.  All 155 passengers and crew were saved.

The drama of the story turned on the subsequent National Transportation Safety Board's investigation where the judgement of the pilot, nicknamed "Sully", was questioned, "sullying" at least temporarily his reputation.  Hence the story would seem to fit perfectly into the thematics of many of Clint Eastwood's films where _good regular people_ did _extraordinary things_ to either _no acclaim_ or _worse_ having their motives / results questioned, "sullied" by "experts" who really should have known better.

Here was a man WHO SAVED 155 LIVES (!!) and found himself and his career on the line before a NTSB investigative board who apparently wondered if he could have "saved them another way" ... gotten the plane back to LaGuardia or elsewhere rather than landing it on the Hudson.

To some extent such an investigation was inevitable.  Years back I had been told by former U.S. Navy pilot that all U.S. military aircraft accidents are investigated in a similar manner (and the POTUS himself is informed of every such loss) as the loss of a military plane is a loss of tens of millions of dollars of machinery and so such a loss can not be taken lightly.

Still the obvious callousness of the investigation here will initially shock / offend virtually every Viewer: How can this be?  The split second thinking of the  pilot / copilot (copilot played in the film by Aaron Eckhart) saved the lives of every single person on that plane (plus untold numbers of people on the ground if the plane had crashed onto a residential / commercial neighborhood).

And yet, in the end, _everybody_ was "doing their job" ... the pilots who landed the plane in the Hudson, the ferries / first responders who rapidly came to the scene to bring the people from the plane to safety, and finally _even those seemingly callous investigators_.  After all, EACH such accident offers us, humanity, an opportunity _to learn_ to avoid and better train for similar situations in the future.

So as hair-raising (and infuriating) as this film may be, it's certainly memorable and discussion provoking and as such certainly deserves serious consideration -- for best actor (Tom Hanks), best screenplay (Todd Komarnicki), best director (Clint Eastwood), even possibly Best Picture -- come Oscar Season.

Excellent, excellent 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! :-) >>

Southside with You [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB ()  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review

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

RogerEbert.com (N. Allen) interview w. the film's stars 

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

Southside with You [2016] (written and directed by Richard Tanne) is a lovely, well written "When Barack met Michelle" / "origins-story" chronicling the very first date between Barack Obama (played in the film excellently by Parker Sawyers) and his wife, then Michelle Robinson (played again here, very, very well by Tika Sumpter). 

Indeed, this is a movie that _a lot of young people_ (teens and above) really ought to see, as it models a _really good_ (and future producing...) first date -- ending _not_ "in bed" but after a 1/2 day of talking, strolling through a pretty cool downtown Chicago art exhibit (featuring the paintings of African American former football star turned painter Ernie Barnes [wikip] [website] [Amzn]), a community service gathering and a movie (Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing [1989]) ... _with a kiss_ after some ice cream ;-). 

Other reviewers (above) quite rightly compare it to Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise [1995], another film about two young 20-somethings, who come to enjoy an extended day becoming "a date of sorts" that also comes to produce (at least cinematically) "a future" together (two more films, made at nine year intervals, the latest being Before Midnight [2013], each again chronicling a both random and yet significant day in the lives of the two protagonists).

Both the current film (by Richard Tanne) and Linklater's extended periodic series remind us that romance playing-out with an eye toward the longer term / a future is both possible and satisfying in a way that a (using the language of _my_ younger years) "wham, bam, thank you mam" encounter (or even a series of them) is not.

Good job!  Folks, very 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! :-) >>

War Dogs [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McCarthy) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

  
War Dogs [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by based on the Rolling Stone article "Arms and the Dudes" [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Guy Larson [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is an ugly film about an ugly aspect of war -- Profiteering -- that will ultimately offend a lot of Viewers.

Yes, most of us will accept the premise that with War comes _some_ Profiteering.  What (I hope...) will offend most Viewers are the story's assumptions that (1) War is _only_ about Profiteering (tell that to veterans / their loved ones to say nothing of the loved ones of the war dead / injured) and (2) the two protagonists in this story deserve to be considered "just regular guys out to make a buck" (perhaps at the expense of unsuspecting "losers" -- including said VETERANS (!) as well as THE ENTIRE COUNTRY).

In the story, two twenty something "dudes" David Packouz (played by Miles Teller) and Ephraim Diveroli (played by Jonah Hill) from Miami with some startup money from somewhere find that they can make ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY finding and selling stuff to the U.S. military listed on a Pentagon sponsored procurement website (apparently a "Craigslist for Guns...").  The explanation for the creation for this strange and apparently _open_ website was an over-reaction to G.W. Bush era V.P. Dick Cheney linked Halliburton Corp having been previously given BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of "no bid" contract business by the Pentagon.  So ... the procurement website "opened the military procurement business" to BASICALLY EVERYBODY ... including the two schemers in this film.

And so the two anti-heroes ... take advantage of the system ... and at least thankfully end-up getting (somewhat) caught.  Still, honestly their punishment seemed IMHO to be very very light for the level of betrayal of the public's trust.  Sigh ... KNOWING PERSONALLY people who war risking their lives for the country (and honestly looking to eventually cover use their time in the military _to pay for college_) I do find this story appalling.


<< 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! :-) >>

Ben Hur 3D [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (2 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 (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Ben Hur 3D [2016] (directed by Timur Bekmambetov , screenplay by Keith R. Clarke and John Ridley based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Lew Wallace [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a film that like many / most of my generation, I went to skeptically.  Having seen it now, like most others, I'm more-or-less certain that the current film will never attain the Epic / Awesome Stature of the celebrated 1959 version that starred the "Larger-than-Life" CHARLTON HESTON ... However, having said this, I _must add_ that do think that this is NOT a bad film and to the extent that it serves to "update the presentation" and (re)introduce Ben Hur to a new generation, I DO THINK THAT (3D and ALL...) THE CURRENT FILM DOES A PRETTY GOOD (to VERY GOOD) JOB.

Readers of my blog will note that I generally _support_ "updated presentations" even quite _imaginative_ ones -- True Grit [2010], The Three Musketeers [2011], Anna Karenina [2012], The Great Gatsby [2013] -- so long as the update was NOT just "an update for the sake of updating," but offered something something truly compelling/new of past cinematic versions:

True Grit [2010] for example sought to "return to the original novel" (where as its celebrated 1969 cinematic version had been overwhelmed by the "Larger-than-Life" presence of JOHN WAYNE). 

The Three Musketeers [2011] was _really imaginative_ BUT invited Viewers to experience the story with "(re)newed eyes" as the ORIGINAL story was NOT MEANT to be "a dry/dusty Classic" but rather a YOUNG ADULT ADVENTURE STORY ... Thus "3D / Airships and all," I do believe that 2011 film _recaptured_ a lot of the _wonder_ of the original story (before it _became_ "a required read" for "advanced French Language classes ...").

Anna Karenina [2012] was IMHO simply a beautiful film that often felt like both a movie and a stage play (IMHO intentionally ... as the the film-makers sought to express the point that Anna Karenina (the story's tragic heroine who was destroyed by gossip) did seem to live a life in which she found herself "on stage" (being gossiped about) whether she liked it or not).

Finally, the failings of the unnecessary 3D notwithstanding, LEONARDO DICAPRIO simply _nailed_ the role of the tragic hero Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby [2013] in a way that previously "Larger than Life" ROBERT REDFORD simply could not (Jay Gatsby was _not_ Redford's role to play ... while DiCaprio, IMHO was almost born to play it.  IMHO, Redford was instead "born to play" roles like his in The Natural [1984]).

Now, I have reviewed over the years some _terrible_ updates / remakes of "classic" stories -- from The Legend of Hercules [2011], to Young Messiah [2016], to the second (but not the most recent third) film of the Star Trek "reboot" series -- I thought Star Trek into Darkness [2013] was simply awful (frenetic / "action filled" for "action's" sake) while do think that the more recent Star Trek Beyond [2016] was finally (re)gaining its footing.  Still I do enjoy being surprised by something "new" that invites _new_ insight.

To the current film then ...

I do think that the general lack of "Larger than Life" stars in the new (2016) version of Ben Hur is A PLUS (yes, "Larger than Life" MORGAN FREEMAN does play a narrative / and still SECONDARY ROLE in the current film).  Thus viewers of the current film are allowed experience the story of Judah Ben-Hur (played by still relatively unknown / "up-and-coming" Jack Huston) rather than CHARLTON HESTON simply playing (and arguably OVERWHELMING) the role of Ben Hur.

As a result, the story of Ben Hur becomes almost "Job-like." At the beginning of the story, he's presented as "a Jewish prince" from a well-to-do / well-connected family (living admittedly in "Roman-occupied Rome at the time of Jesus"), who finds himself _losing everything_ as a result of "circumstances outside his control."  He suffers enormously, and and comes to harbor an enormous amount of anger.  Jesus, or at least his message (as Jesus is actually portrayed as only a peripheral figure in the tale) _helps_ him (and CAN HELP US) to _let go of that anger_.

As such, I have to say I loved this _simpler version_ -- 3D notwithstanding though the 3D, notwithstanding the chariot race that might have been too fast to film using this technology, was actually about as good / clear as I've seen it -- BETTER than the CHARLTON HESTON one.

In any case, the current version COULD encourage young people today (teenagers to 20-somethings) to pick up the original novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] or perhaps at least look-up the 1959-Charlton Heston version.

As such, a surprisingly _good job_ here.  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! :-) >>

Anthropoid [2016]

MPAA (R)  Aktuálně (2 Stars)  ČervenýKoberec (3 1/2 Stars)  ChiTrib/WashPost (4 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CSFD listing*

Aktuálně.cz (M. Svoboda) review*
ČervenýKoberec.cz (Tereza Šedivá) review*
ČeskáTelevize.cz (M. Vacková) review*
iDnes.cz (M. Spáčilová) review*
Lidovky.cz (M. Kabát) review*
Reflex.cz (D. Křivánková) review*

ChiTrib/WashPost (C. Kompanek) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (N. D'Angelo) review

Anthropoid [2014] [IMDb] [CSFD]* (directed and screenplay cowritten by Sean Ellis [IMDb] along with Anthony Frewin [IMDb]) tells the story of the Czechoslovak WW II operation code-named "Anthropoid" [en.wikip] [cs.wikip]*(meaning similar-to but less-than-human) to assassinate then Nazi "Reichsprotektor" of occupied Bohemia and Moravia Reinhardt Heydrich [en.wikip] [cz.wikip]*[de.wikip]*.

The operation had been ordered by the Czechoslovak government in exile in Britain in good part "to prove" to their British hosts that Czechoslovakia was _still_ "willing to fight" Nazi tyranny, something rather rich / ironic because (1) Britain's previous Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was instrumental in _handing-over_ Czechoslovakia _on a plate_ to the Nazis in a vain / deluded attempt of averting war (arguably racially insulting the Czechoslovaks in the process: "This is all about a people we do not even know..."), and (2) despite this Czechoslovak as well as Polish pilots _helped save Britain_ two years later during the Battle of Britain [cs.wikip]*[cs.wikip-2]* when Britain was by then furiously making the planes to send-up to confront the Luftwaffe attacking Britain by that time but didn't have enough trained pilots to fly them.

In any case, the Czechoslovak government in exile ordered agents Jan Kubiš [cs.wikip]* (played in the film by Jamie Dornan) and Josef Gabčík [cs.wikip]* (played in the film by Cillian Murphy) to be parachuted into their Nazi occupied homeland to assassinate quite beastly Nazi governor (er "Reichsprotektor") of the country... hence the name for the operation "Anthropoid" (which means "similar-to but less-than-human"). 

The dangers of carrying-out the operation and its aftermath are presented quite faithfully in the film.  The Nazis, particularly under Reinhardt Heydrich, had largely decimated the Czech Resistance up to that point.  In his first days as "Reichsprotektor of Bohemia an Moravia", Heydrich had apparently ordered the summary execution of the Czech officers (several hundred in number) still detained as POWs from the initial over-running of the country (a massacre not unlike the infamous massacre of Polish Officers ordered by the NKVD in Katyń [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]*.  Captured resistance members were routinely tortured for their information and then shot after they were done.  A characteristic of the Czech resistance became being equipped with cyanide pills to take when capture was imminent so as to at least not reveal further information to the enemy.  A real fear expressed by the Czech resistance on the ground (and expressed quite poignantly in the film) was that an assassination attempt on Heydrich could endanger the very existence of the Czech people.  

Then, when the assassination was carried out, the reprisals _were_ horrific.  My own parents, Czech, lived as children in Nazi Occupied Prague at the time. BOTH had horrific stories to tell (I was convinced as a child that my life would _never be_ nearly as dramatic as theirs had been) about the "Heydrichiada" [cs.wikip]* (translated as "The Heydrich Affair", or more literally and certainly in our time _more evocatively_ as "The Heydrich Games") that followed his death: For days, no Czech in his/her right mind dared to go onto the streets.  The SS would just count-off ten people that they encountered and shoot the 10th one.  TRULY for a week or two after the attempt on Heydrich's life, life in Prague was like that of The Purge [2013] (with the SS given essentially a license to kill at will).  Entire sections of Prague were searched block by block, house by house.  My mom's family _happened to have someone over_ at the time WHO FORGOT HER ID-PAPERS at her home.  The SS had even come into the building where my mother's family lived, though apparently / luckily they left before making it to their apartment.  PEOPLE AND THEIR ENTIRE FAMILIES WERE SHOT IF SOMEONE AMONG THEM DIDN'T HAVE THEIR PAPERS WITH THEM.

In the end, according to the film at hand, some 5,000 Czechs were shot in reprisal for Heydrich's assassination, including, of course the massacre of all the men (by firing squad) and children (by gas), the women sent to forced labor camps (and told that their children were "sent to the Reich for adoption") of an entire _utterly random_ town, Lidice [en.wikip] [cs.wikip]*, condemned for its "involvement" in the assassination plot (it had none).

The final shoot-out [cs.wikip]*, dramatized in the film, between the Czechoslovak parachutists who had been sent to Prague to carry-out the assassination, and the SS, REALLY DID HAPPEN, and I MYSELF HAVE BEEN TO THE CHURCH - the Byzantine Rite Catholic Church of Cyril and Methodius [cs.wikip]* (who had fascinatingly been the APOSTLES TO THE SLAVS) - where it took place.

All in all, this was an excellent film.  And some of the actors / actresses, notably Aňa Geislerová [IMDb] [CSFD]*, several of whose films [1] [2] I have previously reviewed here) even played in this BRITISH, FRENCH and CZECH coproduction.  And it tells a story worth telling --Reinhardt Heydrich [en.wikip] [cz.wikip]*[de.wikip]*, the "Butcher of Prague", had been the #3 man in the Nazi heirarchy, and was the highest ranking Nazi to die in the War.  Further, despite the many, many Czech casualties following his assassination, _we_ Czechoslovaks GOT OUR GUY and remarkably _only him_, not his wife, not his kids, not even his guard.  WE GOT _HIM_.   And yes, despite the horrific costs that followed, there's something quite impressive about that.

As such, excellent and often deeply moving WW II film.


* 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! :-) >>

Florence Foster Jenkins [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChiTrib/LATimes (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (K. Rife) review 


Florence Foster Jenkins [2016] (directed by Stephen Frears, screenplay by Nicholas Martin) is a 1940s era period piece that, thematically, really should have been R-rated -- there's flagrant (if to an _adult_ not entirely incomprehensible) adultery in it, fairly frank discussion of the effects of syphilis (back in the day before antibiotics), and it does argue a quite fascinating case _for_ hypocrisy that a 12-13, 15 or even 20 or 25 year old would probably _not_ be able to wrap one's head around.  (Honestly, IMHO most young people would probably _not_ understand this film _at all_ and this is reflected in some of the review citations I offer above).

Florence Foster Jenkins [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film quite marvelously, of course ;-), by Meryl Streep ;-) was a _rich_ aging New York socialite at the end of the first half of the 20th century, who did apparently have some musical talent early in life (playing the concert piano).  However, her concert piano playing days came to a tragic end due to a very, very, very bad first marriage.  What to do?  Well, she got it into her head that she could sing.  Could she?  Well, no.

BUT ... she was rich.  A second, significantly younger than she, (common law) husband St Clair Bayfield [wikip] (played with admirable heart / complexity by Hugh Grant), who himself was a "never going to be an A-list Broadway let alone Shakespearean stage actor," both _used her_ (she was RICH, remember) _and_, honestly, _protected her_ ... so that her she never really had to confront her limits / delusions.

BUT SHE WAS A TERRIBLE SINGER and HE WAS MORE OR LESS OBVIOUSLY _A USER_ ... Yes, and... ;-)

This is a film that a 35 year old would only _begin_ to understand.

Great and amusingly irritating film.  Just remember folks, when your 75-80 year-old grandmother burns a cake do you tell her that "it sucked"? ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Hell or High Water [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (M. Philips) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  

Hell or High Water [2016] (directed by David Mackenzie, screenplay by Taylor Sheridan) is a relatively straightforward "Western" if set in Texas of the very recent past:

Two brothers, "modern day desperados", Toby (played by Chris Pine) and Tanner (played by Ben Foster) go on a crime spree -- holding-up banks (rather than stage coaches) in sleepy little towns dotting the West Texas plains -- hightailing it out of said towns in get-away cars (rather than on horses).   They're doing so to "save the family farm" from unscrupulous bank lenders (rather than "the railroads" of yore).  Of course, two Texas Rangers (played by Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham) are sent out (from their bureau in Lubbuck, TX) to bring them to justice.  At one point, the two brothers even head-up to "Indian Country" (an Indian run casino up in Oklahoma) where they quite ingeniously launder their cash (again, not a ton of cash ... enough to ... well ... possibly "save that farm).

So do they succeed in "saving the farm"?   Should they (be allowed to succeed... by the film-makers)?  IMHO, _that's_ what this film is about.

Westerns are generally stark and it's _generally easy_ to see who's "wearing the white hats" and "who's wearing the dark ones."  This is a bit more complicated because the protagonists are clearly breaking the law.  And yet, we in the audience _understand why_.  Still, the law is the the law, right?  And stealing is not merely "against the law" ... it's against the (7th/8th) Commandment -- THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. 

So how is this supposed to end?  And how are the two Texas Rangers supposed to look at this?  Should they just hunt them down?  Should they "try to understand"?  But should it be even part of _their job description_ to "try to understand"?   After all, most criminals _do_ "have a story..."

Anyway, this is a very simple story that should leave the Viewer with a lot of uncomfortable questions.  Again, anyone with a heart would _understand_ BUT ...

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! :-) >>

Sausage Party [2016]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  Fr. Dennis (0 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review


Sausage Party [2016] (directed by Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon, screenplay by Kyle Hunter, Ariel Shaffir, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, story by Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg and Jonah Hill) is a film that I could not bring myself to spend money to see.

First, I'm honestly getting tired of the crudity.  I don't think of myself as a snob and have _generally_ enjoyed the Simpsons and even South Park over the years.  But I find myself getting tired of these after a while: Seriously, there's "more to this world" than puke, farts and dumb sexual jokes...

Then, I _don't like_ confusing _people_ with _things_.  I _don't mind_ personifying animals or even plants.  But I do find it _much more problematic_ when we start personifying cars, planes, and yes even _unduly_ personifying _toys_ (even though as kids we do use (play with) dolls / "action figures" as stand-ins for people).   But a car is _not_ a person.  A hotdog / hotdog bun _aren't_ people ...

And I am concerned that when we start thinking of "a car" as "a person just like you and me" we can start treating _people_ like _things_ as well.

Last week, I wrote exactly about this ... there was a scene in the DC Comics inspired film Suicide Squad [2016] where in preparation for evacuation a "tough as nails intelligence officer" ordered her four assistants to "wipe their hard drives (on their computers)" and as soon as they initiated that task, she proceeded _to shoot_ her four assistants each in the head (to presumably "wipe" _their_ own internal "hard drives" (brains  as well).

PEOPLE ARE NOT THINGS.  And when we start thinking of a _sausage_ / _sausage bun_ as "a person" we can start thinking of PEOPLE as mere "sausages" / "sausage buns" (to be consumed or even disposed of if we don't particularly like them...)

So even the film's crudity aside ... I DID NOT LIKE THE DIRECTION THAT THIS FILM WAS TAKING US.  We are OBJECTIFIED / COMMODIFIED ENOUGH AS IT IS ... we really _don't_ need to go further with that direction.

WE ARE NOT THINGS (and THINGS are not "just like us")


<< 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! :-) >>

Confused ... by Love [2015]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (2 3/4 Stars)

IMDb listing


Confused ... by Love [2015] (written and directed by Crosby Tatum) is a small, simple and at times quite poignant African American dramedy that played recently at the 2016 (22nd) Black Harvest Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago.

It's about two college educated late 20-early 30-something couples -- Ferguson and Tiffany Marie Middlebecker (played by Keith Mascol and Jamie Perez) and Reggie Maxwell and Joline 'Jo Jo' Thompson (played by Simba Dibinga and Jordon Lloyd) -- African American, who honestly had trouble believing that they were still (or possibly returning to) the straits that they were in.  All of them knew poverty, _real_ poverty, when they were growing-up.  And all of them believed that their college degrees would have lifted them out of it.  And yet to their horror, they were _all_ staring at failure and being thrown out _onto the street_ ... again.

Yes, no doubt. that pretty much all of them had made some bad decisions, some worse than others:

Ferguson a writer, _may_ have procrastinated with his current manuscript, perhaps blaming it too much on writers' block (though it does happen).

Tiffany Marie, his wife, who _had_ spent time as a child literally on the streets _homeless_, now a "radio personality" on some local radio station, had been something of a spendthrift (even as Furgeson was _not really writing_ ...)

Reggie saw himself as "an entrepreneur" and had been taking all kinds of chances "in the media business" -- movies, records, commercials, radio sound spots, whatever -- doing _anything_ to keep afloat and (perhaps) scrape ahead, including having stolen a story from Ferguson a few years back that he had converted into a successful credit on some film (without acknowledging that the idea had come from Ferguson).

Jo Jo was probably the most sensible of them all, but she had been Ferguson's girlfriend "back in college" before breaking-up for reasons unclear and ... was now returning into Ferguson's world ... by Reggie's side (who already wasn't necessarily in Ferguson's best graces because of the "stolen story" affair).

Yet now they all needed each other especially Ferguson and Tiffany Marie who stood to lose their house.

Again, this is a _very simple story_ ... but there is a _lot of pain_ and a _lot of painful truth_ being faced.  So while this is a film that will often make you laugh, it will also make you cry.

Honestly a pretty good job for a "small indie 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! :-) >>

All the Difference [2016]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
PBS POV program listing

Chicago Reader (L. Picket) interview w. director


All the Difference [2016] (directed by Tod Lending) is a documentary that followed two students who were among the first graduating class of the Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men operating in the Englewood neighborhood in Chicago through their years in college.  The film played recently at the 2016 (22nd) Black Harvest Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago and will play nationally on PBS' POV program in Sept 2016.

The documentary sought to explore what could be done to increase the chances of African American males of attaining college degrees.  Currently only 1/2 of African American males attain a high school diploma, only 1/2 of those who do choose to go onto college and only 16% of African American males actually finish a bachelor's degree in 4-6 years following high school graduation.

The strategy that Urban Prep seems to be taking is above all _raising expectations_ making going onto college the presumed goal of every single student attending their Academy.  Then the Academy provides a good deal of mentoring support and perhaps above all teaches their students to not be afraid _to ask for / seek out help_ when they they needed it.  

Both of the students followed -- Robert Henderson who went on to Lake Forest College a predominantly white. classically "small liberal arts college" in northern Illinois, and Krishaun Branch who chose to go to Fisk University a historically black university in Nashville, TN -- faced enormous challenges when they arrived at their respective college campuses for their freshmen years.  Robert had been raised by his grandmother after his mother had died in a car accident when he was 12.  Krishaun had flirted with gang activity before his mother put him in the Urban Prep Academy.  Both were from the Englewood neighborhood in Chicago, one of the toughest, most crime ridden neighborhoods in the city.  Yet Robert had come to Lake Forest College with good grades and great hopes that he could make it through its pre-Med program.  Krishaun with lesser grades had hoped to get a degree from Fisk and become a Federal Marshall.  Both came to their respective colleges depending _entirely_ on grants, work-study programs and student loans.  Their grants depended on maintaining reasonably high (or even very high) grade point averages.  They also came with the burdens of their entire families, community and even their former Prep School _counting on them_ to finish / succeed.

This last motivating force -- that all kinds of people, from their families, community to their former Prep School depending on them to succeed -- really could not be underestimated in helping them do so.  One of the two students followed in the documentary, Krishaun, attended the screening and _flatly admitted_ (to the knowing acknowledgement of the Audience) that he _really_ DIDN'T WANT to be "a failure" in this documentary or to his former school.  And honestly RAISING THE BAR like this -- making failure (by-and-large) _an unacceptable option_ -- MAY have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE to these young men.

Now the two were _not_ thrown simply "thrown to the wolves."  They were prepared quite well in their Prep School.  They graduated with legitimately good grades, were taught skills, study habits, and above all _the importance to ask_ when they needed help -- be it with school work OR with working out finances.  But the Academy's "raising the bar" and making "easy failure" _unacceptable_ (despite the self-evident challenges) SEEMED TO WORK.

In any case, this is definitely a worthwhile documentary for _all people_ interested in helping young people (especially young people at risk) to succeed and ought to promote good discussions among parents, educators, community leaders and even / above all among _young people themselves_ about the tools and skills that our young people need to learn / come-to-have-access-to in order to do so.

An excellent thought / discussion producing piece!


<< 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! :-) >>