Gone [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1838544/

CNS/ USCCB Review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv026.htm

Gone (directed by Heitor Dahlia, written by Allison Burnett) is a rather uncomplicated if quite well played genre piece -- a paranoid/psychological thriller -- about a young woman named Jill (played by Amanda Seyfried) living in Portland, Oregon who had survived a traumatic ordeal.

Jill had been abducted by a man, thrown into a pit (dug by the abductor) somewhere deep in the forests surrounding Portland and survived to escape and tell the tale only because she was able to drive piece of a bone left from one of the other girls who had been abducted, presumably raped and then left to die in the pit before her.  Disoriented after she emerged from the forest to safety, she was unable to lead authorities to the pit.  After a couple of weeks of increasingly half-hearted searching the authorities apparently concluded that since they were unable to identify/capture her attacker or find the pit, she may have simply invented the story for reasons unknown.  Indeed when we meet Jill in the film, we see that she is on a fairly strict regimen of medication needing to take several pills several times a day.

Film begins about a year after Jill's ordeal.  It's clear that she at least has not given-up on finding the hole in the woods of the protected forest in which she had been held.  Still, viewers get a definite sense of the vastness of the woods in the area and the difficulty of finding the hole especially if one's memory of the events was necessarily imperfect/clouded by trauma.

Still, Jill had survived her ordeal.  This was something that was clearly significant not only to her as a survivor, but also to her abductor:  She would be the only person who could presumably eventually find the pit (with the remains of the other abducted and killed women) and perhaps even find and identify him.  So the film becomes not just of Jill trying to prove her story and capture her abductor, but also about the abductor trying to "tie up loose ends" (his own words, we find out).

So one night while Jill was at work and having borrowed her sister's car rather than driving her own, Jill's sister Molly (played by Emily Wickersham) disappears.  Jill's immediately convinced that she was abducted by her abductor.  The police, of course, think that she's crazy, noting that there could be any number of irrational / irresponsible reasons for a young woman like Jill's sister to "not be home" one morning, even if "she had a final exam that next day" and Molly's boyfriend "didn't know where she was either."  One of the police detectives who had worked previously on Jill's case asks her "Did you ever think that your sister could have had a second boyfriend?  Just saying, it happens..."

So Jill's convinced that Molly's been kidnapped and in immediate danger of being killed and the police is convinced that Jill's disturbed.  Much ensues...

A genre film like this often depends on good writing and dialogue.  I have to say that I found Jill's talking-up of various potential witnesses to the abduction of her sister and then of people who may have known something about the potential perpetrator to be very well done.  All in all, for what the film was -- a paranoid/psychological thriller -- I thought it was quite well done and probably a lot of late teens and young adults would enjoy watching it.

Parents should note that while nothing is every shown, the film assumes as a matter of course a young adult sexual morality (immorality...), mostly heterosexual but at least in one case homosexual, that would make an R-rating for the film more suitable than PG-13.  Indeed, due to subject matter alone -- after all it is about abducting and terrorizing young people -- an R-rating would probably have been more appropriate.  Sometimes, I simply don't understand Hollywood's rating decisions, but parents just take note.  This film, while certainly a pretty good young adult "date movie," it's not really "for the little 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! :-) >>

Ghost Rider - Spirit of Vengeance [2012]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Fr. Dennis (1 Star)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review

I found Ghost Rider - Spirit of Vengeance (directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, story and screenplay cowritten by David S. Goyer along with Scott M. Gimble and Seth Hoffman based on the to be a monumental disappointment on almost every level.

A sequel to IMHO the much better film Ghost Rider [2007] based on the Marvel Comic Ghost Rider (Johnny Blaze), it was clear to me that the makers of the current film made a decision to "go darker" with Johnny Blaze (played in both films by Nicholas Cage) who in the first film was arguably sympathetic.  Johnny had made a deal with the Devil (played by Peter Fonda in the first film) only to save his father from cancer.  (Shortly after signing his own immortal soul over to the Devil to save his father from cancer, the Devil turns around and kills the father in a motorcycle accident ... YOU GOTTA FEEL SORRY FOR JOHNNY THEN ...).

In this film, Johnny Blaze comes to enjoy way too much the Ghost Rider "job" that the Devil has condemned him to: Periodically, Johnny, a stunt motorcyclist (a "dare devil"...) would become possessed, turn into a flaming skeleton in a smoking leather jacket on a really, really hot, indeed FLAMING bike ... and speed-off to capture some really, really bad-guy (some true Evil Doer [TM]) -- usually by bringing him down with a HUGE red-hot metal chain that he'd throw at him, knocking him down and tangling him in it.  Then Johnny Blaze (aka The Ghost Rider) would step off the bike, bring the Evil Doer close, look square in his terror stricken eyes, declare the charge and sentence "YOU PREYED ON / CHEATED / KILLED THE INNOCENT..." suck the Soul out of said terrified Evil Doer and send said convicted Soul straight down to Hell [TM].  Since the people that Johnny Blaze / the Ghost Rider sent down to Hell this way were generally truly awful people and Johnny was doing all this as "a cursed biker," one could feel sorry for the guy in the first film.  However, in this film once possessed he seemed to enjoy this work way too much.

Then the plot of this film is far more confused.  It's set not in the United States anymore but "in Eastern Europe somewhere" (where Johnny Blaze has apparently run-off to in hopes of somehow escaping the Devil there).  There he finds himself trying to save a child named Danny (played by Fergus Riordan) of a young Gypsy woman named Nadya (played by Violante Placido) who the Devil named Roarke (played by Ciaran Hinds) wished to enter in order to do more damage on the Earth.  This battle between Good and Evil comes to involve a strange Evil-looking traditionalist "Catholic-looking" religious Order (less DaVinci Code [2006] evil than Name of the Rose [1986] evil...) that wants to kill the boy before the Devil could enter him and a "hip" and very heavily armed "rouge Priest" named Moreau (played by Idris Elba).  Fr. Moreau reconciles Johnny Blaze back to the fold of the living (or at least the non-cursed) by a Rite that looks vaguely like Confession, only to find to the horror of both, that he "reconciled him too soon" to be able to protect the boy.  Guess what Johnny does then to save the boy ...

I think I've had my fill of gun-wielding priests over the past year.  I was relatively kind to the sci-fi thriller Priest [2011] (based on a South Korean comic book series), then chose to ignore the film Machine Gun Preacher [2011], but because I liked the first Ghost Rider [2007] made it a point to see this film.  But I think I'm done.

Finally, I actually did see this film in 3D, and have to report that THE 3D WAS AWFUL.  It added virtually NOTHING to the film.  The vast majority of the flaming CGI special effects that perhaps could have been really really cool in 2D looked absolutely ridiculous in 3D.  Yes, Ghost Rider originated as a comic book.  But even in the comic book genre, if the comics are poorly drawn, they don't sell...

So this Ghost Rider sequel (1) turned an arguably sympathetic (if cursed) character into a much less sympathetic one, (2) featured gun-wielding priests and vaguely Evil and certainly misguided Medieval-looking "Catholic-looking" religious monks, trying to kill a kid "in order to save him," and (3) did this utilizing hyper-expensive 3D technology to produce a monumentally disappointing (even visually, even buying into the 3D technology) product.  If there is a Ghost Rider 3, I do hope that it will be done better than this.


<< 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! :-) >>

Journey 2 - Mysterious Island [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1397514/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv018.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120208/REVIEWS/120209983

Journey 2 - Mysterious Island (directed by Brad Payton, story by Richard Outten, Mark Gunn and Brian Gunn, screenplay by Mark Gunn and Brian Gunn) is the latest film adaptation, this time in 3D, of Jules Verne's 1874 novel Mysterious Island (French orig. title - L'Île mystérieuse).  Jules Verne, of course, was a pioneer in fantastic / science fiction writing and has been a perennial challenge to film makers since the invention of moving pictures.  The recent movie, Hugo, was largely about the pioneering French film-maker Georges Méliès who was already putting together cinematic adaptations of Jules Verne's novels on the screen in the Silent Film Era.

So how does the present adaption go?  The film begins with Sean (played by Josh Hutcherson), a teen struggling with and perhaps reacting to his mother Liz' (played by Kristen Davis) remarrying and thus the presence of Hank (played by Dwayne Johnson), Sean's new step-father in his life.  Seeking to defend  himself against this change, Sean seeks to keep alive memory of his dad's family's values and traditions.  Specifically just as his grandfather and his father before him, Sean's become something of Jules Verne fanatic.  His father deceased, and his grandfather (played by Michael Caine) "long gone" on account of this irritating interest in Verne and "proving" that Verne's books were "about real journeys" that Verne had taken, Sean's "hobby" comes across Liz and Hank as disruptive (and perhaps even delusional) as they try to build a new blended family together and get everyone, including Sean "on board" with the new reality.

One night, Sean becomes excited because he thinks that he has detected a radio message from his long lost grandfather, and that he may have found Verne's "Mysterious Island."  What to do?  Liz remains annoyed, but Hank, who apparently has some money, decides to try "to bond" with Sean by playing along.  Together, the two decipher the coded coordinates that Sean's grandfather apparently had sent in his radio message and when they discover that the coordinates map to a location somewhere near the island of Fiji in the South Pacific.  Then, they decide to "give it a shot" and fly out to Fiji to see if there's something to the story.

Out there in the South Pacific, the two rent a helicopter operated by a local tour guide named Gobato (played by Luis Guzman) and his teenage daughter Kailani (played by Vanessa Hudgens).  They find out that the coordinates correspond to a part of the ocean nearby that's perpetually covered by clouds and stormy (hence why almost no one ever goes there).  But Sean convinces everyone to try anyway.  Once they arrive, (and even the journey is fraught with much danger), many further adventures ensue, including linking up with Sean's grandfather, who indeed did send that radio signal to the outsider world from the island during apparently a very brief break in the weather. 

The story is obviously a fantasy, but so was Jules Verne's original.  I do think it makes for a very nice story for pre-teens, perhaps indeed as a "father-son" or "step-father son" outing especially if a family were experiencing some "bonding issues" at home.  Though I saw the movie in 2D, I would imagine that 3D would probably work well as well.  (I still think that 3D is both needlessly costly and gimmicky ...) All in all, it's not a stupendous film but one that preserves and adapts, quite well actually, the legacies of both Jules Verne and the attempts by early film makers like Georges Méliès to put Verne's fantastic stories on film.


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

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! :-) >>