Tuesday, October 18, 2016

The High Frontier (orig. Na Granicy) [2016]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmWeb.pl listing*

Dziennik.pl (Ł. Maciejewski) review*
NaEkranie.pl (K. Koczułap) review*
oNet.pl (D. Kuźma) review*
org.pl (M. Drewniak) review*
sPlay.pl (J. Gryiel) review*
TeleMagazin.pl (K. Polaski) review*
wPolitice.pl (Ł. Adamski) review*


The High Frontier (orig. Na Granicy) [2016] [IMDb] [FW.pl]* (written and directed by Wojciech Kasperski [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) is a well crafted Polish thriller that played recently at the 2016 Polish Film Festival in Los Angeles.  Set in the winter in the Bieszczady Mountains in the extreme SE corner of contemporary Poland in good part during a blizzard, the film evokes inevitable resonances with Stanley Kubrick / Steven King's The Shining [1980] and Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight [2015] but the film could probably be best characterized as the "Martin Scorsese directed, Robert Deniro starring Cape Fear [1991] with snow" ;-)

The film begins with a recently widowed father, Mateusz (played by Andrzej Chyra [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) taking his sons Janek (played by Bartosz Bielenia [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) and Tomek (played by Kuba Henriksen [IMDb] [FW.pl]*), both in their early teens, up into the Poland's southern (borderland) mountains for some bonding time.   Some years before, Mateusz had served as a border guard.  As such, he had some connections.  He's given the keys by a friend still in the service to a quite nice (but not opulent), secluded, government owned chalet, where he hoped to have some time with his sons re-bond after their mutual loss, and _perhaps_ teach them "a thing or two" about the outdoorsman's way-of-life.

Well they're out there in that isolated mountain chalet, snow falling heavily outside, when a bearded man (played Marcin Dorociński [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) _half covered in blood_ shows up at their door, pounds on it, and after they open it, passes-out / collapses right there in front of them.  "WT...

Okay trying to figure out what just happened, Mateusz takes the passed-out man, drags him to a bed, and since he's still some kind of law enforcement officer, handcuffs him (still passed-out) to said bed, puts his jacket on, and tells his sons two things: (1) that he's going out into the blizzard to follow the man's blood soaked trail to figure-out what happened, and (2) to under _no circumstances_ un-handcuff the man should he wake-up before he gets back ...

Well ... guess what happens? ;-)

Honestly, again a very well-crafted, cold claustrophobic thriller ... Excellent job!


* 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! :-) >>

Monday, October 17, 2016

History of Swarm (orig. Historia Roja) [2016]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmWeb.pl listing*

HistMag.org (A. Woch) review*
KulturaLiberalna.pl (H. Jędrzejczak) review*
NaEkranie.pl (K. Piskorski) review*
TeleMagazin.pl (K. Polaski) review*
WPolitice.pl (Ł. Adamski) review*


History of Swarm (orig. Historia Roja) [2016] [IMDb] [FW.pl]* (written and directed by Jerzy Zalewski [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) played recently at the 2016 Polish Film Festival in Los Angeles.  It is THE FIRST FILM OF ITS KIND -- about a leader of the ARMED POLISH ANTI-COMMUNIST RESISTANCE after WW II -- ever made (this 27 years after the fall of Communism in 1989).  As such, the film was greeted with much anticipation in Poland and afterwards with much disappointment and controversy.

Basically, from a technical, and then IMHO from a specifically screen-writing, point of view, the film disappointed:

I have to say that I found the first 30 minutes or so of the film very confusing.  I found it very hard to distinguish between the various factions -- the pro-Soviet factions and the nationalist (generally anti-Communist) ones.  (Interestingly) all the factions appeared in uniform (even those who were presumably born of various partisan movements, possible but I did not realize that this would have been the case, but perhaps it was).  The different factions distinguished themselves by the insignia that they wore on their uniforms and the differences were honestly quite subtle.  For instance, I would have thought that the groups that had been allied to the Polish Home Army would have been the ones wearing white and red arm bands (symbolizing the colors of the Polish flag), BUT in the film it appeared that the pro-Communist Polish military wore those arm bands (perhaps to distinguish themselves from the Soviet army itself).  The non-Communist factions appeared to wear uniforms with insignia that were black (like that shown in the film's poster above).  Further, I would swear that there other factions presented in the that wore other colored insignia -- gold or green for instance -- and all this made it _really hard_ for me, a clearly a layman in such Polish WW-II era military matters, to distinguish who was actually who in the early stages of the film, especially during the first 30 minutes of it.  As time went on (and the film progressed) the sides appeared to coalesce into more recognizable groups.

The confusion of the first 30 minutes of the film (which also corresponded to the first several years of the post-WW II period -- from 1945 to, let us say, 1947) while perhaps irritating to the Viewer, MAY actually reflect the confusion existent during that time when honestly few would really understand who was on whose side...Various films over the years have sought to portray the "Fog of War" (or the "Fog of Insurgency").  So portraying this "Fog"  _may_ have been _part_ of the intent of the film-makers here.

Indeed, North American Viewers could consider approaching this film in much of the same spirit as approaching the Liam Neeson-starring bio-pic Michael Collins [1996] about the famous Irish Revolutionary who helped lead (at least) Southern Ireland to Independence only to watch the whole country plunge into a post-Independence Irish Civil War where again the competing factions (and there, the motivations of the leaders of the competing factions) became quite entangled / confused. 

In the case of Poland, North American Viewers would need to remember that in 1939 Poland was invaded and dismembered by both Nazi Germany (invading from the North, South and West) and the Soviet Union (invading from the East) with the Soviet Union actually having taken a larger portion of Polish territory.  During the subsequent years in which World War II played out, the dominant force of Polish resistance on the ground was the Polish Home Army which pledged its allegiance to the Polish Government in Exile in London.  The goal of the Polish Home Army was first to resist occupation (presumably in both the Nazi/Soviet zones) and then liberate as much of Poland _on its own_ (without Soviet help) as possible (Readers here remember that the Soviet Union already annexed the eastern half of Poland as it is).  The conflict, or at minimum clear _lack of cooperation_, between the Polish Home Army and the Soviet Red Army during the latter part of WW II played itself out most obviously in the Soviet Red Army's refusal to assist the Polish Home Army during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising result in the deaths of 150,000-200,000 Poles, mostly civilians, and the destruction of a good portion of the Home Army's strength. 

This film concerns itself with what followed the Soviet Union's subsequent "liberation" (or over-running) of the rest of Poland on its way to defeat Nazi Germany.  Across Poland (behind Soviet Red Army lines) were all kinds of non-Communist Polish resistance units, most of which had been part of the Polish Home Army and loyal to the Polish Government in Exile in London.  For reasons given above, these groups did not trust the Soviet Union and certainly did not want to be under the yoke of _its_ occupation or for post-WW II Poland to become (what it became) a Soviet Puppet / Satellite state.  On the flip side was of course the sober reality that the Soviet army had pushed all the way to Berlin / Eastern Germany and that it was not going anywhere ... soon.

The question then was what to do?  Well, SOME of those resistance units, under the banner of the National Military Union (Narodowe Zjednoczenie Wojskowe) [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* again still loyal to the Polish Government in Exile in London decided to continue the fight for a free Poland, free of now Soviet Domination.  ONE OF THE YOUNG (!) LEADERS of this organization was Sgt. Mieczysław Dziemieszkiewicz [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* with the nom de guerre or "Roj" or "Swarm" (and played in the film by Krzysztof Zalewski-Brejdygant [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) after whom the film was made.

Some of the Polish reviewers above questioned the wisdom of making him (Roj/Swarm) the center of the film, one suggesting that perhaps the older, 40-something Cpt. Zbigniew Kulesza code-named "Młot" meaning "Hammer" (and played by Mariusz Bonaszewski [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) would have been a more interesting person to focus on.  In one of the more interesting / heartrending scenes in the movie, it's the 40-something Cpt. Kulesza who's led Dziemieszkiewicz' unit out there in the forests and hinterlands of Poland for 2 years since the formal end of WW II (it was basically 1946-47 when the scene is to have taken place) who his younger charges TO JUST GO HOME.  He tells them: "There's nothing but Death that will come to you if you stay here (in the Forest).  If you go home, yes YOU MAY DIE AS WELL, and more likely you MAY end up in Prison for some time, BUT you will HAVE A CHANCE AT A NORMAL LIFE a CHANCE TO INFLUENCE THE FUTURE OF POLAND of the next generations to come.  HERE, you will just eventually meet your Deaths."

But most of his younger charges, including Roj/Swarm, choose to continue fighting preferring "to face death with a gun in one's hand than to have a NKVD bullet put in the back of one's head."   And so the younger ones do ... continue fighting with ever diminishing numbers, and ever diminishing support from the local populace, which increasingly sees their continued fighting a lost / pointless cause:

Near the end of his story, in 1951 (!), when he and a buddy are robbing some rural bank somewhere in the Polish hinterlands (to "help finance the cause...") they call out at the end of their robbery: "Long live Free Poland" and even they are briefly startled at the bystanders (arguably their hostages) weary and arguably "rolling eyes" reaction ... A Free Poland wasn't going to happen any time soon, and just about everybody by then knew that.  Sigh ...

But the film makers do give Roy / Swarm a Che Guevara-esque end.  He and his buddy die in a shoot-out with Communist authorities.  His young, half-naked bearded body is rolled-out afterwards in the morgue for his by then already imprisoned mother (played by Magdalena Kuta [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) to identify.  "Is this your son?" the authorities ask.  She answers: "No it is not, and you'll never be able to capture him."  And so then, the Legend of a Zorro for Poland is born.

So I do understand why this film was made and why the film-makers chose to make Roj / Swarm its hero.  It's not necessarily a great film, and most of the Polish critics above hope that this film will invite MORE FILMS to be made about this period in Polish history.  After all, it is remarkable that Poland had an active anti-Communist armed resistance into the mid-1950s and arguably into the 1960s [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]*  And it is a remarkable story deserving to be told.

Warts and all, a pretty good and fundamentally informative / discussion producing 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! :-) >>

Sunday, October 16, 2016

The Forest, 4 AM (orig. Las, 4 rano) [2016]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmWeb.pl listing*

Film.wp.pl (G. Kłos) review*
NaEkranija.pl (A. Siennica) review*
ONet.pl (M. Radomski) review*
TeleMagazin.pl (K. Polaski) review*
WPolitice.pl (Ł. Adamski) review*

The Forest, 4 AM (orig. Las, 4 rano) [2016] [IMDb] [FW.pl]* (directed and cowritten by Jan Jakub Kolski [IMDb] [FW.pl]* along with Krzysztof Majchrzak [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) is a tiny if thematically consequential independent production which played recently at the 2016 Polish Film Festival in Los Angeles.

Forst (played by Krzysztof Majchrzak [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) begins the story as some sort of a contemporary Polish corporate exec, an executive already on the edge, and 5-10 minutes into the story he has a breakdown.  What happened?  It's not clear initially (it becomes clearer as the tale progresses).  That he had a breakdown is clear, however.

What does he do?  Well he abandons his old life, truly everything, finds a hut in a forest, near some random two-lane highway outside some provincial town somewhere in the Polish hinterlands, and sets out to live there collecting herbs and mushrooms and trapping rabbits and beavers for food.  Wow.

There in his self-imposed exile he begins to rebuild (or just live) anew.  It's a (very) simple life.  He collects / chops wood for heat, scavenges plants and traps small game for food.  Initially, he sleeps on a bed covered by a worn blanket.  Eventually, even the bed / blanket seems too luxurious for himself.  So he digs a hole in the middle of the hut, and sleeps in side it burying all but his face itself in soil / leaves.   It's as if he buries himself each night.  But it does, strangely enough, "keep him warm."

Who would do that?  An American Film-goer could think of Robin Williams in his role in The Fisher King [1991].  But Forst has not simply "gone crazy" here.  Instead, he seems to have gone back to living in a Polish / Slavic "back to nature" / "survivalist mode."

The director breaks up Forst's story into three parts, each beginning with a citation from the Biblical Book of Job.  So in this regard, we are reminded, "early and often (enough)", that Forst's self-imposed exile was the result of some kind of crisis or tragedy.  However, WHERE he goes (to the Forest) and HOW he lives there really goes back even further to pre-Christian times.  Indeed, he lives there, in the forest, will remind a lot of viewers of Central European fairy tales.

For OUT THERE "in the forest" / "off the beaten path" (symbolized by the random 2-lane highway) / "outside of town" ... it turns out that there's still life, though somewhat strange, quite literally _marginal_ life:

Among the oddities are that along the random two lane highway "outside of town" walk prostitutes during the day and into the evening.  Now this may surprise some North American Readers but it's actually fairly common in Europe.  I saw this a lot in Italy, when I was studying (in the seminary ;-) there.  Yes, larger cities may have their "red light districts" but when you get into "the Provinces," illegal action (again _marginal_ "action") takes place literally at (or beyond) "the edge of town."

Indeed, I thought it was an interesting insight in a recent updated version of (Little) Red Riding Hood [2011] that "Grandma" -- who lived "in the forest, outside of town" -- was portrayed as being, well, "kinda strange."  YES "normal people" would "live in town."  Odd-balls, "witches", etc would live ... "outside..."

 Forst, comes to befriend one of these older / aging prostitutes, one whose name was Nata (played in the film by Olga Bołądź [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) walking the "two lane" "outside of town" by his neck of the forest.  Why aging?  Well ... if these Prostitutes were younger, their pimps would probably put them in a more attractive place to make their / them money.  Indeed, the 40 something Nata is knocked-off by her pimp Boris (note the Russian name, Poles and Russians really don't like each other ... played by in the film Michał Kowalski [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) so that he could literally put-up a younger model there in her place.

It's when 40-something aging Prostitute (though as always, with a heart-of-gold) is killed that 12-13 year-old now orphaned Jadzia (basically "Little Red Riding Hood" played by Maria Blandzi [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) comes looking for her and finds ... the Ogre / Shrek-like Forst in the forest instead (Forst, having been a platonic, if mixed-up friend of Nata, her mother).   And together Forst and Jadzia make a life of it for a while, he basically adopting her as his own.  Yes, he was a gentleman.  He was a gentleman with her mother, now with her as well.  Sleeping as he does "in his hole," he leaves his more comfortable bed / blanket for her.  And also she honestly "had nobody."

Among the little adventures that they have together ... is that one Spring they collect wild goose / duck eggs laid in by the birds (in the early Spring) in the brush surrounding a nearby pond and decorate them as Easter Eggs (a possible pre-Christian origin for the Easter Egg tradition).

Eventually though Jadzia grows tired of Forst (and they begin argue with greater frequency).  Essentially, she grows-up ... and eventually she goes on her way.  But somehow, having taken care of Jadzia, out there, in the forest, gives Forst some peace.   And we're told, just as at the end of the Book of Job, that (somehow) his crisis was now over.

All in all, while I would certainly _not_ encourage a 50 year-old (!) to live with / take care of a 12-13 year old daughter of a stranger (there are / should be government agencies today to regulate that sort of thing), the film here tells an ancient and partly Biblical story in a quite modern way.  As such, I found it quite interesting.

Good / quite interesting job!


* 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! :-) >>

Desierto [2015]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB ()  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmAffinity.com/es listing*
SensaCine listing*

CinePremiere.com.mx (J. Oliva) review*
El Pais (L.B. Beauregard) review*
Excelsior.com.mx (S. Franco) review*

aVoir-aLire.com (N. Euler) review*
Slant Magazine (C. Dillard) review
The Guardian (J. Hoffman) review
The Hollywood Reporter (T. McCarthy) review
Variety (J. Chang) review

CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Desierto [2015 [IMdb] [FA.es]*[SC]* (directed and screenplay cowritten by Jonás Cuarón [IMDb] [FA.es]*[SC]* along with Mateo Garcia [IMDb] [SC]* is a very simple / straight-forward thriller, but IMHO it certainly works:

Moises (played by Gael García Bernal) and Adela (played by Alondra Hidalgo) begin the film as random people, presumably mostly Mexicans, in the back of a random "delivery truck" -- in other days the truck could have been carrying fruit to market, this day it was carrying people North to a deserted spot along the U.S.:Mexican border.

Well the truck breaks down, still "some clicks" South of the border and then not necessarily at the most optimal spot.  One of the young (maybe in his late teens / early twenties) "coyotes" asks the Boss "Lobo" (meaning wolf): "Isn't this the spot where sometime back ...?"  No matter, there's "a schedule" to maintain.  Now "chinga..." the truck's broken down (and will have to be fixed ... or abandoned).  So Lobo has "other" more business / logistical "concerns" on his mind.  This will have to do ...

On the other side of the border is a swilling Jack Daniels straight out of the bottle (while driving ...)  "Minuteman" named "Sam" (played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan) in a beat-up pick-up truck, small Confederate flag flapping off of the antenna, trusted Dog and Rifle (with a BIG telescopic sight) at his side.  He's driven out to the Border to "shoot some rabbits" and, well, maybe a Mexican or two ...

When he runs into the 15 or so already quite exhausted / dehydrated and at least partly _lost_ Mexicans in Moises / Adela's group, well, it seems BOTH "like an invasion" ("My God, THEY just keep coming ..." he says to himself) AND ... "a turkey shoot" as he methodically picks them-off one-by-one on the open Desert plain with the precision (and less forethought) of American Sniper [2014].

12-13 of the Mexican "illegals" "drop" (die...) quite quickly.  So soon it's just Moises and Adela vs "Sam and his Dog."  The rest of the story / movie follows ...

Okay, A LOT OF (NORTH) AMERICANS will not like this movie, and a LOT OF OTHERS will be disturbed by it.

Is it _really_ THIS BAD?  Well ... I invite Readers here to google a stunning award-winning documentary called Cartel Land [2015], which is about vigilante groups on _both sides_ of the U.S. Mexican border (in Mexico they're called "auto-defensas" and these groups exist there to "take on the drug cartels").  On both sides of the border, these groups justify their existences by saying that they've only "taken up arms" to do what their respective governments have "thus far failed to do."

Yes, the current film here is (still) an exaggeration.  BUT Cartel Land [2015] suggests that we're FAR CLOSER to this reality than most of us would think.

A very disturbing story ...


* 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! :-) >>

Queen of Katwe [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
Los Angeles Times (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (K. Rife) review


Queen of Katwe [2016] (directed by Mira Nair, screenplay by William Wheeler, based on the ESPN Article and book [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Tim Crothers [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a nice, uplifting, family friendly (Disney sponsored) movie about Phiona Mutesi [wikip] (played in the film by Madina Nalwanga) a young chess prodigy from the impoverished Katwe neighborhood of Kampala, Uganda.  Call it a "Rocky Story of the Mind" ;-)

Phiona, about 10-11 when the story began, was growing-up destined to remain illiterate, selling corn at the local vegetable market with her widowed mom Nakku Harriet (played by Lupita Nyong'o), an older sister named Layla (or Night) (played by Taryn Kyaze) and two brothers Brian (played by Martin Kabanza) about her age and Richard (played by Yvan Jacobo and later by Nicolas Nevesque) definitely younger.  

Phiona's and Brian's lives change when Robert Katende (played by David Oyelowo) a local (though, one surmises, still "minor league") former soccer star enters their lives.  His soccer playing days largely over, and though with a engineering degree, nevertheless still unable to find a job in that field (and with a wife and family of his own to take care of) he took a job as a leader in a local Christian "sports outreach" ministry.  Interestingly enough, he was _not_ peddling soccer so much as ... chess, which the Ministry had identified as perhaps providing "better skills for life" than simply physical sport.  It was Brian, of course, who was initially both more recruited and more interested in Robert Katende's program, BUT ... it was Phiona who really took to chess like a fish in water ...

She becomes VERY, VERY GOOD ... and Readers here please understand that SHE BECAME A COMPETITIVE even CHAMPION CHESS PLAYER _even before_ she could Read.  Of course, as she got better, learning to Read, getting schooling became progressively more essential ... and the reason WHY she and her siblings could not read beforehand was because her mother simply could not afford to send them to school.  So Katende hed to help their mother find a way ...

This all becomes a LOVELY story and one that I suspect that MOST OF US / OUR FAMILIES could relate to. 

My own grandmother ended her schooling at 6th grade, when her (Czech) parents pulled her out of school to take care of her then sick mother (who nevertheless managed to live for some 35 years afterwards).  Then after a few years after my grandmother got married to her husband, my grandfather, he came down with tuberculosis (this during the Great Depression).  So she took care of my dad and my aunt (with help of her mother-in-law) running a small corner convenience store on a random street in Prague, getting up every day at 4 AM ... TO GO TO THE VEGETABLE MARKET to get fresh produce to sell then at her store afterwards.  Yes her 6th grade education limited the horizons of a good part of her life.  But she was more than this.  With a 6th grade education, she knew ALL THE WORDS to ALL OF THE ARIAS to all the Operas (in Czech of course ;-) that she'd hear on the radio each day ;-).   And she could sing some of them quite well ;-).  And my dad (and his cousin) became the first in my dad's family to make it to college as did then EVERY ONE OF HER GRANDCHILDREN.  And among her GRAND CHILDREN we could probably staff a small University department somewhere WITH ALL THE PhD's THAT WE NOW HAVE AMONG US ;-)

But ALL OF US STILL REMEMBER / LOVE our GRANDMOTHER (and her generation) whose work / sacrifices made _our lives_ what they are today.  And I do believe that almost EVERY FAMILY COULD HAVE A SIMILAR STORY TO SHARE.

So Phiona could have grown-up in an impoverished section of Kampala, but her story is easily relatable to children and families across the globe.

WHAT A WONDERFUL and VERY UPLIFTING STORY ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

The Age of Shadows (orig. Mil-jeong) [2016]

MPAA (UR would be R)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B+) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars) 

IMDb listing
Naver.com listing*
AsianWiki listing

Chosun Llbo review*
Dong A Llbo review*

Variety (J. Weissberg) review 
The Hollywood Reporter (D. Young) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review 
AV Club (I. Vishnevetsky) review

The Age of Shadows (orig. Mil Jeong [2016] [IMDb] [AW] [Nvkr]*(written and directed by Jee-woon Kim [IMDb] [AW] [Nvkr]* is a movie that should be(come) required viewing for a fair number of World War II history buffs.  Why?  Because it certainly offers a fascinating (and indigenous Korean) view into the War (actually into the set-up of the War, even pre-Manchuria) in the Pacific.  The film reminds us that future War in the Pacific actually began arguably BEFORE the beginning of even World War I with the 1910 Japanese Occupation of Korea.

Set largely in Japanese-occupied Seoul of the 1920s, the film portrays a city of Casablanca [1942]-esque intrigue where, yes, under pressure (often by torture) Resistance leaders (as captured) could sometimes be broken and at other times be bought, but where the Japanese occupiers found even the loyalties of even their Collaborators could never be really trusted.  Taking a phrase from The Big Lebowski [1998] among the occupied Koreans "Everybody was in bed with everybody else," that is to say that the loyalties / connections between them were so "complex" / "opaque" to outsiders that the occupying Japanese could _never really know_ what was really going on "below them."   

And so it was, the film begins with a Korean resistance fighter cornered by Korean collaborating police official named Lee Jung-Chool (played by Kang-ho Song [IMDb] [AW] [Nvkr]*) and "supported" by a force of  several hundred Japanese soldiers.  The orders were to take him peacefully.  BUT ... neither the Korean resistance fighter, nor the several hundred Japanese soldiers seem to want to go down that path.  The Korean resistance fighter was willing to die a martyr's death, and the several hundred Japanese soldiers dozens jumping, in formation, from roof top to roof top as they chased him, were more than willing to oblige him.  ONLY the Korean collaborating police official seemed to want to keep him alive.  THE QUESTION BECOMES ... WHY?  Right from the start, it does not seem that his reason was simply "to bring him in" (so that he could be tortured by the Japanese to betray the rest of his group).  Neither did it seem realistic that Lee Jung-Chool was a disguised Korean patriot who had infiltrated of the Japanese security system.  Instead, probably the best explanation for his _choice_ to try to "follow orders" here WAS TO KEEP THAT KOREAN RESISTANCE FIGHTER ALIVE ... that is to say, NOT WANTING TO SEE _ANOTHER_ GOOD KOREAN SOUL "DIE FOR HIS COUNTRY."

That's a good part of the insight / complexity of the film: even the "Collaborators" were were not (all) necessarily Evil.  To some extent, perhaps even a good extent, they were "patriots of a different sort" ... seeing that confronting Japan _openly_ was "a lost cause."  Instead, there were folks like this both objectively and nominally collaborating police official, trying keep the few brave(r) Koreans _alive_ to, in effect, _outlast_ the Japanese occupation.

MY FAMILY CAME FROM A "SMALL (often occupied) COUNTRY" AS WELL -- the Czech part of Czechoslovakia.  I totally get this reasoning ... [1] [2] [3] [4]

But, of course, there _wasn't_ just a "huddling mass" of Koreans in Seoul at the time, just trying to "outlast the occupation" (which _no one_ at the time could have known would ever end, much less, in their lifetimes).  There were  _the brave ones_ who did try to more openly resist.  And the film is about this Korean collaborating police official being tasked by his Japanese overlords, and more specifically by his Japanese Superior named Hashimoto (played by Tae-Goo Um [IMDb] [AW] [Nvkr]*), to penetrate a cell of this Resistance.  Okay, he's tasked to do this.  But after penetrating this group of young, idealistic Korean patriots, could he really turn them in?   But then that was his job and if he did so, he himself stood _to pay_ for his regained moral stance.  How then to navigate this labyrinth of awful options?

Dear Readers, you should be getting the picture ...

It all makes for an excellent if perhaps, at times, slow moving _ASIAN_ film about "life under World War II-era occupation."


* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using Google's Chrome Browser. 

** To load Websites from South and East Asia in a timely fashion, installation of ad-blocking software is often required.
 
<< 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! :-) >>

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Mirzya [2016]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmiBeat.com listing

Access Bollywood (K. Gibson) review

Hindustan Times (R. Vats) review
The Indian Express (S. Gupta) review 
Times of India (M. Iyer) review


Mirzya [2016] [IMDb] [FiBt] (directed by Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra [IMDb] [FiBt] screenplay by Gulzar [IMDb]) is a visually (and audibly) spectacular Indian Epic that combines pre-Colonial / Silk-Road Era India, sixteenth century Shakespeare and contemporary Bollywood.  Along with last year's Bajirao Mastani [2015] which I honestly thought was one of the best technically and consequential thematically films, anywhere, of last year I would recommend current film to any Westerner seeking to see what Indian cinema is capable of these days.

At its heart, the film is a truly TIMELESS love story between two doomed "star crossed lovers" that plays out in both Mogul / Silk Road times and in the current day.   The ancient story is portrayed on murals in a dusty-midsized town somewhere reasonably near to the current India-Pakistan border.  The current one, plays out in the same town of today, 'cept, of course, none of the people involved are aware of this until its end.  At the end of the film, the two more current lovers (played by Harshvardhan Kapoor [IMDb] [FiBt] and Saiyami Kher [IMDb] [FiBt]) are immortalized in a new mural where though dressed in recognizably traditional Indian garb, motorcycles replace horses.

Indian reviewers (above), have lamented -- "Okay, the film's visually spectacular, but ... that's just it, it's _just_ eye candy."  And yes, they kinda have a point, but HOW BEAUTIFUL IT IS.  And when one's talking about A TIMELESS (LOVE) STORY ... the imagery is probably more important than the words.  Honestly, a visually / audibly spectacular film that _could_ make a lot of American viewers rethink their general aversions to subtitles.  Here, honestly, "the words don't really matter." 

Great film!


** To load Websites from South and East Asia in a timely fashion, installation of ad-blocking software is often required.

<< 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 Girl on the Train [2016]

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

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


The Girl on the Train [2016] (directed by Tate Taylor, screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Paula Hawkins [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a well acted and _fun_ (it must have been a blast for the actors/actresses to get-into / play their roles) if DARK suburban melodrama -- call it "Real (or REALLY, REALLY DRUNK / FLAWED) Housewives of New York's Westchester County" where honestly _no character_ comes out a hero / heroine. 

Rachel (played marvelously by Emily Blunt) a late 30s-40ish former Westchester Co. wife begins the film honestly not knowing what had hit her (and 10-15 minutes into the film, she _literally_ gets hit in the head by someone or something).  She had been married, okay not particularly happily -- she had thought the main problem had been that she and her husband Tom (played by Justin Theroux) had had trouble having kids (and oh, yes, and she had an obvious/awful drinking problem).  But now, a year plus after her divorce, she was reduced to spending her days (and her alimony payments) riding the commuter train, back and forth -- all day, everyday -- between the lovely suburban suburban town where she _once lived_ and the City, her/Tom's former house visible from the train.  HE still lived there with HIS new wife, Anna (played again wonderfully, somewhat cluelessly / jealously by Rebecca Furguson), and his/Anna's baby. 

Who would do that??  Ride by one's old house / old life, all day, everyday, drinking the whole time vodka from a slurpee cup with a straw?  Well, someone who honestly "didn't know what hit her" in life. 

Well, as Rachel's ridden the train by her (former) house, each day, everyday, in her alcohol blurred haze, she spotted and "comes to know" from a necessarily rather creepy, distance ... a couple that had moved into a house two doors down from her old house.  THEY seemed so happy.  THEY seemed to have the loving affectionate marriage (his arm ever gently around her) that SHE, Rachel, never really had, and now -- divorced, from the man, Tom, who SHE, Rachel, had loved but who somehow never loved her, or (she feared) perhaps she had disappointed (first by not being able to have kids, and then by her drinking -- SHE, Rachel, feared she would _never have_.

Well, ONE DAY as Rachel's passing the her former house, in her usual alcohol blurred haze, and looking toward the house of her neighbors with their perfect marriage, she spots the wife (played by Haley Bennett) on the porch with a man's arm affectionately around her, 'cept ... HE'S NOT THAT WOMAN'S HUSBAND. 

Stunned, when Rachel arrives on the commuter train in the city, she gets off, goes to a bar, and after _a few more drinks_ DECIDES that SHE'S going to straighten that woman out!  So ... by now barely able to stand / walk drunk, Rachel takes the train one more time to her old suburban home town, gets off the train at the station, walks toward the street where she used to live, to head toward the house of that woman and STRAIGHTEN HER OUT.  She spots said woman, in a jogging suit, passing under the underpass that she needs to pass through to get to her former / that woman's homes.  Rachel calls out ... "HEY!"  Angry and drunk, Rachel even calls her a rather strong name! ...

THE LAST THAT Rachel remembers ... is walking up on the side of said underpass that she would have taken to get to her former and that other woman's house.  AND THEN ... nothing.  When she wakes up,  she's clearly hit her head and had been bleeding.  Worse, the woman that she wanted to talk to / straighten-out had gone missing since, And ... a few days later, the police come looking to "talk to Rachel" ...

The rest of the movie ensues ;-)

Okay, the story runs like an even darker (R-appropriate) version of something that one would expect on the Lifetime Channel, but IMHO, it honestly worked ;-)  And again, I would imagine that _everybody involved_ really enjoyed playing their "quite messed up" roles. 

NOBODY is a hero / heroine in this film, but honestly, almost everybody will probably feel sorry for this woman Rachel, who, yes, "had her issues," but deserved so much better than this.  A great / and even "fun" if often quite sad / anguished 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! :-) >>

Friday, October 7, 2016

The Birth of a Nation [2016]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Every Movie Has A Lesson (4 Stars) RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (1 Star)

IMDb listing

Variety - Essay by the surviving sister of a woman who accused the film's makers Parker and Celestin of raping her while unconscious while they were all in college 17 years ago.

BET.com (E. Diaz) article on the controversy

Ebony.com - op-ed piece by the film's costar Aunjanue Ellis

CNS/USCCB (M. Mulderig) review 
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AV Club (A.A. Dowd) review
Every Movie Has A Lesson (D. Shanahan) review


The Birth of a Nation [2016] (directed and screenplay by Nate Parker, story by Nate Parker and Jean McGianni Celestin) is one multi-leveled tragedy: 

The film is about the 1831 Nat Turner Revolt arguably the African American equivalent of the Jewish 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising hence a story that DEFINITELY DESERVES TO BE TOLD and RETOLD.

The film is ALSO a LONG OVERDUE AFRICAN-AMERICAN MADE RESPONSE to the shockingly LIBELOUS / RACIST yet somehow still considered "classic" film The Birth of a Nation [1915] (by D.W. Griffith) that casts the Ku Klux Klan as the defenders of "all that is decent" and "white womanhood" against _crazed lecherous black-men_ who "otherwise" would have "taken over the South" if not for the Klan "righteously" (and VIOLENTLY / BRUTALLY ...) "stepping in." 

Yet, what a tragedy then that Parker and Celestin (accused though ultimately acquitted of raping a drunk / unconscious woman while all three were in college) decided to put it upon themselves to first make THIS FILM to begin with (could not, honestly, any number of other African American film-makers have made it instead?) and THEN _basing_ NAT TURNER'S MOTIVATION for organizing this famous Slave Rebellion ON _THE FICTIONALIZED_ RAPE OF HIS WIFE?   While _certainly_ African American women were _routinely raped_ (NO DOUBT, NONE AT ALL) during the Period of Slavery in this country, there _is_ no _historical record_ suggesting that Nat Turner's wife had indeed been raped in this way.

As a result, one can not but sympathize with the sister of the woman who had accused the film's makers, Parker and Celistin, of raping her, when she wrote recently in a piece on the matter in Variety:

"As her sister, the thing that pains me most of all is that in retelling the story of the Nat Turner slave revolt, they invented a rape scene. The rape of Turner’s wife is used as a reason to justify Turner’s rebellion. This is fiction. I find it creepy and perverse that Parker and Celestin would put a fictional rape at the center of their film, and that Parker would portray himself as a hero avenging that rape.  Given what happened to my sister, and how no one was held accountable for it, I find this invention self-serving and sinister, and I take it as a cruel insult to my sister’s memory.  I think it’s important for people to know Nat Turner’s story. But people should know that Turner did not need rape to justify what he did. Parker and Celestin did not need to add that to Turner’s story to make him more sympathetic... I will wait for a true version of this story to be told — one that respects history and does not re-exploit my sister. When she was 18 years old and incapacitated, Nate Parker and Jean Celestin had power over her. They abused that power, and they continue to wield that power to this day."

Sigh ... 1 Star.


<< 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! :-) >>

Middle School: The Worst Years of My Life [2016]

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

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


Middle School: The Worst Years of My Life [2016] (directed by Steve Carr, screenplay by Chris Bowman, Hubbel Palmer and Kara Holden based on the book [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by James Patterson [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb], Chris Tebbetts [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] and Laura Park [GR] [Amzn]) is a fun if slanted (naturally against "the Man") Ferris Bueller [1986]-like diversion about a contemporary American suburban Junior High / Middle School (from Hell) where the chief "devil", Principal Dwight (played by Andrew Daly), clearly found the current test-score-driven "state of affairs" in the American school system to his liking. 

Indeed, some 10 years back he published a school hand-book with at least 86 rules (or was it over 130 ...) that he enforced without exception to produce a school full of autonomons, who unsurprisingly tested _really, really well_ ;-).  The motivational slogans in the hallways included: "Assimilate," "Listen to your Teachers," "Authority is Good."  (Well kids, please do listen to your teachers, but teachers / principal please be well rounded / empathetic _enough_ to be worthy of being listened to ;-). 

Of course, in this film Principal Dwight (no doubt named after Eisenhower, though _he_ actually was _very liked by his troops_ ... it was MacArthur who was more of the "prima dona" ...)

Anyway, into this little "suburban North Korea"  falls a seventh grader named Rafe (played wonderfully by Griffen Gluck ;-).  (Seriously folks AS A COMPANION PIECE, if you'd like to see a remarkable documentary about _an actual otherwise cute-as-a button_ little North Korean girl who _really_ was going to a true "school from Hell" (in North Korea) find / rent Under the Sun [2015] available for streaming on vudu.com. It's WELL WORTH THE VIEW).

Well ... Rafe had some issues.  His little "Irish twin brother" (15 months apart) died of cancer a couple of years back, and his parents (mom, played in this film again quite excellently by Lauren Graham) broke-up over the death.  As such, Rafe had retreated into his own world for a couple of years, doodling quite creatively into a special notebook of his, and ... as such found himself _not performing well in school_ enough so that at story's start, he had been expelled already from two schools and this "Academy" again "from Hell" seemed to be "his last stop."

So ... soon it's "game on" ... Principal Dwight vs this  quite sensitive / creative 12 year old, half-orphan named Rafe.  Who's gonna win?  Well ... guess ;-) ...

Folks, this is a cute if more-or-less obviously slanted film.  And I do have to say that BOTH of the Principals that I worked with in my years at Annunciata Parish on Chicago's South East Side WERE VERY NICE PEOPLE and while _yes_ there were some rules, WE ALSO HAD A REMARKABLE ART PROGRAM and OUR SCHOOL'S KIDS ALWAYS DID REALLY WELL both at Annunciata and IMHO even more remarkably AFTER THEY LEFT.  There were years when _our entire graduating class_ went on to make the Honor Rolls of EVERY SINGLE HIGH SCHOOL that our kids went-on to attend.  Honestly, this was quite a remarkable achievement ... and honestly most of our kids left our school with good memories / smiling ;-)

That said, this was a fun / cute film and does ask (ADULTS above all) the question: Where do we want to put our priorities? in simply rules or in training our kids for life?

All in all, a quite good / excellent children's / family 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! :-) >>

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  RogerEbert.com (1 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (1 Star)

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


Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children [2016] (directed by Tim Burton, screenplay by Jane Goldman based on the book [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Ransom Riggs [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) will certainly confuse many viewers, intrigue others (as they begin to understand what's being attempted here) and finally disappoint still more.

For honestly, both the book(s) and the current film largely comprise a rather intriguing project.  Whether Readers of the book(s) and/or Viewers of the current film will find the project successful will largely depend on whether they believe that the well of contemporary (Anglo) young adult culture is deep enough to allow one to simply take even a fairly wide array of motifs / elements from said contemporary culture and blend them in a novel way to produce _a new story_ that wouldn't feel, well, "derivative."

So the story here involves a young Harry Potter-ish teen named Jake (played by Asa Butterfield) who instead of living in England begins the story growing-up in a nondescript, suburban-like town somewhere in Florida.  In every way (and not unlike Bella of the Twilight Saga) it would seem that Jake was utterly average, except, of course, he was not.  Indeed, like Harry Potter, it turns out that there are beings, who seem to live on the edge of this realm and another one, who want to get him.  Why?  Well, that's (necessarily) initially "unclear" ... 'cept he has a LOTR-like Gandalf-ish-like grandfather (played by Terence Stamp) who's spent most of Jake's childhood trying to "protect" him from the forces that would want to kill him and _instructing him_ (through what seemed to be rather fanciful tales) as to the forces that he would one day encounter.

Well early in the story, coming home from work (as a common stock-boy at a giant Walmart-like store) he finds that his grandfather was not at home but rather had been apparently dragged-out of his home (by something?) into the swampy woods behind their suburban Florida home.  There, in the swampy woods behind their otherwise quite contemporary suburban Florida home, Jake finds his Gandalf-y grandfather mortally wounded.  And Gandalf-y grandpa's last words evoked in Jake's memory a particular story that he had told him about his youth as a war-orphan (Jewish?) from Poland ... in 1940s Narnia-like England, er Wales, that Jake (and his reluctant family) then pursue ...

When Jake and his reluctant dad (played by Chris O'Dowd) who honestly had thought his dad (Jake's Gandalf-y grandpa) was always a bit on the extravagant ("nuts") side come to Wales, they find that the house that he would talk about had actually been abandoned decades ago, destroyed by a quite random bomb during a German air-raid.  'Cept, of course ... Jake happens upon (at the time, he doesn't even know how) another, (again) somewhat Narnia-ish, way to enter into the house (and back into time ...) when the house was NOT destroyed at all.

And that's when the heart of the story really begins, when Jake enters into the house that Miss Peregrine (played quite wonderfully by IMHO quite perfectly cast Eva Green) maintained for "Peculiar Children" (children with X-Men-like "gifts" that made them hard to "fit in" in the world of their time).  Grandpa had been one of those children with a "peculiar gift" and it turned out that Jake was one as well ...

Much ensues ...

Among that which ensues makes obvious (and creative / amusing) reference to both films as varied as the quite silly (yet definitely memorable / enjoyable) Ground Hog Day [1993] where "everyday was the same day, until..." and the great young adult melodrama (circa 1910 / 1990 ;-) Titanic [1997] ;-).

It's all _quite creative_ and almost perfectly tailored for the aesthetics of a film-maker like Tim Burton [wikip] [IMDb].

My ONE (but BIG) complaint would be that, "out of the blue" the CHIEF VILLAIN in the story becomes "a crazed black man" (!?) (played actually quite well, but ... by Samuel L. Jackson) who turns out to be THE ONLY PERSON OF COLOR IN THE ENTIRE FILM.

Why? Why? Why?  Why must the CHIEF VILLAIN IN THE FILM be THE ONLY PERSON OF COLOR IN THE FILM ?

Why?

Is _that_ "part of contemporary (Anglo) youth culture" as well?  I hope not ...

Reluctantly 1 Star ... despite some genius otherwise.


<< 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! :-) >>

Monday, October 3, 2016

The Magnificent Seven [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


The Magnificent Seven [2016] (directed by Antoine Fuqua, screenplay by Richard Wenk and Nic Pizzolatto based on screenplay for The Seven Samurai [1954] by Akira Kurosawa, Shinobu Hashimoto and Hideo Oguni) while perhaps improving the rather still rather racist underpinnings of the 1960 version (where the heroes were basically "white guys" and both the poor / largely "defenseless" victims and _especially_ the villains were "south of the border darker complected Mexicans" ...), quite shockingly (honestly) with the single clear exception of a "righteousness seeking" heroine, a widow named Emma Cullen (played by Haley Bennett), who in the film actually hires the Seven to bring justice to her town, _every_ woman in the film (every last one) is either anonymous or a prostitute and usually both.   It's really a stunning oversight -- reducing "the women folk" in the film basically to the status of being props -- especially since at least _part of the drive_ to "re-tell this story" was almost certainly to correct the rather lazy / unreflective racism of the 1960 version.   But there it is ... what were the film's producers thinking?  I asked the same question regarding the stupid unthinking racism of Despicable Me 2 [2013] (an otherwise utterly adorable film with the single exception that BOTH of the villains in that story were Mexicans, one with hygiene issues ... sigh, WHY?? Didn't the makers of that film realize that 1/3 of their audience would have otherwise been ADORABLE HISPANIC KIDS??  Here, M7-2016 becomes a really odd sort of a "date movie" -- where younger couples could perhaps discuss if one or both still really believed that women even today should strive to "just shut up and look pretty / slutty."  Sigh ... once again, WHY?)

So ... aside from that ... what else to say about the movie? ;-)

The Mag 7 here becomes quite racially diverse -- including a stately / imposing African American lawman Chisolm (played by Denzel Washington), his friends, a former Confederate sniper (played by a goateed Ethan Hawke) and a card playing / whiskey drinking good-ole-boy (played by Chris Pratt) who've in turn befriended a dagger-wielding Samarai-ish Asian immigrant (played by Brung-hun Lee) and Mexican Zoro-ish outlaw (played by Manuel Garcia-Ruflo) and then a still-scalp-collecting relic of a mountain man (played by Vincent D'Onofrio) and a bow-and-arrow Native American Comanche prodigy (played by Martin Sensmeier) who had been told by his elders that he "just doesn't fit in" ;-).  Again, too bad the _only_ women around seem to be period-corset-wearing hookers... and then THE ONE RIGHTEOUS WOMAN just wanting Justice (though she'd "settle for vengeance if only that were possible" ...).

Then though following current PG-13 conventions that seem to allow almost unlimited amount of mayhem / destruction so long as minimal blood is shown, I honestly was surprised the film was rated PG-13.  In spirit it's certainly an R.

Finally Christian religion has a surprising (and IMHO problematic) presence in this film.  Very quickly the film's chief villain (played by Peter Sarsgaard) literally a "Robber Baron" (stealing the land of the honest poor and rendering women widows and children orphans) declares himself to be merely "a Capitalist doing God's Will."  Thank you very much.  Yes, there were ALWAYS nutjobs like this in American history, from the Robber Barons of the Old West to some of their spiritual descendants today.  However, THANKFULLY the film seems to improve upon its theology as the story progresses.   Both African American lawman Chisolm and the widowed honest woman Haley offer more honest / morally sound interpretations of traditional Christian faith.  Still, I do believe that a lot people of faith will be simply appalled by chief villain's initial announcement and if not leave the theater outright, certainly shut the film-off in their minds from then on.

So what then would be my "final judgement" on this obviously quite flawed remake?   In general "yuck."  It's a film that will offend both _many women_ and _many Christians_ and while not drenched in blood, that's only because the current rating system allows violent film-makers to have it both ways -- allowing them to "shoot up a storm" and pretend that the bullets flying everywhere don't have any consequences.  The film's a lie.


<< 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! :-) >>

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Deepwater Horizon [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Deepwater Horizon [2016] (directed by Peter Berg, screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan and Matthew Sand based on the NYT article by David Barstow [wikip], David Rohde [wikip] [IMDb] and Stephanie Saul [NYT] [IMDb]) dramatizes the final hours of the Deepwater Horizon off-shore oil drilling rig, which exploded on April 20, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico after a well blowout, resulting in one of the most spectacular industrial disasters in memory and the worst oil spill in U.S. waters in history.

What happened?  As the name of the ill-fated rig already implies, the rig and its crew were pushing the limits (the horizon) of deep-sea (deepwater) oil drilling.  To do so, they were inevitably taking risks.  Both the article and the current film note that the rig was not particularly well maintained (there is the temptation when "pushing the envelope" to let more "mundane" maintenance concerns take a back seat...).  Added to this, British Petroleum, which contracted the rig from Transocean (the rig's owner), was pressuring Transocean to get the particular well that the rig was drilling _done_ (it was over 50 days behind schedule) so that the rig/crew could proceed to BP's next project (that it had _also_ already contracted Transocean for).  So there was commercial pressure as well to go faster with this project than would have been smart or prudent.  Well ...

While the film simplifies some of the dynamics -- BP was definitely cast as the villain in the film, while the original NYT article put more attention on Transocean's own cutting corners in neglecting both maintenance and emergency preparedness protocols -- the film IMHO does capture, and quite viscerally, the horror of a _really big disaster_ exploding upon a rather complacent crew accustomed to getting by on quick-wits (as necessary) and ... luck.  This time the roulette wheel spun terribly, terribly wrong ... Even the best bronco-rider can sometimes be thrown-off his horse in a particularly bad way and ... stomped.  Here the oil well exploded, 11 of the Deepwater Horizon's crew died in the explosion / subsequent fires and the environmental damage caused by oil disaster remains simply incalculable.

Heroics of the crew aside, the greater society has the right to ask the question: Should that crew have been out there drilling for oil "in our name" in the first place?

An excellent / thoroughly thought provoking film about a tragedy that on multiple levels, honestly, didn't need to happen.


<< 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! :-) >>