The Artist [2011]

MPAA (PG-13) Roger Ebert (4 Stars) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655442/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111221/REVIEWS/111229993

The Artist (written and directed by Michel Hazanavicius) is a truly creative "film lover's" movie and certainly one of the best films of the year.  Black and white and SILENT, it gives today's film-goers an opportunity to reflect on the essentials in acting, film-making and story-telling in general.  Indeed, the movie certainly confirmed for me the truth of the cliché that "90% of communication is non-verbal."

Certainly, The Artist is a "novelty piece."  I would hope that there would not be a flood of silent movies being released in coming years as a result of this movie's success.  However, The Artist is a reminder that a compelling story can be told without recourse to words.

What then is story told in this movie?  It is the story of a fictional silent screen actor named George Valentin (played by Jean Dujardin) for whom only the sky seemed to be the limit at exactly the time when silent films were about to be replaced by talkies.  At this point, at the height of his stardom, he accidently runs into Peppy Miller (played by Bérénice Bejo) a "nobody" actress who had just come into town and was struggling to get even a job as an "extra."  Not thinking much of it at the time, George kinda liked her (apparently for both her innocence/freshness and her spunk).  After a joking impromptu dance number that he does with her in front of his Producer/Director Al Zimmer (played by John Goodman), he inadvertantly gives her "her big break." Peppy Miller's career takes-off like a rocket-ship.

Valentin's career however is coming to an end even if he doesn't realize it initially.  Zimmer breaks the news to him: The future is in talkies.  Unwilling/unable to adapt, Valentin's star all but vanishes as public interest in silent films almost completely disappears in a matter of a couple of years.  What can he do?  He honestly does not know.  BUT ... Peppy never forgets the kindness that George showed her when she was just starting, so ...

I loved the _nice_ story.  (The trailer for the film was actually misleading.  The actual story of the film was far nicer even "hokier" than the trailer implies).  I also loved the gestures, the facial expressions, and the non-verbal acting in general in the film.  And if you do see the film, you'd probably agree that I'm not off base when I say that George Valentin's dog (Uggie apparently is his name) ought to get consideration for a "Best Supporting Actor" nomination ;-).

All in all, this film is probably not for everybody.  Kids would probably find the film boring, as would many non-film lovers.

But if you do like "chewing" on films, and wondering "what makes a film work?" then I think that this true "film lover's film" would be for you!  Congratulations writer/director Michel Hazanavicius and cast!


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

A Dangerous Method [2011]

MPAA (R) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1571222/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111214/REVIEWS/111219993

I found A Dangerous Method (directed by David Cronenberg, screenplay by Christopher Hampton based on the book A Most Dangerous Method by John Kerr and the play The Talking Cure by Christopher Hampton), a potentially rich bio-pic and early 20th century period piece to be remarkably disappointing.

I found it to be so in good part because I had read actually quite extensively from their works which would find application to my field.

Of Sigmund Freud, I have read Totem and Taboo [1913], Civilization and its Discontents [1930], and Moses and Monotheism [1939].

Of Carl Jung I have read various essays (in Italian translation) available through the Bollati Boringhieri series of translated essays/monographs available in Italy while did my seminary studies there in the 1990s.  I had already known of Carl Jung from my novitiate in the United States and I had found the Bollati Boringhieri series a joy to read because one could purchase Carl Jung's essays essentially a la carte.  Among those that I read at the time were: La Psicolologia del Sogno (The Psychology of Dreams), Risposta a Giobbe (Response to Job), La Vita Simbolica (The Symbolic Life), Gli Archetypi dell'Inconscio Collettivo (The Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious).  Additionally, during my last year in the seminary in Rome, I read in English translation C.J. Jung's famous essay A Psychological Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity [1936] published in C.J. Jung, Collected Works, Vol 11, Psychology and Religion - East and West [1970]).

I had also known of the famous break between Sigmund Freud and the younger Carl Jung.  So I had come to this movie with rather high hopes that the film would help explain the cause of the break, which I always assumed had been driven largely (though not entirely) by egos.  But I left the film disappointed.

I did learn a number of things about the private life of Carl Jung (played here by Michael Fassbender), notably that he had a rather rich wife Emma (played by Sarah Gadon) and he did find himself with several mistresses during his life including Sabina Spielrein (played here by Keira Knightly) who was first his patient, then his student and finally a psychologist in her own right.

I also left the film being able to appreciate a little better the truly remarkable time in which Freud and Jung had lived.  At one point, Freud (played in the movie by Viggo Mortensen) compared his and Jung's burgeoning field of psychology to the discovery of a New Continent, saying: 

"Columbus did not know where he arrived when he reached the New World.  No one did for another 100 years.  We do not know as yet where we've actually arrived but having discovered this new continent [of the subconscious] I'm certainly going to explore it."

To which Jung is presented as adding: "I'd rather compare you to Galileo, who was being condemned by his enemies even as they refused to look into the looking glass of the telescope that he invented [with which he made the observations on which he based his theories]."

But alas, the two came to part ways.  Freud wished to continue to study/interpret nearly all psychological phenenomena "scientifically" through application of his concept of the libido (sex drive).  Carl Jung did not wish to be so constrained.  And just as the Marxists (and more recently our era's Market Capitalists) had drifted into dogmatism with regard to economic theory, so did eventually both Freud and Jung with regards to psychology.  [Still, if one understands that the "scientific" approaches taken with regards to economics or psychology are necessarily broad-brush in nature, all these approaches have definite value, albeit with limits].   

Be all this as it may, I've told a number of people after seeing this film that I would have happily sat through if it was 3 hours long especially if it got into the genesis of some of Freud's and Jung's ideas.  Instead, film wasn't even 2 hours long (coming in at 1:39).  So came across to me as a very thin soup: One got only a few gossipy tidbits about the two men, Freud and Jung (and about the two women in Jung's life at the time).  However, we really could have gotten so much more.

One thinks simply of the movie Shadowlands [1993] about a rather complicated, interesting and (in his own words) "surprising" period in the life of philosopher/theologian C.S. Lewis (a contemporary of both Freud and Jung) and one wants to weep:  Surely one could have done much more in making a film about Freud and Jung (and the significant women around them) than was done here.


<< 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! :-) >>

Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229238/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv151.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111214/REVIEWS/111219995
Kinonews.ru review -  (Russian Orig.) / (Eng. Trans.)
Aljazeera.com review -
Times of India review -
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/english/Mission-Impossible--Ghost-Protocol/movie-review/11119964.cms

As a well crafted, well acted and at times light-hearted action thriller, Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol (directed by Brad Bird, screenplay by Josh Appelbaum and Andre Nemec based on Bruce Gellar's television series Mission Impossible) the fourth in the current movie franchise does not disappoint.

With a well-crafted team centered around IMF agent Ethan Hunt (played once more by Tom Cruise) with tech-wiz Benji (played by Simon Pegg) as well as newcomer Jane (played by Paula Patton) the story centers around stopping a rogue scientist, Kurt Hendricks (played by Michael Nyqvist) also goes by the sinister name "Cobalt" from plunging the world into a nuclear war.  Hendricks/Cobalt, apparently has become convinced that such pruning would actually "help" the process of evolution...

When an "impossible" mission given to Hunt and his team to steal a copy of Russia's nuclear codes from the Kremlin before Hendrick's/Cobalt's men can get to them goes horribly awry with half the Kremlin being blow-up (not by Hunt and his team but by Hendrick's/Cobalt's men), the IMF's "Secretary" invokes "ghost protocol" and as has been threatened in every Mission Impossible episode ever made "disavows any knowledge of the mission" (and indeed of the whole IMF).  So Ethan Hunt and his team are left-out to dry, but worse, if Hendricks did actually get his hands on the Russian nuclear codes (and then acquired a means of communicating them to Russia's nuclear commanders) he really could start World War III.

So the rest of the movie involves trying to stop Hendricks/Cobalt from blowing up the world.  And this requires Ethan's team of three as well as an addition of a fourth in the person of "analyst" Brandt (played by Jeremy Renner) to travel to Dubai and later Mumbai, India to try to break-up the plot, all the while protecting themselves from both Hendricks'/Cobalt's people as well as a team of Russian intelligence agents led by Sidirov (played by Vladimir Mashkov) who had been given orders to apprehend Hunt and his team for blowing-up the Kremlin which is, after all, the seat of the Russian government.

Much ensues.  The true "death defying" sequences on Dubai's Burj Khalifa (currently the world's tallest building) as well as the sequences at Mumbai telecom magnate Brij Nath's (played by famed Indian Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor) party are magnificent, indeed often "(action) poetry in motion". Of course, it all ends well.

The international nature of a movie like this fascinates me as well.  And thanks to the Internet, one _can_ check what critics / viewers from (in this case) India and Russia think of this movie.  To my happy surprise, Russian critics/viewers on the forum www.kinonews.ru (orig. Russian / Eng transl. through translate.google.com) generally liked the film (some noting that the film was made "from an American point of view).  And readers at the Times of India, gave the movie 4 out of 5 stars as well.  [Note, I did try to check what the English Language service of Aljazeera had to say about the film, and as of the present (Dec 22, 2011), I could not find anything].  So it would seem that this film has succeeded by and large even in respecting the various countries (and their people) where the film was made.  Congratulations!

All in all, I found Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol to be all that one would hope for in a movie like this (and perhaps some more).  If you like these kind of action/spy thrillers then I am more or less certain that you'll enjoy this one.


<< 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 with the Dragon Tattoo

MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (O) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars with STRONG PARENTAL WARNING)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv155.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111219/REVIEWS/111219982

What parents should know about The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (directed by David Fincher, screenplay by Steven Zaillan based on the best selling book by the same name by Steig Larsson) is that this movie is a "hard R;" that is, it would make for truly inappropriate viewing for the vast majority of teens.

I can't think of any conceivable reason why a parent would want to take even a 15 year-old to see this movie, and unless there were particular circumstances in an older teen's life (for example an already present history of abuse in the teen's history) I don't see why a parent would want to take even an older minor to this movie at all.  I encourage parents to read the CNS/USCCB's review of this movie as well.

I write this because I know that the book The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo has been an international young adult sensation and the 2009 Swedish version of the movie has had enjoyed a "cult" following among many young people as well.  Yet, the reader here (and parents especially) should note that what can perhaps be "glossed over" when described in words (or not carry as much impact) can become a different experience entirely when portrayed in a film: The protagonist of this story, Lisbeth Salander (played by Rooney Mara), who is "the girl with the dragon tattoo" in the story is shown in the movie being brutally sexually abused by her parole officer Bjurman (played by Yorick van Wageningen), and this abuse is shown as graphically as the censors would allow.

So parents, one last time -- unless you want to be asked by your teen "What did he make her do, when he ...?", "What did he mean, when he said ...?" -- don't take your kid/teen to this movie. 

This said, I do see value in the book and movie to both young adults in general and abuse victims in particular.  The over-riding theme of the book / movie is about hypocrisy and then on a staggering number of levels:

Remember here the book comes from Sweden: Sweden was nominally neutral during World War II.  Yet, as the book/movie point out many Swedes sympathized with the Nazis, and Sweden never had to confront collaboration with the Nazi regime.  The rich Swedish family, that journalist Mikael Blomkvist (played by Daniel Craig) was asked by the family's aging patriarch Hinrik Vanger (played by Christopher Plummer) to investigate had been riddled by Nazi-sympathizers, some of whom fought on the Nazi side in the war.

Even Hinrik appeared to appreciate some kind of link between this never confronted Nazi past and other ghosts in the family's closet.  Specifically, Mikael Blomkvist was hired by Hinrik Vanger to finally give him closure regarding a mystery that had haunted him for 40 years -- the abrupt and never explained disappearance of his 16 year-old grand-daughter Harriet (played by Moa Garpendal).  He always suspected that someone in his family was responsible for her disappearance (and presumed murder) but neither he nor the police were able to prove it.  Since Mikael Blomkvist had been a crusading journalist (and one who had run afoul with one of the Vanger family's financial rivals), after making a thorough background check of Blomkvist's own past (interesting, since the Vangers appeared to hold so many secrets) Hinrik hires Mikael to investigate his own family.

The movie is then largely about Mikael's investigation of the Vanger family, which eventually leads him to ask for further help.  And it is then that Lisbeth is brought into the mix: It was Lisbeth who had done the leg work for the Vanger family when they conducted the background check on Mikael.  Why?  Because a "ward of the state," nominally "insane" as far the State was concerned, she was completely under the radar.

When the Vangers suggest she work with Mikael on the case, after Mikael does a check on her, he comes back saying: "Who is this person?  I can't find a single thing about her.  And I'm _usually_ very good about finding these things."  He gets the reply: "You can't find anything on her, because her entire file is sealed as she's a technically ward of the state."

However, not only does she work "under the radar," her previous experience of having been abused, makes her remarkably good at "connecting the dots" that no one else, including Mikael had been able to do.  So yes, by the end of the film, the case gets solved.

The mystery, however, becomes almost beside the point.  The character of Lisbeth comes to the fore, and she is, indeed, a compelling one.  She's a victim, but she becomes also "an avenger," even if still a fundamentally wounded one.  She is a character, therefor, not unlike some of the brooding superheroes of American comic books -- a poor (and female) Bruce Wayne (Batman).

There are elements of her that are self-destructive.  Let's begin with the extensive tattoos and all the piercings.  But it doesn't end there.  She is portrayed as being on the aggressive side sexually at one point seducing, indeed, all but simply "taking" her coworker/Boss Mikael.  (Mikael is portrayed as having a daughter only a few years younger than Lisbeth...).  But despite her learned assertiveness bordering on agressiveness, to the "Dragan Tattoo's" series' credit, it's clear that she still doesn't really get what she wants.  She's tough, she wins, but ... she remains fundamentally alone.

Very, very interesting.  Much perhaps for a young adult to contemplate.  However, I reiterate the warning to parents.  This film is rated "R" with just reason.  So with very few exceptions (and then only honestly if abuse has somehow already been part of your child's life) I can't see any value for teens to see this movie before they could see it on their own as adults.


<< 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! :-) >>

Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy [2011]

MPAA (R)  Roger Ebert (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1340800/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111214/REVIEWS/111219994

Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy (directed by Tomas Alfredson, screenplay by Brigit O'Conner and Peter Straughan) is a slow-moving, cerebral "chess game" style spy thriller faithful to the novel and book series created by John Le Carre involving his fictional hero George Smiley who Le Carre envisioned as a very different kind of spy to Ian Flemming's action oriented James Bond.  As such, while this movie will definitely have its enthusiasts who like true mysteries and who-done-its, I don't believe Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy will be for everybody.

The closest recent cinematic equivalent to this film that I can think of would be The Good Shepherd [2006] (directed by Robert De Niro and staring Matt Damon).  Indeed, just as The Good Shepherd centered around a specific (U.S.) intelligence fiasco (the doomed Bay of Pigs invasion), Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy is based on a of a true disaster in British Intelligence involving "the Cambridge Five."  These five were discovered to be moles spying for the Soviet Union from within the highest echelons of British Intelligence.  The disaster which played out in the 1950-1960s and threatened the integrity of the entire British intelligence establishment and arguably the security of the entire free world. (It was also a disaster referred to in The Good Shepherd).

So then how does one hunt for a mole in one's intelligence establishment?  How does one even begin to suspect that there is a mole present within one's ranks?  Well that's what this movie is about.  Set in the early 1970s, the members of "The Circus" (the nickname given to the top echelon of MI6 of British Intelligdnce) begin to really suspect that there is mole present among them after a mission to recruit a general in (Communist) Hungary went terribly wrong.  Not only did the Hungarian general make his meeting, but to the shock of everyone, his would-be British handler was actually shot, presumably killed and certainly taken away from that cafe' by the Hungarian/Russian agents who broke-up the planned meeting.  What happened?  How were the Hungarians/Russians tipped off?  Since this was going to be such a coup to get that Hungarian general to "flip" only a few people near the top of MI6 knew of the operation.  So who tipped them off?

So the head of "The Circus", nicknamed "Control" (played by John Hurt) assigns recently retired George Smiley (played by Gary Oldman) to investigate the question.  There are only a few people who could be the mole -- Percy Alleline (played by Toby Jones) codenamed by "Control" as "Tinker," Bill Hayden (played by Colin Firth)  codenamed "Taylor," Roy Bland (played by Cieran Hinds) codenamed "Soldier" and Toby Esterhase (played by Toby Dencik) codenamed "Poor Man" and presumably Smiley.  But "Control" gave him the assignment to find the mole.

Now each of these are powerful people (who could use their power to generally cover their tracks) and they've been associates/friends for years.  In this season of office Holiday/Christmas parties, I found some of the most poignant/interesting scenes in the movie to be precisely _those_ gatherings when normally reserved spies/bureaucrats "let their hair down" just a little bit (yes, slightly buzzed spy-masters can sing pop songs/show tunes just as bad as the rest of us ... ;-), and the tragedy of it all, as one realizes among these people, who all present thought they knew, was a traitor.

So the movie plays as a chess game but one with a definite human / tragic element.  No this movie is not for everybody.  I think that the "R" rating is appropriate, not only for the occasional (and largely unnecessary) scene involving sex or nudity, but mostly because the average teenager (to say nothing of preteen) would probably find the film deathly boring.  As a "date movie," I would imagine that it would be a "date killer" in 9/10 cases.  Still, someone (or couple) that likes a well-crafted if slow-moving "who done it" would probably really enjoy it.


<< 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! :-) >>

Sherlock Holmes - A Game of Shadows

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
www.imdb.com/title/tt1515091/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv150.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111214/REVIEWS/111219992

The action driven Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (directed by Guy Richie, cowritten by the husband and wife team Kieran and Michele Mulroney based on the Sherlock Holmes series of Arthur Conan Doyle) will certainly continue to annoy purists who with reason wonder why a Sherlock Holmes story told today would need explosions and fireworks and death defying leaps.

Be this complaint legitimate as it may, the current incarnation of Sherlock Holmes [IMDb] (played by Robert Downey, Jr) does bear characteristics of the old.  Like in the original, Sherlock Holmes is something of a "bohemian" / "renaissance man."  He's not afraid of trying things that are new, including, like in the original series, the occasional drug (like opium in the original series, or coca in the current -- Parents do take note), which today we know would be dangerous but in Sherlock's time (in Victorian England of the 1800s) would have been seen as exotic and potentially useful.  Holmes also retains his legendary powers of deduction.  However in the current series, this faculty is used by Holmes not only to use seemingly insignificant strands of information (evidence) to deduce what happened ("who done it?") but what is about to happen.  This ability to rapidly deduce what's about to happen, not only gets Holmes and often annoyed/incredulous partner Dr Watson [IMDb] (played by Jude Law) out of traps about to be sprung on them, it also gives this series set in the Victorian Era a post-Matrix feel.  Finally, Holmes' famous pipe makes an unmistakable comeback in this episode.  So as irritated as some of us "older fogeys" may be that the cerebral Sherlock Holmes has been given an "action-hero" make-over, it's not a total break and it's not totally without value.

So what is the movie about?  Set in 1895, the movie's about nothing less than saving European civilization from a war being instigated by Sherlock Holmes' archfiend, the brilliant Professor James Moriarty [IMDb] (played by Jared Harris).  Sure Europe's presented as a powder keg of nationalist tensions.  France and Germany are at each other's throats.  Additionally, there are anarchists in all countries seeking to bring the whole system down.  But below it all is (according to this story) James Moriarty who's quietly buying both armaments factories and medical supply firms all over Europe even as he bankrolls anarchists setting-off destabilizing but seemingly unrelated explosions in both France and Germany pushing them (and with them, the rest of Europe) to war.  Only someone like Sherlock Holmes, who notices details and relationships between details that no one else seems to notice, can prevent World War ... ;-)

In previous entries on this blog, I've written much about an annoying but apparent trend of politicizing children's stories this year.  Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is a film set in another time, but also with more-or-less obvious political implications.  Yet, I do believe that it is fair to seek to teach young people (teens and above) to think critically and to understand that "things are not necessarily always as they seem" that it ought not to be impossible to imagine that even a terrorist group (the contemporary equivalent of the anarchists of the late 1800s and early 1900s) could be bankrolled and directed by one or another arms merchant who could profit from war.  What was SPECTRE in the original James Bond series but a group of "industrialists" meeting in chalets in exotic locations like Switzerland plotting to destabilize the world for profit?

Now just because conspiracies are possible does not necessarily make them real.  Still, I do believe that it is useful/important for young people to realize that things are not always as they seem.  And even Jesus did spend a lot of time talking about and condemning "hypocrites."

So, while all kinds of people could have all kinds of objections (from literary to thematic) to the current Sherlock Holmes films, I do think that they are enjoyable and may help today's youth to think critically about the world around them.


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

Arthur Christmas

MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1430607/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv144.htm

Arthur Christmas (directed and co-written by Sarah Smith along with Peter Bayhman) follows a fairly dismal trend of politicizing children's films.

And folks I'm not making this up.  When the rather dunce-sounding Mr. Santa of the movie (voiced by Jim Broadbent) comes home to the North Pole at the end of Christmas Eve and declares to his assembled elves "Christmas Accomplished" under a giant banner proclaiming the same (when later it is found that a child did not get her present, that indeed "a child was left behind...") what parent in the entire western world would not immediately know who the joke is on -- former U.S. President George W. Bush?

This film _is_ otherwise very imaginative and witty.  Since Santa's workshop "can't be seen on Google Earth," it's imagined to exist in a "secret base" under the Arctic Ocean where the North Pole is.  Further, since Santa would be quite old if he were delivering presents since the time of St. Nicholas (who lived in the late 200s-early 300s), it is imagined that a Santa family has been delivering presents to children for all those hundreds of years.  And once one is talking about a family, conflicts can be expected:

Grandpa Santa (voiced by Bill Nighy) resents the innovations brought in by his son, the current Malcolm Santa, and especially by the Santa in waiting, Malcolm's eldest son Steve (voiced by Hugh Laurie).  Steve had turned the delivery of presents into a virtual military operation complete with a new "stealth" virtual spaceship, rather than the old reindeer driven sleigh ... One _could_ wonder why with modern radar, we can't detect Santa's sleigh ... Well, it's thanks to Steve's "stealth technology." ... But Grandpa keeps talkin' about how it was "back in the day..." And he has a hoot when "With all that technology, you too still missed a child!  Why, back in 1942, during the height of World War II, I was being shot at by everybody... lost three reindeer that day ... but EVERY KID got a present that day."

Steve, for his part, can't understand why his dad just won't retire.  After all, he's been at it for 70 years and aside from driving the new 'stealth sleigh' (actually, it seems to be guided from Steve's 'mission control' at the North Pole anyway) dad Santa doesn't do anything except _be_ Santa, while Steve actually organizes everything.

Finally, there's younger son Arthur, who nobody really respects, but who's happy working in the "letter responding department" at Santa's workshop at the North Pole.  He's the one who brings it to the attention of Santa and Steve that a little girl named Gwen living in Cornwall, England didn't get the bike she had requested.

From this failure, the rest of the story unspools.  And here, I totally agree with the film's message: "If one kid doesn't matter, how can we be sure that _anybody_ matters?"  The elves ("the little people...") also get it immediately ... It just takes the rest of the Santa family a bit longer to figure it out.

Of course, it all works out well (ends happily ...).  I do think that the story was, on the whole, very, very nice.  I just wish the film makers had kept G.W. Bush out of it...

Finally, what's with the Santa family speaking with British accents?  For better or worse, the modern "Santa" tradition is a distinctly American one, born of the 1820s poem Twas the Night Before Christmas and if it had any European roots at all, those roots would have come from the old Dutch settlers of New York back when New York was called New Amsterdam.  

ADDENDUM -

Though more or less generally secular, the film did take an interesting spin in this regard: throughout the movie, members of Santa's family made repeated references to traditional, Christian Christmas carols.  I counted three such references: Silent Night, Angels We Have Heard On High (In Excelsis Deo), and Good King Wenceslas.  They were all made in passing, and in the case of Silent Night, not altogether respectfully.  Nevertheless, the references were 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! :-) >>