Reviews of current films written by Fr. Dennis Zdenek Kriz, OSM of St. Philip Benizi Parish, Fullerton, CA
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Winnie the Pooh
MPAA (G) CNS/USCCB (A-I) Roger Ebert (3 stars) Fr. Dennis (4 stars)
IMDb Listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1449283/
CNS/USCCB Review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv080.htm
Roger Ebert’s Review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110713/REVIEWS/110719992
Winnie the Pooh (directed by Stephen J. Anderson and Don Hall and written by Stephen J. Anderson, Clio Chiang and others) is a truly lovely, little kid friendly, and interestingly enough _book friendly_ screen adaptation (by Disney) of the classic children’s story by the same name.
I added, “book friendly” to the list of descriptors for this adaptation because throughout the movie viewers are reminded that Winnie the Pooh began as a children’s book. There are scenes in the movie in which the animated characters walk around on screen acting out the story even as the narrator (voiced by John Cleese) reads the story appearing in big black story-book-like letters above them. Indeed, at one point the various characters climb out of a pit that they find themselves in using “a ladder made of letters” from the previous page, a lovely device that we remember from our story-book reading days.
The Winnie the Pooh stories have been around since the 1920s. So a legitimate question could be asked, does this movie adaptation still “work” for the 3-5 year olds of today? About 80% of the people at the matinee at which I saw this movie were little kids (3-5 year olds). It seemed to me that the vast majority of the kids enjoyed the film, laughing along with the story and even at times that I didn’t necessarily immediately understand why (the animation was very cute ;-).
So I do believe that this adaptation of the story remains a safe bet for the 3-5 year old crowd. The cartoon characters are very well drawn and the voices -- Winnie the Pooh / Tigger (voiced by Jim Cummings), Eeyore (voiced by Bud Luckey), Christopher Robin (voiced by Jack Boulter), Owl (voiced by Craig Ferguson), Piglet (voiced Travis Oates), Kanga (voiced by Kristen Anderson-Lopez), Roo (voiced Wyatt Dean Hall), Rabbit (voiced by Tom Kenny), Backson (voiced but never seen by Huell Howser) – are excellent.
Also refreshing for an older fogey like me, is the slow, lazy pacing of the story. At a time when movies tend toward ever faster action, and more explosive special effects, Winnie the Pooh’s set in the summer time, at Christopher Robin’s farm somewhere in the countryside near a wood, somewhere. So there’s no rush. And Winnie the Pooh's "Very Important Thing to Do" is simply to get a hold of some honey to fill his ever more grumbling tummy. And the story unfolds just, just fine from there ;-).
<< 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, July 19, 2011
Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman (television series on the Science Channel)
Through the Wormhole (narrated by Morgan Freeman, who is also one of the series’ executive producers) is a television series currently playing in its second season on the Science Channel that I believe deserves mention on this blog. As I noted before, I do see the purview of my blog to be primarily movies. Movies lend themselves much more easily for review than television series because movies tend to be over in 2-3 hours while television series go on through multiple episodes or even for many years. As such, one can’t give a definitive verdict on a television series until it’s over. Still, as noted in my review of the television series on the Borgias which played recently on the Showtime cable channel network, I do see value in reviewing the occasional television series on account of its theme, quality and/or notoriety.
Perhaps taking some inspiration from a number of fairly successful, religiously themed series that have played on the History Channel (series of varying quality, I would add), Through the Wormhole is a remarkably brave series which seeks to discuss questions that touch on both science and religion and does so in a remarkably intelligent way.
Since it’s first season last year, I have recommended this show to teenagers and their parents and to my joy I’ve found college students from my parish who are fans.
Each episode of the show deals with a rather fundamental topic. The first seasons’s series topics were: “Is there a Creator?” “The riddle of Black Holes” “Is Time Travel Possible?” “What happened before the Beginning?” “How did we get here? ” “Are we Alone?” “What are we really made of?” The second season’s topics were: “Is there Life after Death?”, “Is there an Edge to the Universe?”, “Does Time Really Exist?”, “Are There More Than Three Dimensions?”, “Is There a Sixth Sense?”, “How Does the Universe Work?”, “Faster than Light”, “Can We Live Forever?”
Each topic is introduced by Morgan Freeman by means of a short episode/parable from his childhood, reminding us that these are often questions that we ask even as kids. Then the show presents various remarkable contemporary/cutting edge approaches to these questions which encourage viewers (and hopefully, the young) to expand their horizons to not be content with accepting past pat answers.
The series is audacious but it's also _not stupid_. Quantum mechanics is a field that has long promised to turn upside down our previous understandings of reality. Already in 1947, C.S. Lewis argued that the indeterminism of quantum mechanics (see the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) could offer a fundamental basis for the existence of Free Will. Such was the state of the argument that as I remembered it when I was in college, grad school and the seminary in the 1980s-90s. It's a generation later and it's a joy to see a popular television series so joyfully swimming the seas of quantum theory and applying it in ways that a generation ago, very few would dare. The same quantum mechanical phenomenon called entanglement that could make time travel possible could also allow a record of our memories (our "soul"?) to exist outside of our bodies basically anywhere in the larger cosmos (wow! ;-).
As such, I honestly love this series. I do believe that it’s good for everybody to be challenged, and I think it is incredibly important for especially the young to dream and to wonder and _to see value in doing that_.
Indeed, we live in a time when science itself through black holes and quantum mechanics is telling us that the universe is more wonderful than we ever imagined. And every generation ought to have the right to bask in that wonder and then see if it could touch the face of God.
“Look up at the sky, and see who made the stars” - Isaiah 40:26
<< 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! :-) >>
Perhaps taking some inspiration from a number of fairly successful, religiously themed series that have played on the History Channel (series of varying quality, I would add), Through the Wormhole is a remarkably brave series which seeks to discuss questions that touch on both science and religion and does so in a remarkably intelligent way.
Since it’s first season last year, I have recommended this show to teenagers and their parents and to my joy I’ve found college students from my parish who are fans.
Each episode of the show deals with a rather fundamental topic. The first seasons’s series topics were: “Is there a Creator?” “The riddle of Black Holes” “Is Time Travel Possible?” “What happened before the Beginning?” “How did we get here? ” “Are we Alone?” “What are we really made of?” The second season’s topics were: “Is there Life after Death?”, “Is there an Edge to the Universe?”, “Does Time Really Exist?”, “Are There More Than Three Dimensions?”, “Is There a Sixth Sense?”, “How Does the Universe Work?”, “Faster than Light”, “Can We Live Forever?”
Each topic is introduced by Morgan Freeman by means of a short episode/parable from his childhood, reminding us that these are often questions that we ask even as kids. Then the show presents various remarkable contemporary/cutting edge approaches to these questions which encourage viewers (and hopefully, the young) to expand their horizons to not be content with accepting past pat answers.
The series is audacious but it's also _not stupid_. Quantum mechanics is a field that has long promised to turn upside down our previous understandings of reality. Already in 1947, C.S. Lewis argued that the indeterminism of quantum mechanics (see the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) could offer a fundamental basis for the existence of Free Will. Such was the state of the argument that as I remembered it when I was in college, grad school and the seminary in the 1980s-90s. It's a generation later and it's a joy to see a popular television series so joyfully swimming the seas of quantum theory and applying it in ways that a generation ago, very few would dare. The same quantum mechanical phenomenon called entanglement that could make time travel possible could also allow a record of our memories (our "soul"?) to exist outside of our bodies basically anywhere in the larger cosmos (wow! ;-).
As such, I honestly love this series. I do believe that it’s good for everybody to be challenged, and I think it is incredibly important for especially the young to dream and to wonder and _to see value in doing that_.
Indeed, we live in a time when science itself through black holes and quantum mechanics is telling us that the universe is more wonderful than we ever imagined. And every generation ought to have the right to bask in that wonder and then see if it could touch the face of God.
“Look up at the sky, and see who made the stars” - Isaiah 40:26
<< 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, July 15, 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 [2011]
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Roger Ebert (3 ½ stars) Fr. Dennis (4 stars on technical merit, 2 stars on substance)
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201607/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv079.htm
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110713/REVIEWS/110719994
As I wrote in my review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 (this movie, Part 2, obviously being a continuation), I confess that I never particularly got into the Harry Potter craze. While not fanatical about my disinterest in the series, I always thought that J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books and the movies that they inspired simply capitalized on popular trends of late 1980s-1990s notably on New Age spirituality and even more tendaciously on Wicca a new-fangled religion (the “poor” Scientologists could only wish that they had such a fanatical public relations crew ...) nominally seeking to “recover” a “lost” pagan-feminist golden age, which after all is said and done still seems to find its clearest expression when it is presented with a British accent – WASP-ish just without the P.
Now don’t get me wrong. My ancestry is Slavic (mostly Czech). The small "ginger bread" looking house in which my grandmother was born in a cute little village (with its cute Romanesque 1000 year old Catholic Church still standing on the hill) in the rolling picturesque Bohemian countryside still belongs to an aunt. And just like my dad and the relatives of his generation, I and the relatives of my generation still spent a fair number of summer vacations there when I was growing up. So I can mushroom pick with the best of them, and I can berry pick fairly well as well. I can readily identify plants of that region that can serve as a remedies for arthritis and know a good deal of the stories -- Christian and pre-Christian – associated with the region where my family came from . As such, I do believe that I have an appreciation of the land and of nature closer to that of a Native American _who still knows his/her traditions well_ or even that of a Haitian voodoo practitioner _who knows his or her traditions well_ (and I used to work in a parish with a sizable Haitian population), than what a modern-day tattoo covered Chicago Wiccan “witch” residing in modern-day Lincoln Park would know about these things.
So my sympathies are far more with Verushka the Witch of the recent animated movie Hoodwinked Too, where poor Verushka was portrayed as evil, NOT because she was a witch but because she was Russian accented, than anybody really from Hogwarts and the rest of Harry Potter’s world.
This is not to say that the Harry Potter books and movies, even _this_ climactic movie are without value. As I wrote before, Harry Potter (played by Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends Hermoine Granger (played by Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (played by Rupert Grint) are nice. And friendship is good. They “fight evil” (whatever evil in this series actually means) in Lord Voldemort (played by Ralph Fiennes). And this movie is certainly befitting of its climactic place in the saga. Obviously, much much happens and much gets resolved in this final installment in the story.
But I guess, honestly, I’ve just never ever been swept-up by the Harry Potter craze. All kinds of people have, all kinds of _good people_ have. I even have a Czech niece “back in the old country” who as a twelve year old was reading the Harry Potter books in translation. And even some otherwise rather conservative Catholics from my parish are Harry Potter fans. I’ve just never been one of them.
Bottom line, if you’ve liked Harry Potter, you’ll certainly like this finale. If not, eh ... you’ll be like me. But in any case, whether you like Harry Potter or not, God bless you all ;-).
ADDENDUM:
If you'd actually like to read as comprehensive an article as one could find on witchcraft from the Catholic Church's traditional position on the subject, may I suggest this article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia.
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201607/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv079.htm
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110713/REVIEWS/110719994
As I wrote in my review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 (this movie, Part 2, obviously being a continuation), I confess that I never particularly got into the Harry Potter craze. While not fanatical about my disinterest in the series, I always thought that J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books and the movies that they inspired simply capitalized on popular trends of late 1980s-1990s notably on New Age spirituality and even more tendaciously on Wicca a new-fangled religion (the “poor” Scientologists could only wish that they had such a fanatical public relations crew ...) nominally seeking to “recover” a “lost” pagan-feminist golden age, which after all is said and done still seems to find its clearest expression when it is presented with a British accent – WASP-ish just without the P.
Now don’t get me wrong. My ancestry is Slavic (mostly Czech). The small "ginger bread" looking house in which my grandmother was born in a cute little village (with its cute Romanesque 1000 year old Catholic Church still standing on the hill) in the rolling picturesque Bohemian countryside still belongs to an aunt. And just like my dad and the relatives of his generation, I and the relatives of my generation still spent a fair number of summer vacations there when I was growing up. So I can mushroom pick with the best of them, and I can berry pick fairly well as well. I can readily identify plants of that region that can serve as a remedies for arthritis and know a good deal of the stories -- Christian and pre-Christian – associated with the region where my family came from . As such, I do believe that I have an appreciation of the land and of nature closer to that of a Native American _who still knows his/her traditions well_ or even that of a Haitian voodoo practitioner _who knows his or her traditions well_ (and I used to work in a parish with a sizable Haitian population), than what a modern-day tattoo covered Chicago Wiccan “witch” residing in modern-day Lincoln Park would know about these things.
So my sympathies are far more with Verushka the Witch of the recent animated movie Hoodwinked Too, where poor Verushka was portrayed as evil, NOT because she was a witch but because she was Russian accented, than anybody really from Hogwarts and the rest of Harry Potter’s world.
This is not to say that the Harry Potter books and movies, even _this_ climactic movie are without value. As I wrote before, Harry Potter (played by Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends Hermoine Granger (played by Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (played by Rupert Grint) are nice. And friendship is good. They “fight evil” (whatever evil in this series actually means) in Lord Voldemort (played by Ralph Fiennes). And this movie is certainly befitting of its climactic place in the saga. Obviously, much much happens and much gets resolved in this final installment in the story.
But I guess, honestly, I’ve just never ever been swept-up by the Harry Potter craze. All kinds of people have, all kinds of _good people_ have. I even have a Czech niece “back in the old country” who as a twelve year old was reading the Harry Potter books in translation. And even some otherwise rather conservative Catholics from my parish are Harry Potter fans. I’ve just never been one of them.
Bottom line, if you’ve liked Harry Potter, you’ll certainly like this finale. If not, eh ... you’ll be like me. But in any case, whether you like Harry Potter or not, God bless you all ;-).
ADDENDUM:
If you'd actually like to read as comprehensive an article as one could find on witchcraft from the Catholic Church's traditional position on the subject, may I suggest this article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia.
<< 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, July 12, 2011
A Better Life
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (3 1/2 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 stars)
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1554091/
CNS/USCCB review -
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110706/REVIEWS/110709995
A Better Life (directed by Chris Weitz, screenplay by Eric Eason and story by Roger L. Simon) is IMHO a remarkably good adaptation of the basic storyline of the classic post-war Italian film by Vittorio De Sica, Bicycle Thieves.
In this contemporary version, a humble Mexican (undocumented) gardener named Carlos Galindo (played by Damián Bichir) living and working in Los Angeles trying to create a better life for himself and his 14-year old son Luis (played by José Julián) is offered by his partner/boss, Blasco Martinez (played by Joaquín Cosio) Blosco’s truck along with his gardening tools. Blasco has made his nest egg and is going back to Mexico to buy his “ranchito” (little farm). Carlos understands the benefits of having his own truck and tools, but doesn’t really have the money.
The consequences of not taking up his boss’ offer become clear to Carlos as well. He’s been working with Blosco for years. Without Blosco’s truck (and clients), he realizes that he’s going to be back on a street corner competing for work with countless other equally desperate undocumented workers. So after a few days, Carlos asks his married sister Anita (played by Dolores Heredia), who also lives in Los Angeles, for some help with the money. Anita comes through giving him the money but without telling her usually stingy husband, and Carlos buys the truck.
So smiling from ear-to-ear, proud as can be, Carlos heads-off with his truck and tools to the corner where he knows Mexican daylaborers wait looking for work, and even hires a man who helped him out a few days earlier when he was still undecided about buying the truck. However, Carlos proves too trusting. While he’s up on a palm tree trimming the branches, this man, Santiago (played by Carlos Linares) steals his truck. And only then does Carlos realize that all he knew about him was his first name (if that even was his name ...).
Devastated, Carlos returns home without his truck. It’s at this point that Luis, his son, who up until now had been a typically moody young teenager, who given his latchkey existence had even flirted with joining a gang, realizes the seriousness of what just happened and decides to help his father then look for the truck.
And the two do have some leads. Carlos may not have known Santiago all that well, but some of the men who wait at that street corner for work know a bit more.
The rest of the movie continues to follow the basic trajectory of the Vittorio de Sica’s Bicycle Thieves, with appropriate adaptations. In this story, Carlos was Mexican and undocumented after all... His son is also a somewhat older than son of the father in De Sica’s story. Still the film works and tells a very, very poignant and _tearful_ 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1554091/
CNS/USCCB review -
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110706/REVIEWS/110709995
A Better Life (directed by Chris Weitz, screenplay by Eric Eason and story by Roger L. Simon) is IMHO a remarkably good adaptation of the basic storyline of the classic post-war Italian film by Vittorio De Sica, Bicycle Thieves.
In this contemporary version, a humble Mexican (undocumented) gardener named Carlos Galindo (played by Damián Bichir) living and working in Los Angeles trying to create a better life for himself and his 14-year old son Luis (played by José Julián) is offered by his partner/boss, Blasco Martinez (played by Joaquín Cosio) Blosco’s truck along with his gardening tools. Blasco has made his nest egg and is going back to Mexico to buy his “ranchito” (little farm). Carlos understands the benefits of having his own truck and tools, but doesn’t really have the money.
The consequences of not taking up his boss’ offer become clear to Carlos as well. He’s been working with Blosco for years. Without Blosco’s truck (and clients), he realizes that he’s going to be back on a street corner competing for work with countless other equally desperate undocumented workers. So after a few days, Carlos asks his married sister Anita (played by Dolores Heredia), who also lives in Los Angeles, for some help with the money. Anita comes through giving him the money but without telling her usually stingy husband, and Carlos buys the truck.
So smiling from ear-to-ear, proud as can be, Carlos heads-off with his truck and tools to the corner where he knows Mexican daylaborers wait looking for work, and even hires a man who helped him out a few days earlier when he was still undecided about buying the truck. However, Carlos proves too trusting. While he’s up on a palm tree trimming the branches, this man, Santiago (played by Carlos Linares) steals his truck. And only then does Carlos realize that all he knew about him was his first name (if that even was his name ...).
Devastated, Carlos returns home without his truck. It’s at this point that Luis, his son, who up until now had been a typically moody young teenager, who given his latchkey existence had even flirted with joining a gang, realizes the seriousness of what just happened and decides to help his father then look for the truck.
And the two do have some leads. Carlos may not have known Santiago all that well, but some of the men who wait at that street corner for work know a bit more.
The rest of the movie continues to follow the basic trajectory of the Vittorio de Sica’s Bicycle Thieves, with appropriate adaptations. In this story, Carlos was Mexican and undocumented after all... His son is also a somewhat older than son of the father in De Sica’s story. Still the film works and tells a very, very poignant and _tearful_ 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! :-) >>
Monday, July 11, 2011
Horrible Bosses [2011]
MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (O) Roger Ebert (3 ½ stars) Fr Dennis (2 ½ stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert’s review
Horrible Bosses (directed by Seth Gordon and cowritten by Michael Markowitz, John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein) is a dark appropriately R-rated comedy which indulges the fantasy of “knocking off” an irritating or overbearing boss.
Three friends, Nick Hendricks (played by Jason Bateman), Dale Arbus (played by Charlie Day) and Kurt Buckman (played by Jason Sukeikis) each find themselves in unbearable work situations.
Nick, a “suit” in some kind of an accounting firm works for Dave Harken (played by Kevin Spacey) a sadistic man who’s willing to fire the firm’s head of maintenance when he catches Nick in a lie. The surveillance cam had time-stamped Nick’s entry into the office at 8:02:35 AM one morning and Dave asks Nick about this, he replies that he “couldn’t have been more than a minute late.” “So the clock on the surveillance cam must be wrong, and must have been wrong for a very long time." Dave reaches for the phone to call in the head maintenance man to fire him. Nick unwilling to see an innocent man fired over this confesses that “he may have been two to two and a half minutes late.” This is the kind of stuff you’d imagine under Stalin or Saddam Hussein...
Dale finds himself a dental assistant for a very horny Dr. Julia Harris, D.D.S. (played by Jennifer Aniston) who tells Dale that unless he sleeps with her, she’ll tell his fiancé that he’s sleeping with her. This actually sounds a lot like the story of Joseph in Genesis where Joseph ends up in a dungeon after refusing to sleep with his Egyptian master’s wife. Since he refused to do so, she denounced him for attempting to do so ... (Genesis 39:1-23). Why would Dale put up with this extortion? Well, found himself “registered for life” on a _sex offender list_ for “publicly exposing himself on a playground.” Awful, huh? Well, he was caught by a police officer urinating on a tree after midnight one night as he was coming home from a bar located next to the playground... "It's all a terrible 'zoning error'" he protests to his two friends, who find Dale's tragic story worthy of endless ribbing at Dale's expense. Being a “registered sex offender” _no one_ but someone like Dr. Harris would hire Dale.
Kurt was happy working as an accountant for a small chemical company, until the founder, Jack Pelitt (played by Donald Sutherland) died suddenly of a heart attack, leaving the firm to his coke-head son, Bobby Pelitt (played by Colin Farrell) bent on driving the firm into the ground, killing a whole lot of innocent workers in all kinds of third world countries in the process.
So the three would meet frequently in a bar, talking of their woes, and the idea enters their heads (a la Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment) that the world would be a whole lot better if these three parasitic/evil doer bosses were dead.
But how to do so? Well they first try to hire a hit man. They ask the assistant on Nick’s Onstar-like GPS service for his Toyota Prius to “find them a bar in the seediest part of town.” Indian accented “George” (voice by Brian George) actually named Atmanand but nobody could pronounce his name, so that’s why he went by “George” tells them that their service doesn’t list bars by “crime density.” Nevertheless, he finds them an appropriate dive, where after a few “missteps” they find a man with an “Unspeakable first name” (at least on this blog ;-) Jones (played by Jamie Foxx) who says that he’ll help them for five grand given to him in a briefcase. Actually he asks initially for far more, but he’s a terrible negotiator ;-) The three agree.
The next day they meet “Unspeakable name” Jones with their five grand in a brief case, which Kurt notes is “far larger” than the stack of 20 dollar bills equaling five thousand dollars required ;-). “Unspeakable name” Jones then tells them that he _won’t_ kill the three bosses (because he “did a dime of hard time” for a crime already) but he would serve as a “consultant” for them. Nick questions whether the advice he gives them is really worth the five grand. But they are too nice to ask for the money back. Later the three find out that “Unspeakable name” Jones did 10 years for getting caught with a video camera “pirating” the film Snow Falling on Cedars a beautiful and very, very sad _art film_ that was the exact opposite of anything that a hard core criminal _should have done 10 years for_ ;-).
By this point, I think one would probably have a feeling of the sense of the humor present in this movie. Yes, it is crude, but the protagonists in this movie are all basically decent schmucks. Do they succeed in murdering their three evil bosses? I think you can guess. And remember that this is a Hollywood comedy, so it all ends both satisfactorily and well.
Why review a movie like this? Well, as long as there have been bosses, there have been lousy ones. In fact, since _work_ like _family_ has been part of human experience since the beginning, it should not be surprising that there are actually plenty of “evil boss” stories in the Bible as well:
I mentioned one above (the story of Joseph being blackmailed by his Egyptian master’s wife). There was also Jacob’s step father Laban, who was a con-man from whom Jacob had to finally run away. And then there was “the psycho” Saul, the first King of Israel, who was initially David’s “boss." Saul was “moody,” that’s why David was hired by Saul’s court, to soothe him with his music (1 Sam 16:14-23). And Saul, later became so jealous of David’s military successes that he wanted David dead. In a famous passage, however, David and his compatriots once came upon Saul in his sleep and one of David's friends even asked David for permission to kill Saul in revenge, "God has delivered your enemy into your grasp this day. Let me nail him to the ground with one thrust of the spear; I will not need a second thrust!" (1 Sam 26:8). David being a good guy, turns down the favor.
So stories of ‘bad bosses’ and dealing with ‘bad bosses’ has been part of our tradition since the very beginning.
Then regarding the crudity of this story, just take a look at some of the stories in the Book of Judges, notably the story of Ehud the Assassin, who killed the _really fat_ King of Moab (Judges 3:12-22) or the Jael, the Israelite woman who lured the enemy general Sisera into her tent only to drive a stake into his head when he was asleep (Judges 4:17-22).
Finally, while I do have to say that the first Hangover movie (a movie that was actually far cruder than Horrible Bosses) did indeed make me blush (and I didn't see the second one), I do have to add that _a truly remarkable and diverse number of parishioners_ at my current parish in Chicago did with total sincerity express to me how much they liked that movie (The Hangover) and recommended it to me. One could be distressed by this or even appalled. But one could _also_ recognize that there must have been something about that movie (and I suspect this one) that really appeals to people. And that appeal can not be simply negative.
Ultimately, Horrible Bosses is an “escapist fantasy,” born of the experience of knowing that there are some really bad bosses out there. Additionally, the economy’s lousy now and people have to put up with perhaps more nonsense at work than when times were better. So I think that this is part of the reason why this film was made and why it "works" now.
I found the movie reasonably funny. The three schmucks plus their unspeakably named mentor (who turns out to be something of a schmuck as well) are all endearing. Their bosses are all presented as "evil" and “deserve badness” to rain down upon them. But the movie certainly isn't for everyone. The R-rating is fully justified and I wouldn’t recommend the movie to people who really don’t like crudity or bad language.
<< 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, July 10, 2011
Beginners [2011]
MPAA (R) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 stars) Dennis (3 stars)
IMDb listing
Roger Ebert’s review
Beginners (written and directed by Mike Mills) tells a story, semi-autobiographical, of a young man whose father “came out” as gay shortly after the death of the father’s wife (the young man’s mother). While obviously the circumstances of this story are rather specific (certainly not everyone’s dad comes out as gay after the death of one’s mother), I do believe that pretty much everyone who’s lost a parent could relate, particularly those who lost a parent during their teen or young adult years.
My mother died when I was 24 and my dad was 55. And both my 20 year old sister and I had to deal with some “surprises” (which looking back _now_, 25 years later, seem not all that surprising after all) with regard to our dad, who was clearly “not quite ready to die yet” and was searching for new life. So at the time when my sister and I were supposed to be the ones doing the dating and building our lives, suddenly there was our dad doing the same thing. Yes, it was awkward. Yes, there were (and arguably still are) some resentments. But what the heck to do? In traditional Hindu society, supposedly the wife of the deceased husband was thrown onto the funeral pyre with him (but apparently never the other way around). But that’s not contemporary tradition, not even in India. And it seems rather cruel to try to beat down one’s own dad with a hammer with the cry, “No, this is supposed to be _my time_!”
So one “processes,” “ponders all these things in one's heart,” comes to realize that God is often far more original and surprising with regards to all of our lives than any of us would imagine on our own and one hopefully comes to forgive one’s parent for doing probably what we would have done as well in similar circumstances. [To finish this aside: Some years after my mother died, my dad remarried (also to a widow) and the two been happily married since. And what "took some time to get used to," turned out to be, honestly, a very nice blessing].
But I certainly could relate with Mike’s character, named Oliver (and played by Ewan McGregor), a graphic artist in his 30s, single, not particularly successful in his dating life, who, already mourning the death of his mother was "surprised" his dad, Hal, (played by Christopher Plummer) when he told him a few months later that he is gay that he’s been gay all his life even if he always loved his mother and that in these closing years of his life he’d _really like_ to die not just “theoretically gay.”
A few months later, dad Hal, finds a lover, Andy (played by Goran Visnjic) who’s Oliver’s age and it just doesn’t seem fair. Oliver shares this (and many other things) with his terrier dog, who because he’s a dog and can not talk, basically shrugs. Fortunately, a woman, Anna (played by Melanie Laurant) does enter into Oliver’s life somewhere in there as well. But it’s not easy. None of it is.
Eventually, some years later, Hal comes down with cancer as well. And Oliver chooses wisely. Indeed, in all of the relational pain (and there is pain here) Oliver _chooses_ to be kind. What a wonderful story!
Now a final warning to many readers here: The one aspect of this movie that proved painful for me as a Catholic Christian to endure was a number of fairly painful, arguably ignorant slights / putdowns of Christianity made throughout the movie. There’s a good part of me that “gets it” and doesn’t expect much better. After all, the Catholic Church officially considers homosexuality a “disordered condition” and homosexual acts to be intrinsically sinful and there are Catholic and Protestant Christian groups that go even further in their denunciations of both homosexuality and homosexuals. So if we make it clear (or our leaders/institutions make it clear) that we don’t particularly like or respect gays, why should we expect to be treated better? Still one can hope that one day this mutual sniping will come to an end.
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
Roger Ebert’s review
Beginners (written and directed by Mike Mills) tells a story, semi-autobiographical, of a young man whose father “came out” as gay shortly after the death of the father’s wife (the young man’s mother). While obviously the circumstances of this story are rather specific (certainly not everyone’s dad comes out as gay after the death of one’s mother), I do believe that pretty much everyone who’s lost a parent could relate, particularly those who lost a parent during their teen or young adult years.
My mother died when I was 24 and my dad was 55. And both my 20 year old sister and I had to deal with some “surprises” (which looking back _now_, 25 years later, seem not all that surprising after all) with regard to our dad, who was clearly “not quite ready to die yet” and was searching for new life. So at the time when my sister and I were supposed to be the ones doing the dating and building our lives, suddenly there was our dad doing the same thing. Yes, it was awkward. Yes, there were (and arguably still are) some resentments. But what the heck to do? In traditional Hindu society, supposedly the wife of the deceased husband was thrown onto the funeral pyre with him (but apparently never the other way around). But that’s not contemporary tradition, not even in India. And it seems rather cruel to try to beat down one’s own dad with a hammer with the cry, “No, this is supposed to be _my time_!”
So one “processes,” “ponders all these things in one's heart,” comes to realize that God is often far more original and surprising with regards to all of our lives than any of us would imagine on our own and one hopefully comes to forgive one’s parent for doing probably what we would have done as well in similar circumstances. [To finish this aside: Some years after my mother died, my dad remarried (also to a widow) and the two been happily married since. And what "took some time to get used to," turned out to be, honestly, a very nice blessing].
But I certainly could relate with Mike’s character, named Oliver (and played by Ewan McGregor), a graphic artist in his 30s, single, not particularly successful in his dating life, who, already mourning the death of his mother was "surprised" his dad, Hal, (played by Christopher Plummer) when he told him a few months later that he is gay that he’s been gay all his life even if he always loved his mother and that in these closing years of his life he’d _really like_ to die not just “theoretically gay.”
A few months later, dad Hal, finds a lover, Andy (played by Goran Visnjic) who’s Oliver’s age and it just doesn’t seem fair. Oliver shares this (and many other things) with his terrier dog, who because he’s a dog and can not talk, basically shrugs. Fortunately, a woman, Anna (played by Melanie Laurant) does enter into Oliver’s life somewhere in there as well. But it’s not easy. None of it is.
Eventually, some years later, Hal comes down with cancer as well. And Oliver chooses wisely. Indeed, in all of the relational pain (and there is pain here) Oliver _chooses_ to be kind. What a wonderful story!
Now a final warning to many readers here: The one aspect of this movie that proved painful for me as a Catholic Christian to endure was a number of fairly painful, arguably ignorant slights / putdowns of Christianity made throughout the movie. There’s a good part of me that “gets it” and doesn’t expect much better. After all, the Catholic Church officially considers homosexuality a “disordered condition” and homosexual acts to be intrinsically sinful and there are Catholic and Protestant Christian groups that go even further in their denunciations of both homosexuality and homosexuals. So if we make it clear (or our leaders/institutions make it clear) that we don’t particularly like or respect gays, why should we expect to be treated better? Still one can hope that one day this mutual sniping will come to an end.
<< 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, July 8, 2011
Zookeeper
MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (3 stars) Fr Dennis (3 stars)
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1222817/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv078.htm
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110706/REVIEWS/110709990
Zookeeper (directed by Frank Coraci, screenplay Nick Bakay, Rock Rueben and others including the film's star Kevin James) is a kid friendly mash-up of (R-rated) Forgetting Sarah Marshall and (PG-rated) Night at the Museum set at the Zoo.
The film begins with Griffin Keyes (played by Kevin James) setting-up a dream wedding proposal to his girl friend Stephanie (played by Leslie Gibb) – they’re riding on horseback on the beach as it nears sunset. Stephanie spots an odd wine bottle sticking out of the sand. Inside it is a note, as she finishes reading the note, beginning Griffin’s proposal she turns around and there’s Griffin on his knee finishing the proposal, “would you marry me?” It’s all lovely, but Stephanie, who looks (and in the movie actually becomes) a super-model, believes that she can do better than a zookeeper. So she answers “no.” How embarrassing.
Folks, if you’ve _ever_ been dumped or otherwise had your heart radically crushed in some way, remember this scene. It will put a smile on your face ;-). There the two are, riding off on one horse together into the sunset with Stephanie berating him about how unbelievably stupid he was to think that she’d ever marry a “mere zookeeper,” and all he can say “Honey, I may have ordered some Mariachis so just ignore them as we pass by, and please ignore the fireworks (heart shaped, exploding above them) as well." Yes, that has _got to be_ the most gut-wrenchingly awful/funny dumping scene in American film since Woody Allen’s 1970s-era Bananas where Allen had his girlfriend in the movie breaking-up with him saying “Honey, it’s not that I’m not attracted to you. I’m _not_, but that’s not it...” :-)
So crushed, Griffin Keyes goes back to the zoo where he’s loved by the animals and respected by much of the staff, including, above all, by zoo vet, Kate (played by Rosario Dawson)
The movie resumes five years later. Griffin’s brother Dave (played by Nat Faxon) is getting married. Griffin throws a pre-wedding party for him at the zoo. Dave, who operates an exotic car shop is rich, though not necessarily the most up on social graces. His knockout fiancé Robin (played by Steffania de la Cruz) though doesn’t seem to mind. I’m not sure whether it was Dave or Robin, but one of them invited Stephanie to the party, not realizing that this may fluster Griffin. It does, but they do start talking. In the course of the conversation while clearly indicating that she’s still not interested in someone who’s just a zoo-keeper, she indicates that she’s in the midst of a muddled relationship with a man who would have seemed to be utterly perfect for her, Gale (played by Joe Rogan). Gale was rich, a tri-athlete and (turned out to be) a great ballroom dancer. But he’s also kind of a, well, a-hole (sorry folks for the “R-rated terminology” for a PG-rated movie but “jerk” just doesn’t cut it). So Griffin realizes that Stephanie “is in play.”
Will Griffin “sell his soul” to get the girl of his dreams? He realizes that Stephanie wants him to quit the zoo. He also knows that his brother Dave would give him a job at his car dealership if only he’d ask. The animals (who we find a la Night at the Museum can talk and are voiced by the likes of Nick Nolte, Silvester Stalone, Adam Sandler, Maya Rudolph and Cher) get all worried that Griffin’s gonna dump the zoo for Stephanie, so they all try to help him get Stephanie without having to leave the job, giving all sorts of heart-felt “mating advice” that, well, works for them but... Griffin even enlists zoo vet Kate to help him get closer to Stephanie by going with him as his date to his brother’s wedding. Much ensues. And yes, he get’s his chance. What’s it gonna be? The super-model Stephanie or comely in her own right vet Kate and the animals? You get the picture.
I have to admit, I enjoyed this picture. I found Kevin James played a _great_ lovable schmuck who in the end, of course, does “choose well.” It’s kind of a hokey story. But I’m kind of a sucker for them. And the talking animals were fun. They were a little crude but in a “cub scout camping trip” sort of a way. So I do think the movie’s safe for kids.
One last thing, something that Americans my age (who were teens in the 1970s) would appreciate. Yes, this film was set in Boston. If you see the movie, you’ll understand. ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1222817/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv078.htm
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110706/REVIEWS/110709990
Zookeeper (directed by Frank Coraci, screenplay Nick Bakay, Rock Rueben and others including the film's star Kevin James) is a kid friendly mash-up of (R-rated) Forgetting Sarah Marshall and (PG-rated) Night at the Museum set at the Zoo.
The film begins with Griffin Keyes (played by Kevin James) setting-up a dream wedding proposal to his girl friend Stephanie (played by Leslie Gibb) – they’re riding on horseback on the beach as it nears sunset. Stephanie spots an odd wine bottle sticking out of the sand. Inside it is a note, as she finishes reading the note, beginning Griffin’s proposal she turns around and there’s Griffin on his knee finishing the proposal, “would you marry me?” It’s all lovely, but Stephanie, who looks (and in the movie actually becomes) a super-model, believes that she can do better than a zookeeper. So she answers “no.” How embarrassing.
Folks, if you’ve _ever_ been dumped or otherwise had your heart radically crushed in some way, remember this scene. It will put a smile on your face ;-). There the two are, riding off on one horse together into the sunset with Stephanie berating him about how unbelievably stupid he was to think that she’d ever marry a “mere zookeeper,” and all he can say “Honey, I may have ordered some Mariachis so just ignore them as we pass by, and please ignore the fireworks (heart shaped, exploding above them) as well." Yes, that has _got to be_ the most gut-wrenchingly awful/funny dumping scene in American film since Woody Allen’s 1970s-era Bananas where Allen had his girlfriend in the movie breaking-up with him saying “Honey, it’s not that I’m not attracted to you. I’m _not_, but that’s not it...” :-)
So crushed, Griffin Keyes goes back to the zoo where he’s loved by the animals and respected by much of the staff, including, above all, by zoo vet, Kate (played by Rosario Dawson)
The movie resumes five years later. Griffin’s brother Dave (played by Nat Faxon) is getting married. Griffin throws a pre-wedding party for him at the zoo. Dave, who operates an exotic car shop is rich, though not necessarily the most up on social graces. His knockout fiancé Robin (played by Steffania de la Cruz) though doesn’t seem to mind. I’m not sure whether it was Dave or Robin, but one of them invited Stephanie to the party, not realizing that this may fluster Griffin. It does, but they do start talking. In the course of the conversation while clearly indicating that she’s still not interested in someone who’s just a zoo-keeper, she indicates that she’s in the midst of a muddled relationship with a man who would have seemed to be utterly perfect for her, Gale (played by Joe Rogan). Gale was rich, a tri-athlete and (turned out to be) a great ballroom dancer. But he’s also kind of a, well, a-hole (sorry folks for the “R-rated terminology” for a PG-rated movie but “jerk” just doesn’t cut it). So Griffin realizes that Stephanie “is in play.”
Will Griffin “sell his soul” to get the girl of his dreams? He realizes that Stephanie wants him to quit the zoo. He also knows that his brother Dave would give him a job at his car dealership if only he’d ask. The animals (who we find a la Night at the Museum can talk and are voiced by the likes of Nick Nolte, Silvester Stalone, Adam Sandler, Maya Rudolph and Cher) get all worried that Griffin’s gonna dump the zoo for Stephanie, so they all try to help him get Stephanie without having to leave the job, giving all sorts of heart-felt “mating advice” that, well, works for them but... Griffin even enlists zoo vet Kate to help him get closer to Stephanie by going with him as his date to his brother’s wedding. Much ensues. And yes, he get’s his chance. What’s it gonna be? The super-model Stephanie or comely in her own right vet Kate and the animals? You get the picture.
I have to admit, I enjoyed this picture. I found Kevin James played a _great_ lovable schmuck who in the end, of course, does “choose well.” It’s kind of a hokey story. But I’m kind of a sucker for them. And the talking animals were fun. They were a little crude but in a “cub scout camping trip” sort of a way. So I do think the movie’s safe for kids.
One last thing, something that Americans my age (who were teens in the 1970s) would appreciate. Yes, this film was set in Boston. If you see the movie, you’ll understand. ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)