The Vow [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606389/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv019.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120208/REVIEWS/120209977

The Vow (directed by Michael Sucsy, screenplay by Abby Kohn, Marc Silversteen and Jason Katims, story by Stuart Sender) is a nice enough date movie, released just before Valentine's Day asking the question: What would you do if the love of your life had an accident and forgot who you are?  Would you try to win her (or him) back?  The answer is, of course, yes, ... just not too creepily ... and, of course, we get to watch Leo try to do this.  (With the script on his side, he does very, very well.  On the plus side, however, his character does offer a rather good if idealized example of how to go about these things). 

Though based on a true story, it's important to remember that it's Hollywood telling it, so the edges are smoothed out.  Indeed, so smoothed out are the edges that an Indian friend of mine from my religious order [Intl] [USA] called it "the first true Bollywood [1] [2] movie made by Hollywood" ;-). 

Still, I maintain my belief that even in the schlockiest story there are usually elements that make it more complicated than it may initially seem, which indeed make the story "work."  If a movie were "just schlock" we wouldn't go at all.

The Vow is no different.  There is more to the movie than the schlock and yet not so much that it becomes overwhelming and gets us complaining "hey wait a minute ..."   Older foggies like me would recognize a nice message of reconciliation the film.  And I admit that despite the still rather high "schlock" content of the story, I am positive that when I was in my 20ies, I would have certainly considered the film a really, really nice film to take a date to.  Of course, with that kind of a recommendation, "Hollywood wins." But then I don't mind because I've obviously seen Hollywood as more of a "good if at times overly talkative friend" than an "enemy" here (I just hate its current push for 3D ... at least this film wasn't done that way ... yet ... but that's another story ... ;-).

So what is the story here?  Leo (played by Channing Tatum) a recording engineer and Paige (played by Rachel McAdams) a sculptor, graduate of the Art Institute of Chicago (my ma' was actually a graduate of the school ;-) are a lovely (and surprisingly married if alas, not in any Church ...) "bohemian" couple living in Chicago and as happy as could be.

Yet, one snowy winter's evening, coming home from an "art house theater" (the Music Box) in their car, stopped at a stop sign on a seemingly empty street and in a romantic mood, they suddenly get hit by salt truck...  Boom! Paige flies through the windshield. Leo apparently still with his seat belt on crumples into the steering wheel / airbag.  The movie resumes some weeks later ...

Paige had been kept in an induced coma for the weeks that had followed the accident while the swelling in her head decreased.  When she comes out of it, she has memory loss.  Specifically, she can't remember anything of the previous 5 years, that is, she can't remember anything since before her meeting Leo.  He is the first person she sees when she comes to, but she thinks he's the doctor ...

The actual doctor (played by Wendy Crewson) tells Leo that, well, with traumatic brain injury, it's hard to know what's going to happen, but perhaps after sometime she would fully regain her memory.

Now admitting that this is a story, but also admitting that it's based on a true story, I found the point at which her memory was lost fascinating: She woke-up to think that she was ONCE AGAIN a happy LAW STUDENT at Northwestern University engaged to a fellow law student named Jeremy (played by Scott Speedman).  The morning after she wakes up, she calls her parents, Bill and Rita Thornton (played by Sam Neill and Jessica Lange respectively) who weren't hospital before and may not have even known that she had an accident.  What the heck just happened?

The parents come rushing to the hospital.  They're happy to see her, happy also that she's happy to see them, and frankly very happy that she didn't seem to remember the last 5 years.

There's a point in the story in which Bill offers to pay Leo "to just go away" now that they (the parents) "had their daughter back."  Again what the heck happened?

Leo hadn't kidnapped Paige and she hadn't joined any cult.  But it becomes clear that Paige must have had some sort of traumatic experience even before the accident that had led her to so radically change her life in the first place -- leave law school to enter into art school, dump Jeremy, cut ties with her family, and finally meet and marry Leo.

The rest of the story is about her (with her amnesia) figuring out and the audience figuring out what that story was.  Knowing something of making radical changes in life, I do think that the movie does give a plausible, indeed (within conventions of a film like this) realistic explanation.  Something obviously happened around the time that she made her first break ...

I'm not going to tell you "what happened" because that would really spoil the story.   And I would also say to parents and to potential date goers that the movie deals with "what happened" nicely, gently and from a distance.  So unlike a fair number of romantic comedies of recent years, one does feel midway through the picture like "Hey, I thought this was supposed to be a light romantic comedy, why all this stuff now?"

So I would recommend the film to all.  The PG-13 rating is, for once, truly appropriate, and pre-teens would probably just be bored rather than "potentially damaged" by the film ;-).

Finally, I would like to write a little here on the value of getting married in the Church (or the Church of one's tradition) as opposed to what the couple did in the movie.  Yes, I do "get" young people (both today and before ... hey, people like me, and my parents, and their parents ... were in our/their twenties before as well).  But I do find it somewhat "egotistical" if a couple chooses to define everything on their own.  There is a value to submitting one's relationship (and really one's life) to something "bigger" than oneself.  Yes, Churches can seem at times "archaic," "behind the times" and all that.  However, they are repositories of knowledge, past experience (millenia of past experience...).  My ma' loved to remind me when I was a late teen and and in my early twenties that "Nothing is new under the sun ..."   (Eccl 1:9).

So I do believe that it is worth it to "remain in dialogue" with "the family" with the Church, with the Traditions of one's past.  I can also say that when I was in my 20s, my parents knew little; when I was in my 30s, they started to know more; and now in my mid/late 40s, boy were they wise ;-).

So while I do understand that it could be cool to get married "skydiving, by Elvis," (or in my case,  it could have been "kinda cool" to take my vows "in front of Yoda," ;-), the families that we have are indeed, the families that we have and the Church(es) that we have are the Churches that we have.  And it is ultimately a sign of maturity to be able to navigate and reconcile choose to become part of the pasts that we were given.

Our Creator has loved us, but Our Creator also loved our parents, grandparents, great grandparents and all the way down to our first parents ... and despite each of us screwing-up a number of times along the way.

Anyway, enjoy the film, but young couples, when you "find the one" have the courage to really get married and leave "Elvis" (or "Yoda") for later ... ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Coriolanus [2012]

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

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Coriolanus (directed by Ralph Fiennes, screenplay by John Logan) though filmed in contemporary Serbia including its capital Belgrade and Montenegro (also of former Yugoslavia) and certainly filmed with the intention of referencing the recent conflicts there, is based on and quite faithful to the play Coriolanus by William Shakespeare about the legendary figure Gaius Marcius Coriolanus from ancient Rome's Republican Era.

Why would a play by William Shakespeare about a legendary general from the Roman Republic era set in contemporary Serbia "work" as a film?

Giaus Marcius (played in the film by Ralph Fiennes) was a gruff, "blood and guts" Roman "war hero," who returns at the beginning of the story to Rome in glory after defeating an invading force led by Tallus Aufindus (played by Gerard Butler) of the "barbarian" Volschian people.  Upon his return, he is triumphantly given the title Coriolanus by the head of the Roman army General Cominius (played by John Kani).  Encouraged by his family and friends, notably by his mentor/promoter Senator Menenius (played by Brian Cox) and mother Volumnia (played by Vanessa Redgrave) with his wife Virgilia (played by Jessica Chastain) and young son on board as well, Coriolanus is persuaded to seek becoming Consul of Rome (basically the President).

This, however, produces a backlash.  While apparently very popular among the elite (the Roman Patrician class), among the lower classes of Rome (the Plebes) Coriolanus is seen less a "war hero" than an oppressor and arguably a war criminal.  Since alliances among the elites Patricians are always precarious and full of intrigue, a number of Tribunes, Brutus (played by Paul Jessen) and Sicinius (played by James Nesbitt), take advantage of the Plebian discontent to thwart any aspirations of making Coriolanus Consul.  Instead conspire to drive him into exile, banishing him for being a dangerous man.

Betrayed by his country after having save it, Coriolanus makes his way to Atrium, the capital of Volschians.  There he makes peace with his old rival Tallus Aufindus and offers to join with him and destroy Rome in revenge.  Soon, the Volschian army, led by the two, is on the march and no one can stop them.  Desperate, Rome sends Coriolanus' family -- mother, wife and boy son -- to Corliolanus to persuade him to not take his vengeance on Rome.  Yet, he's already made promises to the Volschian army as well.  What's he supposed to do? 

I do think that the story does "work" somewhat in former Yugoslavia because of the traumas of the recent conflicts there, where often "war heroes" also became war criminals and large numbers of common people on all sides (today's plebes of the former Yugoslav republics) were left feeling used and betrayed by everybody.

Coriolanus however is above all a "soldier's tale."  My problem with the application of the story of Coriolanus to the recent conflicts in former Yugoslavia is that a fair number of war criminals from those conflicts who sit now locked-up in the Hague could be handed excuses by this play (and its application here) to say "We're the Coriolanuses of our time."  No.

If you lined-up civilians and shot them (or ordered civilians to be lined-up and shot), then you don't deserve to be considered "war heroes."  Instead, you are war criminals.


<< 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 Separation [2011]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832382/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120125/REVIEWS/120129982

A Separation (written and directed by Asghar Farhadi) is a truly excellent film that comes from Iran that's been been nominated for Best Foreign Language film for this year's Oscars (2012).  It is a very intimate film, small in scope, that nonetheless invites "those who have eyes to see and ears to hear" both in Iran and outside to open their minds and hearts and think.

At its core, it is about an Iranian couple Nader (played by Peyman Moadi) and Simin (played by Leila Hatami) with an 11-year-old daughter Termeh (played by Sarina Farhadi) that's going through a divorce -- an Iranian Kramer vs. Kramer [1979].

Why are they divorcing?  As Simin explains to the judge in the film's opening scene, that three of them had gotten passports and exit visas (to leave Iran), exit visas that will soon expire but her husband doesn't want to leave Iran.

Why doesn't Nadar want to leave Iran?  Because he can't bear to leave his father, who's somewhere in the middle stages of Alzheimer's disease.  Alzheimer's is, of course, a degenerative disease but it generally takes a very long time to actually bring about death.  Nadar's father is still living with them and when we meet him, it becomes immediately clear that though he has Alzheimer's disease, it's going to take a long time before God/Allah takes him.

So what then is Simin's rush to leave Iran, the judge asks.  Simin responds in a rather impolitic manner: She doesn't want her daughter to grow-up "under these circumstances."  And it's obvious that she's not talking about watching her grandfather slowly die of Alzheimer's.  The judge, with a somewhat offended voice, asks her what exactly she meant by that.  Simin deflects the question, but the rest of the movie is, indeed, about what she meant.

Apparently, though unable to divorce or even travel out of the country without permission of her husband, nevertheless, both Nader and Simin understand that the marriage is over.  Returning from the judge, Simin packs up some of her things and (as was done throughout the West decades before divorce became common/accepted) moves back to her mother's.

This leaves Nader with a problem.  Who's going to watch dad while he's at work?  With some help of Simin (again, anyone who knows anything of divorce would not be surprised by Simin's help here ... a marriage may be failing but the couple does not necessarily completely hate each other) Nadar hires a caretaker, a woman named Razieh (played by Sereh Bayat) with a cute little daughter and a husband who needs some help.  

Though set in Iran, anyone who's ever looked for a caretaker for an elderly parent in the circumstances of Nadar and his family would understand the circumstances of this caretaker: She's kind.  She's kind because she's religious.  And she's interested in the job because she and her family need the money.  As such, though religious and kind, she's not completely honest about her own circumstances (ie she's pregnant, and she has husband who's not particularly excited that she's working).

As such, though it may have seemed to Nadar that the situation with his father is at least temporarily resolved, right on the first day a problem arises:  Razieh's cute little daughter who Razieh takes with her to Nadar's home to watch Nadar's father  -- what's Razieh going to do? Hire a babysitter to watch her daughter while she watches an elderly man for another family? -- comes to her mom with the news: "I think the old man just wet himself."  NOBODY had thought about this happening.  Perhaps they should have thought all this through, but they didn't.  Again, nobody (except perhaps Allah/God) can think everything through ...

What's a good muslim woman supposed to do?  Well she calls the Imam (her priest) to ask: "Is it okay for a good muslim woman like me to change an elderly man?"  And she's knows the circumstances, telling the Imam: "He's old, he's senile in one of more advanced stages of Alzheimer's, so he's probably not going get aroused.  But he needs help." (Apparently the Imam assures her that in such circumstances she can change the old man's clothes ...).

In the days that follow, it just gets worse.  There's one afternoon when the old man manages to sneak-out of the apartment and she (approaching 4 months or so pregnant) has to go about running through the neighborhood (and traffic) looking for him.

The next afternoon, Nadar comes home early.  He finds his father with one arm tied to the bed and Razieh nowhere to be found.  When she comes back, surprised to see Nadar back from his work so soon, she tries to explain.  But Nadar's upset.  In the course of firing her for leaving his father "tied like an animal" to his bed, he pushes her out the door even as she continues to try to explain why she wasn't there.

The next day the police come and arrest Nadar.  Why?  Razieh claimed that when Nadar pushed her out the door, she hit the floor and consequently suffered a miscarriage.  Nadar didn't even realize that she was pregnant.  He tells the investigator: "How was I supposed to know that she's pregnant, when she didn't tell me and women wear so many layers of clothes."  By Iranian law, after a period of time (certainly by 4 months) an unborn child is considered a full human being.  Nadar's being investigated for murder.  And Razieh's husband is particularly upset because apparently he lost a son ...

What a mess.  A good part of the rest of the movie is about resolving this new crisis.  And while Nadar spends time in jail (if only for a few hours or overnight at a time), one's left wondering who's taking care of his 11-year old daughter and his aging Alzheimer's ridden father now...

Throughout the entire movie, the government is not portrayed as evil, but certainly paternalistic and to the Western observer unsettlingly/disturbingly/astonishingly (take your pick...) intrusive.  Yet the Iranian government is shown as certainly operating within the scope of its understanding of its purpose/mission in society and doing so with a good deal of sincerity as it seeks discern who's in the right and who's in the wrong in the case, armed ultimately with the same blunt tools of any bureaucracy / DCFS (Department of Child and Family Services).  Yet, most Western observers would find the level of government intrusion into the lives of both families disturbing/shocking. 

After all is said and done, Nadar is able to avoid prison, though Razieh and her husband have lost an unborn child and their financial circumstances continue to be the same mess that they were at the beginning of the story.  The situation of Nadar's father also remains precarious and Nadar's and Simin's marriage is conceded as finished by all.

All that is left is to resolve what happens now to their 11 year old daughter who it is clear to all both parents love.  And after all the other tragedies that play out in the film, we're left with that one.  Life is often very very hard ...


<< 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 Woman in Black [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596365/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv015.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120201/REVIEWS/120209996

The Woman in Black (directed by James Watkins, screenplay by Jane Goldman, based on the novel by Susan Hill) is an excellent horror movie set in England during the early part of the 20th century.  Arthur Kipps (played by Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame) is a young widowed lawyer from "living in the city," with a four year old son.  His wife had died in childbirth.  Such loss would certainly have been difficult and it becomes clear Kipps has had a rough time of it.  Indeed the movie begins with Kipps arriving at work one rainy Tuesday morning where he is treated to a "lecture from Hell" by his boss:  "Kipps, as one hopes you have learned by now, our firm does not 'take passengers.'  Each of our lawyers is expected to pull his own weight."  Kipps is then given the task of "settling the estate" of a client who had lived somewhere in the country.  Kipps' boss makes it clear that if Kipps doesn't make good, make this case a profitable job for the firm that he's to expect to be sacked.  He's told that this is his last chance... Wonderful, no pressure, huh ...

So Kipps boards a train for the country.  Arriving late in the evening, he's given a ride into town by a fellow passenger who tells Kipps that he has the first and only car in the whole county.  So Kipps is certainly not "in the city" anymore ...

When he's dropped off at the inn in the center of town, Kipps is very curtly told by the inn-keeper that the place is booked solid and that there's simply no room for him there (or really anywhere in town).  Kipps responds that this is strange because he was under the impression that his firm had called up from the city to make the arrangements.  The inn-keeper plays dumb, but his wife finally allows Kipps to sleep in a room they have in the attic.  That room turns out to be the room from which their daughter and two other girls had mysteriously lept out of the window from some time previous and had not been used since (the girls' toys are still shown lying about).

In the morning, when Kipps asks for a ride to the Estate that he is to settle accounts for, NO ONE wants to give him a lift.  Indeed, the inn-keeper had hired a carriage for him, but for the sole purpose of taking him back to the train station and presumably back home.  When Kipps asks the carriage driver to take him to the estate instead, the carriage driver initially refuses and only agrees to do so after Kipps promises to pay him a fare many times the usual.

As they approach the estate, located by the sea, it becomes quickly clear that it had not been inhabited for a very long time.  Further, the only access to the estate is a very thin winding causeway following the ridge of a sandbar across a salt marsh that gets covered twice a day with the tide.  So arrival to and departure from the estate has to be timed according to the tides.  Perhaps in centuries past, this would have kept "raiders at bay," but by this time, and even to the somewhat "behind the times" villagers, it could have only added to the creepiness of the place. ;-)

After Kipps arrives and starts rummaging through the papers at the estate, he becomes aware that the last resident of the estate had been a tormented, half-crazed woman whose sister had finally asked the town's authorities to take away her son from her.  The little boy then drowned some time later _on that precarious causeway_ when the sister and her husband were in the process to taking him to visit her at the estate.  The death of her son had apparently driven the half-crazed resident of the estate completely insane and she hanged herself shortly afterwards.  However the town, which the tormented woman had blamed for aiding and abetting her sister in taking away her son from her, had not been the same since.

And this had all been going on for a very long time.  The tormented woman and her son had died decades previous.  Ever since then, the town had been tormented as well.  Finally, presumably with the death of the sister, the long forsaken estate was presumably going to be liquidated, and yes, the villagers were all very, very nervous.  What was going to happen now?

So this then is the horrific mess that Kipps finds him stepping into, a mess that he's being asked by his firm to "settle" ("clean up") or else be fired.  And you may have thought that you had a tough time of it at work ... look at poor Kipps! ;-)

Much ensues ...

Now the CNS/USCCB rates the film an "L" meaning that it feels that even many adults would find the film troubling presumably because of the themes of suicide (and even child-suicide since apparently the children of the town were being led to their deaths by a ghost of a woman described by the title "The Woman in Black").  I do believe it to be a fair warning and so parents be advised.

All in all though, I found the film to be one very well told ghost/horror story, that though perhaps not for the smallest of kids, ought to do a good job in scaring the teens and adults.  So if you like these kind of films, leave the little kids at home (or put them to bed) and prepare to be presented with a very well-crafted and ghostly tale.  Indeed, I do believe that the former "Harry Potter" chose this story very, very well ... ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Big Miracle [2012]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  Michael Phillips (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1430615/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv014.htm
Michael Phillips' review -
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-big-miracle-20120203-51,0,3012326.story

Big Miracle (directed by Kevin Kwapis, screenplay by Jack Amiel and Michael Begler based on the book by Thomas Rose named Freeing the Whales: How the Media Created the World's Greatest Non-Event [1989] recently repackaged The Big Miracle [2011] to coincide with the release of the film ...) is indeed a nice feel-good family movie suitable for all but the smallest of children about a seemingly small event -- the 1988 rescue of three California grey whales stranded by ice off the coast of Point Barrow, Alaska -- that came to involve the cooperation of a truly improbable / remarkable coalition of rescuers.

These rescuers included:

Adam Carlson (played by John Krasinski) an Alaskan television reporter (affiliated at the time with NBC) who came upon this story as he was finishing a three month stint of reporting from Point Barrow, Alaska at the northern-most tip of the United States;

Rachel Cramer (played by Drew Berrymore) an Alaskan Green-Peace activist, previously romantically involved with Carlson who picked-up on the story soon after Carlson had reported it; 

J.W. McGraw (played by Ted Danson) an oil executive, who despite having had documented run-ins with Cramer over oil drilling leases, became involved after the story went national (apparently then NBC Evening News Anchor Tom Brokaw loved stories like this) and was convinced by his wife Ruth (played by Kathy Baker) that it would actually be good for his company public in terms of public relations, if he offered the services of his company's ice-breaking hovercraft barge, then located at the oil producing center of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska;

Col. Scott Beyer (played by Dermot Mulroney) of the Alaska Air National Guard, who was tasked by Alaska's Governor Haskell (played by Stephen Root) to direct the transportation of McGraw's barge from Prudhoe Bay to Point Barrow with aid of two of AANG's Sikorski skycrane helicopters.

Kelly Meyers (played by Vinessa Shaw) liason from then President Reagan's White House.  According to the film, having met as a result of this rescue effort and obviously having "hit it off," Meyers and Col. Beyer, actually married a year after the story took place;

The normally whale-hunting Inuit/Eskimo residents of Point Barrow, Alaska including 10-year old Nathan (played by Ahmaogak Sweeney) and his grandfather, Inuit/Eskimo elder Malik (played by John Pinkayak);

Two Minnesota small-time entrepreneurs Karl Hootkin (played by James LeGros) and Dean Glowacki (played by Rob Riggle) who arrived with a useful ice-melting gizmo that actually helped keep the the air holes being made in the ice by volunteers for the whales from freezing up;

And finally the crew of a Soviet icebreaker, led in the film by Captains Yuri (played by Stefan Kapicic) and Dimitri (played by Mark Ivanir), which was dispatched by then Soviet premier Gorbachev upon request of then U.S. President Reagan after it became clear that the only asset near enough to make a difference in the rescue effort would be Soviet.

All these people as well as a flood of reporters, big and small, including Jill Jerard, then of Los Angeles (played by Kristen Bell) came to the rescue of the three whales, who came to be known affectionately as Fred, Wilma and Bambam from the Flintstones cartoon.

Again, it's a feel good movie.  But it does remind us that all kinds of people can come together, "cut through the ice" and even "move mountains," when mobilized for a task that is nice.

At a time when the United States is so polarized it may be nice to remember that in the case of rescuing these three stranded grey whales, activists from Green Peace and Oil Execs, to say nothing of the Americans and Soviets, were able to work together.  The question becomes, could we work together now?  For the sake of our country and our world, hopefully the answer remains yes.


<< 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! :-) >>

Chronicle [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

Chronicle (directed by Josh Trank, screenplay by Max Landis) is a well conceived, well executed film of the faux "amateur video log" genre popularized by movies like the Blair Witch Project [1999] and the Paranormal Activity [2007, 2010, 2012] series.  These kind of films have become increasingly common with the proliferation all kinds of inexpensive video capturing/recording technologies (from Camcorders, to FlipCams to webcams) and socialmedia websites like YouTube and Facebook where one can share one's "captured moments" with the world. 

The phenomenon was discussed already in when Time Magazine picked "You" ("Us") as The Person of the Year in 2006, noting that already in 1991 famed Hollywood director Francis Ford Coppola expressed the hope at the end of the documentary Hearts of Darkness [1991] on the making of his blockbuster/megaproduction/hit Apocalypse Now [1979] that the increasing availability of quality but inexpensive camcorders would democratize film-making making it accessible to a far larger pool of talented individuals than in the past and thus make film-making far more of an art-form and far-less of a commercial enterprise than in the past.

Indeed over the years, a substantial part of Francis Ford Coppola's prediction has come to pass as there is an ever increasing number of "indie films" being produced as well as an increasing popularity of film-festivals world-wide catering to or show-casing "low budget"/"independent" productions.  In the United States, the annual Sundance and Telluride film-festivals are perhaps the best known.  However, pretty much every major city and/or region of the country now offers similar film festivals during the course of the year.

Followers of this blog will note that I have a special place in my heart for low-budget/independent insurgent productions, posting in the past year reviews of such low-budget, indie projects as Another Earth [2011], Elite [2011], A Love Affair of Sorts [2011], Rid of Me [2011], The Future [2011], and a YouTube compilation sponsored in part by Ridley Scott called Life in a Day [2011].

Still one gets the sense that the best productions are those that are story-driven, utilize the low-tech equipment when appropriate but are also unafraid (and able...) to bring in higher-quality special-effects and editing equipment when needed as well.  Such a mix was apparently used in the making of the film Like Crazy [2011] (shot with off the shelf / consumer available video equipment, but then edited very, very well) A similar approach appears to have been used in the making of the current film, Chronicle, as well. The film-makers again made use primarily of off-the-shelf consumer available video equipment.  However, they proved also unafraid (and able...) to shell-out some money for reasonably high-quality special effects to effectively tell the increasingly harrowing story.

Wonderful, so what then is Chronicle about?  Chronicle's about Andrew Detmer (played by Dane DeHaan), a quiet teenager from a troubled home, his more outgoing and jockish cousin Matt Garetty (played by Alex Russell) and Matt's definitely gregarious and star-athlete best friend Steve Montgomery (played by Michael B. Jordan).  They're all apparently upper-classmen in a suburban high-school in the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area.  Andrew's mother, Karen (played by Bo Petersen), is very ill, needing oxygen to breath.  Andrew's father, Richard (played by Michael Kelly) is a former firefighter on forced disability, clearly unhappy with his circumstances.

At the beginning of the film, Andrew buys himself a (large) old, used video camera to "chronicle" his days with (that is to play).  A nerd already and from a family with not a lot of money, the contraption he buys does not exactly help him in his social standing:  The camera is by today's standards huge, awkward to use, and only makes him the butt of jokes when he takes it with him to school to chronicle his day.  The "douche bags" on the street that already picked on him, do so some more.  At school, the other students make fun of the unwieldy thing as he walks with it in the hallways (forcing them break stride to not hit him as he carries it on his shoulder).  As a final straw, a cheerleader approaches him as he sits in the bleachers after school filming them (as well as the football team going through drills) and asks him to "turn the camera off" because she found his filming them "really, really creepy."  Not a particularly great day ...

That evening, his cousin Matt drags Andrew to a party that Andrew didn't particularly want to attend, but now with the camera decides to go in order to film it.  On the way to the party, Matt tells Andrew what kind of a drag Andrew has been over the years.  Apparently, they've had this conversation before as Andrew doesn't really react to it, just films it.

At the party, however, things begin to look-up as Andrew runs into a girl, Casey (played by Ashley Hinshaw), far more popular than he (and a girl that apparently Matt has some interest in) who's at the party _also_ with her camera filming it "for her blog."  She finds it kinda cool that Andrew has a camera as well.  Indeed, when Matt sneers at the two sharing the joys of their hobby, he comes to realize that his attitude is actually pissing Casey off.  Hmm, maybe Andrew's not a complete loser after all...

Later in the evening, Andrew, having long-since spent pretty much all the little social grace that his nerdy self had, finds himself outside where the popular jock Steve runs into him.  He calls Andrew over.  He and Matt had found something "really cool" in the field/ravine below the house where the party was being held and thought it might be cool to actually video tape.

What Matt and Steve had found was a strange hole the size of an underground passage in the middle of that field, and when they entered it they came face to face with this strange, glowing (otherworldly?) crystalline structure.  As they come close to it, Andrew videotaping it all, the crystalline structure suddenly starts changing colors and making noise.  It gets louder and brighter, louder and brighter and suddenly everything goes black.

The movie resumes three weeks later.  Andrew has a new camera (apparently the old one was broken in that strange encounter) and the three teens find that they've been effected in a strange way ... they find that they are able to move first light objects and as the days/weeks go by progressively heavier objects with only their minds, something called telekenesis.  How utterly, utterly COOL!  Much ensues ...

But part of what ensues has to do with Andrew, a teen clearly damaged already by life at home and at school.  Can Andrew handle this new superpower that he and his two friends have acquired?  Can the damage of one's past be "cured" by a single, sudden, unexpected dose of AWESOME COOLNESS?  Or does one's past eventually re-emerge and make one even worse-off than before?

I found the movie fascinating, certainly one that most teenagers could appreciate.  In particular, I found the teenage dialogue in this film outstanding, almost exactly how one would imagine teens would talk in the situation(s) that they found themselves in.  And, yes, the film could be used to help young people appreciate the damage that they could cause by picking-on (bullying) others, as well as help troubled, previously picked-on teenagers realize the importance to getting help before those past experiences end-up consuming them.

My hat-off to the makers of this film: What a great, well acted and surprisingly "realistic" film they made!  And congrats to all the actors and actresses as well!


<< 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! :-) >>

Albert Nobbs [2011]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1602098/
CNS/USCCB review -
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120125/REVIEWS/120129981

Albert Nobbs (directed by Rodrigo Garcia, screenplay by Glenn Close, John Banville and Gabriela Prekop) is a diminutive tale based on a story first presented over the course of chapters 45-53 of the early-20th century Irish author George Moore's novel A Story Teller's Holiday [1918] about a waiter named Albert Nobbs with a secret working at a higher-end hotel in Dublin at the end of the 19th century, the secret being that he was actually woman though presenting him/herself to the outside world (most notably to his/her employer) as a man.  The story was later reprinted under the title The Singular Life of Albert Nobbs in a collection of short stories by George Moore named Celibate Lives [1927].  The story was then adapted for as a one-person stage under the same title.  Glenn Close, who has received an 2012 Academy Awards nomination for her playing the role Albert Nobbs in the current film, received an Obie (Off Broadway) Award for playing Albert Nobbs in the stage production in 1982.

What to make of a film based on a short story that originally appeared as merely an episode in an early 20th century novel by an otherwise largely forgotten author perhaps best known for possibly influencing the far more famous Irish-born author, James Joyce?  Clearly the story has resonances with concerns of the present day.

Is it a great film?  Not especially.  It's primarily an art film.  As such, its appeal is certainly limited.  Nevertheless, it's a story that's interesting on a number of levels.  First, the story serves as reminder that even in the early 20th century (and if one thinks of Oscar Wilde during the Victorian Era) questions regarding sexuality and gender roles were not completely buried.  Second, the story/film reminds readers/viewers of a robust artistic/literary tradition that has existed in Ireland for at least a century that has often flown in the face of  both sentimental and at times dismissive stereotypes portraying Ireland as a placid outpost of unquestioning, unreflective, 'yes man' Catholicism.  James Joyce, after all, has come to be considered one of the most influential authors of the 20th century and his book Ulysses was voted as the most influential English language book of the 20th century.  In more recent years, with increased prosperity and the success of artists like Bono and actors like Liam Neeson, Ireland has become the home of an energetic youth oriented culture.

Indeed, I look forward to reading (and posting links to) reviews of this film coming from the various sectors of contemporary Irish society -- from its artistic/literary community (the film was screened to Irish Film and Television Academy members at a gala event in December 2011, and has since been nominated for sever 2012 IFTA awards), its youth culture (entertainment.ie, movies.ie), and yes, by one or another agency or office of the Catholic Church in Ireland.

I reiterate that Albert Nobbs (also starring Mia Wasikowka as one of the hotel's maids and eventually _something_ of a love interest to Albert Nobbs in the story) is not exactly a great film.  I do think that the primary complaint that a lot of young people (late-teens, young adults, I would not recommend the film to folks below high school age) will have in regards to the film would be that it is quite slow/boring (hey, it was written only a few years after the end of the Victorian Era ...).

Nevertheless, I do see the film as an invitation for readers of this blog to explore / discover through commentary written about the film and recent movies in general an Ireland that is perhaps far more energetic and vibrant than many would have previously thought.  And I do believe that St. Patrick, who indeed suffered much as a young adult and could be taken as a result as something of a patron to young adults, would be proud (I'm not talking here of this movie which is definitely still a "look back" or "backward looking," but rather of the cultural engine that Ireland has become over this past generation often led by its young).

ADDENDUM -

According to the Irish Times (3 Feb 2012), Albert Nobbs will be shown at the 10th Annual Dublin International Film Festival which will run between Feb 16-26, 2012.


<< 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! :-) >>