We Bought a Zoo [2011]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review
We Bought a Zoo (directed and co-written by Cameron Crowe along with Aline Brosh McKenna based on the book by Benjamin Mee about his experience of actually buying the Dartmoor Zoo in rural England after his wife's death) is a somewhat hokey, certainly formulaic but still very nice family movie about Benjamin Mee (played in the movie by Matt Damon) and his kids, 14 year old Dylan (played by Colin Ford) and truly sweetie-pie 7 year-old Rosie (played by Maggie Elizabeth Jones) who buy a farm (in the movie in rural Southern California) following the death of their wife/mother Catherine Mee (appearing occasionally in dreams and conversations, played by Stephanie Szostak).

Both grieving and starting on such a surprising project as a result offer inevitable challenges, that provide the nuts and bolts material for the project.  Yet, make no mistake about it, the film is about coping the loss of a loved one and struggling to find a future afterwards. "The Zoo" becomes an obvious metaphor not unlike Forrest Gump's "box of chocolates:" In life you don't know what's coming and you meet a lot of "interesting animals" (people) all of which need some care.  And lest there be too much actual equivalence between people and animals, we hear the initially skeptical older brother of Benjamin, Duncan Dee (played by Thomas Haden Church) declare quite sincerely near the end of the film: "You know, I do love the animals, but I really love the people."

And the Dees meet plenty of wonderful if at times eccentric people along the way -- including chief zoo-keeper Kelly Foster (played by Scarlet Johannsen) and her daughter Lilly (played by Elle Fanning), zoo designer Peter MacCready (played by Angus Macfadyen) and even state inspector and chief "villain" in the story Walter Ferris (played by John Michael Higgins).

Again, the plot is often very predicatable but it is also quite respectful of reality.  For instance, everyone probably expects a romance to begin between widower Benjamin Mee and Kelly the zookeeper.  After all, Kelly is both very nice and, well, "looks like Scarlet Johannsen" ;-).  But (if this is spoiler, so be it...) this does not happen, as it probably would not happen in real life.  Instead, it is obvious that the Dees have still a lot grieving to do, and they all make _some_ but still incomplete progress along the way.

As such I have to say that I really liked this movie (and was actually surprised how much I liked it).  It's sad, but it's also happy and it makes for a nice reflection on the life that we're given and which often doesn't necessarily go the the way that we'd like but ... if we step back a bit ... we can hopefully find that we're generally given quite a lot in life and certainly plenty of opportunities to make lots and lots of friends.

Indeed, even with that kind of rudimentary reflection we could perhaps appreciate that we really do have "someone up there" who is looking after all of us ;-).

As a final note to parents: while the subject is clearly about the loss of a loved one, which can be intrinsically hard for young kids to deal with, this film has been made with very, very gently, with a great deal of sensitivity.  So I wouldn't be afraid to take anyone to this movie.  The subject matter may not be something you'd want to take your kids to over the Christmas holidays.  However if you or your friends have lost someone close to you, recently, the film could be useful to you.  And I certainly wouldn't be afraid of taking kids really of any age to this film.  It's really done quite well.

ADDENDA

First, in the Servite Novena of Our Lady of Sorrows, there is a line has long struck me, noting that "throughout her life Mary chose do to what God wanted her to do and not necessarily what she had wanted to do."  Yes, like in the case of the family of this movie, there are occasionally events that happen in our lives that we'd wish didn't happen (times when we don't even have a choice but to respond/accept what happens).  And there are also times in our lives that we do have to make choices between what we'd really like to do and what'd really be for a greater good, for the sake of loved ones, country, community, and yes for God and Church.  (One thinks here of Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life [1946]).  Often what makes us truly Great are the times when we make the choice to do what is truly Good ...

Second, an image that has stuck with me for years since my time in the Seminary where we did study pastoral care for the dying and grieving has been understanding our lives as a web of relationships (and this before the internet became so much a part of our lives;-).

The loss of a loved one makes a tear in this web.  The size and scope of the tear depend both on the role that the loved one had in our lives prior to his/her death and then the circumstances of the death.  The sudden, violent death of a loved one is often the hardest for survivors to overcome.  Yet eventually our web does mend.  The web will show a scar as a result of the loss and the size of the scar will again depend on the importance of that loved one in our lives and the circumstances of his/her death.  But our lives will eventually continue anew.

The above insight is not my own.  It comes from a book that I read during my time in the seminary, but I no longer remember the name of the book...  But I do think that many who've experienced the untimely death of a loved one (as indeed, my family had.  I lost my mother when I was 22 and I'm approaching my mother's age when she died) will appreciate the value of the "web", "tear" "mending" "with a scar remaining" imagery in the metaphor.

And the family in this movie was clearly trying to find a way to "mend" the tear caused by the loss of their wife/mother.


<< 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 Darkest Hour [2011]

MPAA (PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1093357/
Kinonews.ru - review / discussion -
(Russ. orig. / Eng. trans.)

The Darkest Hour (directed by Chris Gorak, screenplay by Jon Spaihts, story by Leslie Bohem, M.T. Ahern and again Jon Spaihts) is an American conceived alien invasion sci-fi/horror movie set almost entirely in Moscow.  I found the idea to be both interesting and potentially problematic.  How would the film-makers pull it off?

I did find the setting of an alien invasion movie in a non-American city interesting because I had been studying at my Order's International College in Rome the year that Independence Day [1996] had come out and I know that the film didn't go over well once one got past our nation's fair borders. Already known at the Seminary that I liked films, I was greeted by a fair number of rolling eyes that fall by our college's non-American students saying: "So you Americans are going to 'save us all' from 'alien invasion' one day and on your Independence Day no less.  What if this invasion never comes?  Or we don't particularly want to be 'saved' by you?  Do we still have to be 'grateful'?"

Then a few years later Bruce Willis' Armageddon [1998] came out, a film extolling the innate goodness of oil-drillers and the inherent "wimpiness" of the French, Paris showed-up on screen only long enough to be blown-up by a shard of an asteroid (Oh, how the American Right hates the French ...)  So an alien invasion film set in Moscow could have gone in a lot of directions ... and, yes, I've taken a fair amount of hits for the United States over the years, both in grad school and then in the seminary where I was often the only native born American in the program (and _I'm_ a son of immigrants ...).  But I do like America and in good part for reasons expressed _nicely_ in this film.

Fortunately, the film-makers chose to _not_ have "Americans save Russia" but instead chose to create a film that certainly is still clumsy at times from a Russian point of view (see the Kinonews.ru review and discussion - Russ. orig. / Eng. trans. through translate.google.com) tried hard to underline the virtues of both American and Russian ingenuity (IMHO rightly identified as a characteristic of both peoples) as the survivors of the alien invasion sought to fight back. 

So what is the scenario then?  Ben (played by Max Minghella) and Sean (played by Emile Hirsch) are two software engineers from America who come to Russia to plug a "foursquare" type social networking site only to find that their Scandinavian partner Skyler (played by Joel Kinnaman) had stolen their idea and passed it off to the Russians as his own.  When they protest, he simply tells them "Welcome to Moscow."  However Ben and Sean's site is already online elsewhere and two American tourists Natalie (played by Olivia Thirlby) and Anne (played by Rachael Taylor), who know the site from the States happily use it to find some of the club hot spots in Moscow as well as to run into Ben and Sean at one of the clubs.  Skyler's there too ... hitting on one of any number of Russian models at the club.  True Ben and Sean are still pisse-off at Skyler but between the Lights, the pulsating Hip Hop (both English and Russian) dance music, the two young American women that they meet and all the other beautiful people present, Ben and Sean are getting over it.

Then suddenly the lights go out.  Yes, one of the Americans calls out derisively "Moscow!"  But soon it's clear that the power outage has nothing to do with any perceived flaws with Russia's electrical grid.  Instead, all across the sky these orange glowing orbs are gently dropping toward earth.  And they seem to do two things: (1) they quickly short-out electrical devices and (2) they quickly reduce any living organism including humans to ash.  So it quickly becomes pandamonium when these strange orange-glowing entities hit the ground.

The five characters mentioned above manage to escape the initial onslaught.  How they did so (why they were so lucky) isn't initially clear, but it becomes clearer as the story progresses.  Initially, the five are content to hide.  Eventually though, they have leave their hiding place in order to eat. When they do so, they gradually come into contact with other, Russian, survivors.

There aren't many.  They initially run into Vika (played by Veronika Ozerova) who's their age as well as Sergei (played by Dato Bakhtadze) who's a bit older.  Initially, none of them really understand why they "were lucky" to survive, but they start to piece things together and Sergei is certainly the first who really understands it.  Note to the readers here, the reason isn't metaphysical like in Steven King's, The Stand [1994].  Instead, the reason is more down to earth.  The gathering and growing group of survivors beginning to organize themselves into a group of  "21st century partisans" also begins to figure out the aliens' weaknesses.

The story thus evolves into a reasonably good puzzle needing to be solved _and_ more problematically to some of the Russian viewers and reviewers of the film (see again the Kinonews.ru review and discussion - Russ. orig. / Eng. trans.) something of an analogy to the Russian/Soviet experience of surviving and defeating the Nazi invasion in 1941.  Then too, the Russian/Soviets were initially overwhelmed by the invaders.  But slowly they came to figure out the weaknesses of the invaders and to defeat them.

The movie ends only as the survivors begin to see how the alien invaders could be defeated.  So the film has been made in a manner that allows for sequels.  The ending also offers the possibility that these sequels could take place in other places in the world besides Russia (or the United States).  So the creators of this film have created an "alien invasion" story that's _truly global_ with heroes coming from everywhere, and could continue to be told for many episodes to come.

As a result, I do applaud the makers of the film for attempting to create a series in this genre that could be truly inclusive of the whole world and certainly I will be watching to see whether the film-makers come through in actually doing so in the years to come.

ADDENDUM

A truly excellent book on the Russian/Soviet experience of World War II is a book by British historian/journalist Catherine Merridale, Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army 1939-1945.  Published only in 2006, it is easily of the caliber of Cornelius Ryans' Longest Day [1959] / Bridge too Far [1974] or Steven Ambrose's Band of Brothers [1992] (which were about Western Allied/American experiences on the Western Front during WW II). Merridale's book provides the English language reader probably the best available description of life in the Soviet army on the Eastern front during the war.


<< 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 Adventures of Tintin [2011]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-I) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0983193/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv154.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111220/REVIEWS/111229999

The Adventures of Tintin (directed by Steven Spielberg, screenplay by Steven Moffot, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish based on the famed cartoon series by the same name created by Belgian cartoonist Georges Remi who wrote under the pen name of Hergé) is finally a truly great animated feature film both in terms of technique and story in a year of often very dismal ones.  The film represents Steven Spielberg's entry into 3D film making.  As such, it is certainly technically excellent (as was Martin Scorcese's recent film Hugo).  However, if both of these films are going to be remembered as "setting the bar" on a purely technical level to a new high, I consider Spielberg's Adventures of Tintin to have a far more enjoyable story than Scorcese's film.  Indeed, Tintin reminded me a lot of Spielberg's beloved Indiana Jones series with Tintin targeted to a somewhat younger audience.  Indeed, between Super-8 (released this past summer) and this film, I would say that Spielberg knows well the soul of a 12 year old.

So what's the story about?  Tintin (voice by Jamie Bell), a boyish looking reporter with a trusted white dog named Snowy, sees and buys a beautiful replica of a 17th century "Man of War" sailing warship named "The Unicorn" from a street vender.  Neither he nor the vender think much of it as Tintin hands over his cash to buy the replica at a modest and fair price.  Yet almost immediately after purchasing model boat, not one but two separate people offer to buy the boat from Tintin at several times the price he had just paid for it.  The exasperated street vender sighs: "Just my luck, I've been trying to get rid of this model boat for years and the minute I sell it all kinds of people are now fighting to buy it!"  The first potential buyer of Tintin's newly acquired model boat warns Tintin that if he doesn't get rid of the boat quickly, it will only cause him trouble.  A second inquirer, a sinister looking-sounding man by the name of Sakrine (voice by Daniel Craig) promises Tintin after he refuses to sell it to him that he'll get the boat from him one way or another.  The question, of course, is why all the fuss over a model boat?

Intrepid Tintin takes his boat home, puts it on a cabinet in his room and then head-off to the library to read-up on the boat.  He finds that "The Unicorn" had been commanded by a Sir Francis Haddock (voice by Andy Serkis) on what had proven to be "one of the most cursed voyages in [maritime] history."  Apparently, the ship had been carrying an enormous load of treasure only to be attacked and sunk by pirates, Haddock had been the only survivor.  But afterwards, "no one of the descendants of Haddock had proven to be of any worth."  Finally, there was a legend that Haddock had somehow hidden the information regarding the lost treasure in a manner that "only a true descendant of Haddock" could find it.  It becomes apparent that somehow this model boat sported some sort of a clue.  But what would the clue be?  And how to go about finding "a true descendant of Haddock" to figure it out?  When Tintin and his dog return home, of course his flat had been ransacked but it becomes clear that the boat itself wasn't what the burglars were looking for.  So what was it that they were trying to find?

This all sets up a great scavenger hunt / mystery for a preteen mind and sets Tintin and his dog on an adventure spanning seas, continents and deserts (again, Indiana Jones with a cartoon face and a cute dog comes to mind ;-).  Among the people he meets are two "Interpol Agents" Thompson (voice by Simon Pegg) and Thomson (voice by Nick Frost) who are also "on the case," as well as a very "unworthy" seeming descendant of Sir Francis Haddock, also a captain (and also voiced by Andy Serkis) who when we meet him seemed to need to be drunk in order to think straight.  Much ensues ... Ah to be 12 again ... ;-)

Readers here would perhaps find interesting that review for the CNS / USCCB notes that The Adventures of Tintin originally appeared in the children's supplement of the Belgian Catholic Newspaper Le Vingtieme Siecle in 1929.  And Roger Ebert wrote in his review of the film that he became so enamored by Tintin since first hearing of him one year at the annual International Film Festival in Cannes that he's since "read every single book in the Tintin series and has even bought a Tintin and Snowy t-shirt."

I have to hand it to Spielberg, he knows how to please!  In a year of often very politically tendacious "kids movies" and a plethera of similarly forced/gimmicky "3D" forays, Spielberg made a 3D animated film WORTH WATCHING and probably worth paying the 3 extra dollars per ticket for the glasses.

Note: I continue to seek out 2D showings of 3D films.  However, from what I've saw, I could appreciate that THIS FILM could probably be worth seeing in 3D.  The shots in the film clearly lended themselves to taking advantage of the "depth" that 3D offers.

Still, I do hope that this 3D "fad" will soon come to an end.  Both 2D and 3D representational art have been with us since we began to paint on rock faces and cave walls and sculpt little figurines out of wood/flint.  Yet it's always been easier and cheaper to simply paint ... But as far as 3D films go, The Adventures of Tintin is certainly one of the better ones.


<< 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 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! :-) >>