For Greater Glory (Cristiada) [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review
La Opinion-Los Angeles, CA's review - [ESP-original, ENG-Trans]
Hoy-Chicago's review - [ESP-original, ENG-Trans]

Those who have followed my blog over the past year and a half would note that I've repeatedly tried to search out opinion and provide links from other lands regarding films that touched on issues that crossed borders.  I believe that this film, For Greater Glory (Cristiada) directed by Dean Wright, screenplay by Michael Love proves the wisdom to taking this approach.

I write this because one could easily approach this movie very cynically.  This film about the Cristero Rebellion in Mexico of 1926-29 [ESP, ENG-trans] (which one of my many Mexican Servite friends and one who I deeply respect called with pride "the true final phase" of the Mexican Revolution [ESP, ENG-trans] which began in 1910) WAS NOT WRITTEN by Mexicans but by two Gringos and financed by Gringo money, in part by right-wing Catholic Gringo money.  Also the film is being released at exactly the time when the U.S. Catholic Hierarchy has been ramping-up for a suspiciously timed pre-election campaign on behalf of "Religious Liberty," the fight for religious liberty being precisely the overwhelming theme of the film.  I'm not saying that Catholic bishops finance movies, they don't.  But Catholic groups with some money, like Opus Dei which helped bankroll the movie (actually quite good) There Be Dragons [2011] last year about its founder, and the Knights of Columbus in part financing the current film, do.  But to be fully clear as well, the Knights funded this movie in good part because they had quite a few of their own Martyrs in Mexico during the Cristero Rebellion at the hands of the rabidly anti-clerical Mexican government of the time.  Still, honestly (from an American point of view) why this particular film and why now?

Then to an "non-Mexican outsider" like me (but due to my East European ancestry having some experience with sensing propaganda films), the film feels at first (and even second, third) glance ... unblushingly propagandistic.  Whether Andy Garcia (of Cuban descent) who plays the Mexican Cristero General Enrique Gorostieta Velarde [ESP] in the film realized it or not, his performance all but mimicked the portrayals by Mikaheil Gelovani [IMDb] of "great leader" Stalin [IMDb] in the Soviet films of his era.  Like Gelovani's Stalin, Garcia's Enrique Gorostieta was wise, measured, protected kids, and a fervent exponent of [fill-in the ideology] being espoused by the backers of the film, the ideology being espoused having little/no relation to the "great leader" archetype being played.  In the case of Stalin, the ideology being espoused (and utterly disconnected from his "great leader" persona) was radical egalitarianism through collectivization.  In the case of this film, the ideology espoused was  in the script's own words that of _absolute_ religious liberty, something that neither the Catholic Church nor the United States court system have ever actually defended. Otherwise child marriage/polygamy (Mormonism, Hinduism, Islam, and certain African Animist religions), ritual drug use (certain Native American religions and the Rastafarian religion) and even ritual prostitution (Isis/Ishtar/Aphrodite based religion) would have to be permitted.  However absolute religious liberty has become a cutting-edge slogan in some circles of the United States body-politic today.

Then the device of having a 10-12 year old kid named here "Jose" (played by Mauricio Kuri) first joining the cause and then bravely dieing for it, again mimics countless Soviet-era propaganda films where "little Sasha" either bravely "saved the Revolution" or bravely "died for it" (it didn't really matter which course of events occurred in any particular film because both versions of the device played out _repeatedly_ in Soviet era cinema).  Honestly, all that felt missing in the current film was a dog...

Further, the film-critics for both of Chicago's best known English language papers, Roger Ebert and Roger Moore, have also questioned the veracity of the battles portrayed, recalling perhaps that German Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels in 1944 had diverted something like 100,000 sorely needed German soldiers to assist in the filming of the Nazi-era epic named "Kolberg" about a surprising Prussian victory against an invading Russian army during the era of Fredrick the Great.  By the time the film was released in the spring of 1945, the actual town of Kolberg had fallen to the Soviet Army in its inexorable march toward Berlin.  But no matter to Goebbels apparently: if the Nazis could not win the actual Second World War, they could win it metaphorically on the silver screen through this film.  (Goebbels killed himself a few months later along with his family in Hitler's bunker as the Soviets approached).

I mention Goebbel's "Kolberg" because one of the devices again used in For Greater Glory was a more or less obviously intended reversal of symbolism.  In the official and honestly _also_ propagandistic iconography of the Mexican Revolution [ESP, ENG-trans] (though at least chosen/enforced by Mexicans rather than Gringos ...) it was always the Sombrero wearing peasants led by Pancho Villa [ESP] or Emiliano Zapata [ESP] fighting the hated uniform-wearing "Federales" of the hated/despicable dictator Porfirio Diaz [ESP].  In this film, it was Enrique Gorostieta leading Sombrero wearing peasants fighting the hated uniformed "Federales" of the equally hated/despicable anti-clerical post-Mexican Revolution President Plutarco Elias Calles [ESP].

Added to the mix was the otherwise seemingly "throwaway line" in the film that General Gorostieta had "fought and defeated Zapata" and this being portrayed in the film as being some sort of a positive. In reality, Emiliano Zapata has been generally lionized in Mexico since the Revolution as an authentic hero and even a martyr to it, this to the point that in the 1990s an uprising in indigenous peasants in the Mexican state of Chiapas was led by a group calling itself the Zapatistas [ESP] harkening back to the legacy of Emiliano Zapata, the new/emerging "Zapatistas" being well received by the Mexican public.

Wonderful.  Films in general cost money and epic films with star-studded casts (Andy Garcia, Eva Longoria, Peter O'Toole, etc) cost even more.  So one could say that this film as intended for Anglo-American audiences was probably intended to be a gigantic and heavy-handed right-wing propaganda piece.

BUT ... How then has this film been taken in Mexico and by its people?   Here is where the emerging legacy of this film becomes FAR MORE INTERESTING: The film, which ACTUALLY OPENED IN MEXICO (before opening in the United States) has become something of a sensation there.  It has been critically well received in both the press in Mexico [1-ESP], [2 -ESP, ENG-Trans], [3-ESP, ENG-Trans] and in the Spanish language press in the United States [La Opinion-Los Angeles, ENG-Trans][Hoy-Chicago, ENG-Trans].

This is because, as both the Catholic Church in Mexico [ESP, ENG-Trans] and the Spanish language press in the United States [La Opinion-Los Angeles, ENG-Trans] have noted, though having been lived by presumably the vast majority of Mexico's population of the time, the Cristero Rebellion [ESP, ENG-trans] had been generally an "off limits" subject in Mexico until Pope John Paul II started beatifying some of the Martyrs of the Cristero Period (including Jose Sanchez del Rio on whom the child "Jose" of the film was based). 

So what may seem to a North American as a heavy-handed propaganda piece with suspicious motives, to Mexican audiences has become an opportunity for a Mexican "Glasnost" [ESP] or "Truth and Reconciliation."  I witnessed this myself in the theater where I saw the movie.  The audience was mostly Hispanic and presumably mostly Mexican.  At the end of the film, many of the audience members called out spontaneously and _quite sincerely_ "Viva Cristo Rey!"  Why would they do that?  Well, this was a story that they had heard from their parents and grandparents, really for generations, and it was _finally_ put on screen and shown to be largely true.

So whatever the motivations for the making of this film in the United States _at this time_ may have been (and I honestly do have my suspicions), when the film crosses cultures from an "Anglo" culture in the United States that (if one is honest) actually still largely _hates_ Mexico/Mexicans to a more Mexican / more Hispanic one, the film becomes a blessing and one that is making a lot of Mexican (and again more generally Hispanic) Catholics proud of their faith.

And as a Catholic priest who's worked for pretty much my whole ministerial priesthood in heavily Hispanic communities, how can I not be honestly happy for them?

ADDENDA:

In his  2012 pilgrimage to Mexico, Pope Benedict VI visited the giant Christ the King [ESP] memorial built in Guanajuato [Pictures on Flikr].  Scheduling a visit to relatives in Mexico to coincide with the Pope's visit, one of the women working at my current parish (Annunciata in Chicago) went to the Mass that he celebrated there.

While never visiting the memorial myself (it is high on top of a mountain top in Guanajuato a fair distance from the main highway), I passed it twice during various trips to the Servites in Mexico and I remember it to be quite impressive, visible for many miles in every direction.  And the passing of the monument always produced fascinating discussions with the Mexican Servites about life in the Cristero states like Michoacan, Zacatecas and Guanajuato during the Cristero era.

Additionally, Graham Greene wrote a famous novel, The Power and the Glory [1940] (which was made into a movie in 1961 starring Lawrence Olivier) set during the Cristero era.  The novel had its own problems -- the priest portrayed in the story wasn't a particularly morally upstanding one.  Still the story offered a classically Graham Greene-style reflection on Courage and God's mercy in face terrible persecution and up until the release of this current film, Greene's novel was probably the most famous English language portrayal of that era.

Finally, as long as I can remember (decades really) the Knights of Columbus have been keeping the memory of the Cristero martyrs alive.  The release of this film will certainly immortalize them.


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

Snow White and the Huntsman [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1735898/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv065.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120530/REVIEWS/120539992
Int'l Reviews - Germany/Deutschland (Orig, ENG-Trans), Cz. Rep (Orig, ENG-Trans), France (Orig, ENG-Trans), Ital (Orig, Eng-Trans), India (Times of India), Japan (Orig [1] [2], ENG-Trans [1] [2])

Snow White and the Huntsman (directed by Rupert Sanders, screen story and screenplay by Evan Dougherty along with John Lee Hancock and Hossein Amini) is a post-Lord or the Rings Film Trilogy [2001-2003] presentation of the classic/beloved European fairytale of Snow White.

I call Huntsman a post-Lord or the Rings [2001-2003] film because while much has been made in the United States of Twilight series [2008-2012] star Kristen Stewart's playing the role of Snow White [IMDb], the feel of this film's imagery is far closer to that of the Lord of the Rings films (or otherwise "Dungeon and Dragons" inspired fantasy role-playing video games like Neverwinter Nights, etc) than to the Twilight series.   And actually the recent remake of fairy tale Red Riding Hood [2011] had much more of a Twilight series feel than Snow White and the Huntsman does.

I also use the phrase "classic/beloved European fairytale" because while in the English-speaking world Snow White and the Seven Dwarves is often remembered as a Brothers Grimm fairy tale, the Grimm version is neither the only nor the "original" version of the fairy tale.  This fairy tale is really part of the cultural patrimony of all the peoples of Central Europe (hence why I made it a point of offering links above to how this film was being reviewed not just in Germany but also in the Czech Republic, France and Italy -- and one could easily add the many other countries of Central Europe as well).

Finally, taking a page from the recent remakes of Mia Wasikoska's Alice in Wonderland [2010], Mandy Moore's Repunzel in Tangled [2010] and possibly Amanda Seyfried's Red Riding Hood [2011] mentioned above, the Snow White played by Kristen Stewart is different/somewhat updated from that of the classic/original story.  Kristen Stewart's Snow White is something of the classic Snow White [IMDb] crossed with Joan of Arc [IMDb].

Similarly, there's some development the evil Queen/step-mother in the film named Ravenna and played by Charlize Theron.  The Evil Queen wishes to preserve her youth by consuming the hearts of innocent young women who are still growing up.  More fundamentally, she seems consumed by being/remaining in Control hence her desire to become Queen, eliminate the King -- who might still prove too meddlesome -- and then to remain the sole Monarch (Queen) even to the point of consuming the hearts of those young maidens.  To the film's credit, it even seems to provide some of the back-story as to why she would have become so driven.  Go see the film if you wish to explore further that aspect of the film...

So what then is the basic trajectory of the tale presented here?  A King Magnus (played by Noah Huntley) and Queen Eleanor (played by Liberty Ross) wisely reign over a happy and prosperous kingdom.  And they have a daughter, Snow White.  However, Queen Eleanor dies young.  King Magnus, initially mourning the loss of his wife/queen nevertheless succumbs to the charms of a young woman, named Ravenna, of mysterious background who quite suddenly appears on the scene, and marries her.  Ravenna soon disposes of her new husband the King.  More to the point since Snow White remains too young to rule, she takes over the realm as Regent but de facto sole Monarch (how's that for a hostile takeover?) locking-up Snow White in a tower "until she grows up."  The only two adviors that Ravenna trusts is her swarmy, hideously evil looking brother named Finn (played by Sam Spruel) and, of course, her Magic Mirror (voiced by Christopher Obi).

Snow White (played then as she approaches adulthood by Kristen Stewart) grows-up locked-up and more importantly kept ignorant in the Royal Castle's Tower.  When by chance she is able at least briefly to talk to a young maiden who was being locked-up in the cell next to hers (prior to this young maiden having her heart sacrificed to the Evil Queen), Snow White puts two-and-two together and when an opportunity presents itself, makes a run-for-it to freedom.   How she manages to escape after years of having been locked-up in what appeared to be de facto solitary confinement requires a good deal of suspension of disbelief.  Perhaps some scenes from Snow's teenage years (after her father had died) that could have given more plausibility to her escape ended-up on the editor's cutting room floor awaiting a "director's cut" of the film.   However, be that as it may, realizing finally what the Queen had in store for her, Snow takes advantage of a rare opportunity to escape, one which involves a harrowing dive from an obscure ledge from the castle into a cold raging sea in what appears to be winter and swimming for a long distance to a Dark Wood some distance from the Royal Castle.  That would seem to be one heck of a feat for a girl who had spent the better part of her older childhood locked-up in the Castle's Tower.

When the Evil Queen's brother proves unable to find Snow White in said Dark Wood, he hires (that is  coerces) a Huntsman from the Village named Eric (played by Chris Hemsworth) to find her.  But Eric has no great love the Queen or her Brother.  Eventually in that Dark Wood or even in a wood beyond it, both Snow and the Huntsman run into the Dwarves played by Bob Hoskins (Muir), Ian McShane (Beith), Johnny Harris (Quert), Toby Jones (Coll), Eddie Marsan (Duir), Ray WInstone (Gort) Nick Frost (Nion) and Brian Gleeson (Gus).   Much ensues ...

Among that which ensues, of course, is the Evil Queen finally decides that, since her henchman Brother was proving hopelessly incapable (incompetent?) in tracking-down Snow White, to look for her herself.   In perhaps the greatest feat of CGI in the film (shown already in the movie's trailer), the Queen, versed in various forms of dark magic, is shown to be able to convert herself into a flock of ravens, fly to a distant location and then materialize back into her human form upon touching ground.

In the meantime, Snow, who is royalty after all, convinces the villager Huntsman and the Dwarves (none of them particularly fond of  "titled people" ...) to help her link-up with her childhood friend William (played by Sam Claflin) and his father, her father's old friend, the Duke Hammond (played by Vincent Regan).   When they do finally link-up, this allows for a climactic Lord of the Rings [IMDb] meets Joan of Arc [IMDb] sort of an ending...

Thus most of the basic outline of the traditional Snow White story is kept.  However, Snow also proves adept in leading an army, charging on a horse and in hand-to-hand combat with a Dagger and Sword.  So this damsel proves to be able to defend herself ;-) ... as if we are honest, we'd probably want the young women in our lives to be able to do as well.

Now for something of a surprise: Christian and Catholic viewers will perhaps be surprised that in a film that otherwise updates/rewrites much of common traditional fairy tale, the film also chooses to preserve, even repeatedly bring in, various Catholic/Christian elements into the story:  Men unambiguously dressed as Bishops with Miters are shown to be present officiating at King Magnus' ill-fated marriage to (the Evil) Queen Ravenna.  The Bishops return in positions of officiating at Snow White's Coronation at the end.  In her cell, Snow White is heard praying the Catholic version of the Our Father.  Hmmm... perhaps these are simply to be taken as "flourishes" in a story, which was shown as taking place in a European Medieval setting after all.  Even if this were all that was to it, I;d have to say that I do not mind :-).

I would add, however, that these flourishes were added in a way that were in no way challenging to what one would call "traditional Catholicism/Christianity."  That is, the Bishops shown were all men, and when Snow prayed the Lord's Prayer she was shown praying Our Father (not Our Mother-Father, or Our Creator).  Yet also the film-makers clearly had no problem with Snow being Queen (Sole Monarch) at the end of the film.  All this is to say that the film-makers appeared to have no problem leaving ceremonial-religious roles to men, while similarly having no problem with having temporal (actual?) Power being wielded by women (and then wielded by women throughout most of the film!) -- be it the troubled/Evil Queen Ravenna throughout the large middle section of the film or the presumably kinder, Good Queen Snow at its end.  Hmm... what's going on? / much to think about ... ;-)

Finally a note to Parents: I believe this film to be rightly rated as PG-13.  There is nothing in the film that would be inappropriate to older minors, while the some of the battle scenes in this film along with some of the creepy magical scenes mostly in the Dark Wood would be a bit too much for preteens.

All in all I have to say that I liked this updated version of Snow White surprising and leaving viewers with much actually to think about afterwards.


<< 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! :-) >>

Bernie [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1704573/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120516/REVIEWS/120509995

Bernie (directed and cowritten by Richard Linklater along with Skip Hollandsworth) is a tight, well-written and well-edited (and when one steps back ... quite disturbing) docudrama about the real-life case of Bernie Tiede (played in the film by Jack Black) a well-liked, somewhat effeminate small town assistant funeral director from rural eastern Texas who first befriended and some years later accidently killed (or murdered ...) a wealthy but unpopular/disliked "old crow" widow named Marjorie Nugent (played in the film by Shirley MacClaine). 

Don't get me wrong.  It's a mesmerizing film/story.  About 20-30 actual townspeople are interviewed in the movie talking about the case and largely make the film.  BUT, as exasperated (and preening/somewhat sleazy) Texas State's Attorney Danny Buck (played by Michael McConaughey, IMHO PERFECTLY CAST for the role) tries repeatedly to remind the townspeople (and viewers...) this "sweet, amiable" small-town assistant funeral director Bernie who contributed to town/church (often using Marjorie's money...) and was "beloved by all" ... shot Marjorie _four times_ in the back killing her and then hid her body in a large freezer "under packages of frozen chickens and corn" in the garage.

It's a fascinating movie, but wow, it is also disturbing: Should likable people be allowed to spin/leverage their popularity to the point of trying to get away with murder with the defense "but you like me"?  Do troubled / disagreeable people deserve to die? 

Then the making of the movie itself presents some pointed moral questions.  Okay, the story is mesmerizing.  But it is about a real person who was really killed.  But then, honestly, what an object lesson / discussion piece.  Perhaps it would have been best if the film was completely fictionalized.  Still, the case did really happen.  The bottom line perhaps ought to be exactly where the State's Attorney tried to draw it: Let us remember that a real person was killed here and the one perpetrating the crime tried to hide it.


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

Headhunters (orig. Hodejegerne) [2011]

MPAA (R)  Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars)  AV Club (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1614989/
Roger Ebert -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120509/REVIEWS/120509986
AV Club -
http://www.avclub.com/articles/headhunters,73013/

Headhunters (orig. Hodejegerne) directed by Morten Tyldum, screenplay by Lars Gudmestad and Ulf Ryberg based on the novel by Jo Nesbo, is an admittedly rather violent if also rather original Norwegian (English subtitled) film that's arguably a comedy about reputation and values.

The story's about Roger Brown (played by Aksel Hennie), a striver.  It hasn't been easy.  At an eminently unimpressive 5'6" (168 cm) stature with frizzy blond hair and a simultaneously pasty and freckled complexion, he hasn't been exactly easy on the eye.  Still through shear will and a lot of utter unflinching poker-faced b.s.ing, he has clawed his way up into Norway's contemporary glam-set.   He lives in a beautiful house with drop-dead gorgeous wife, Diana (played by Synnøve Macody Lund), who could easily be a supermodel if she herself wasn't a top-Oslo scene artist.  And just to keep her off balance (and him feeling in control) he keeps drop-dead gorgeous brunette girlfriend, named Lotte (played by Julie R. Ølgaard) on the side.  How does he pay this lifestyle?  By (1) working as a pulseless, stone-faced recruiter for an elite Oslo based corporate "headhunting" firm and is so good at his job that he could perhaps make even U2s Bono ("You know, you could _still_ be a "flash in the pan") or Tom Cruise ("Hey, remember Tommy boy, you're still gonna get old ...") feel insecure and (2) ... stealing high art (of all things) on the side.

So Roger's "made it" but he both knows and fears that his whole life is just an enormously flimsy "house of cards."

And indeed, Roger's whole life becomes spectacularly threatened by disaster when Clas Grieve (played by Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) a Pierce Brosnan-era [IMDb] James Bond [IMDb] looking former mercenary from Holland comes calling to apply for the job of heading a Norwegian Black-Water Style security firm, the recruitment for which had been given to Roger's firm and then specifically to its top recruiter -- Roger.

Clas is utterly perfect for the job.  But Clas is paranoid.  Trying to pressure Roger into recommending him for the job, he miscalculates, by among other things unexpectedly yet knowingly flirting with Roger's wife Diana.  Well, remember, Roger's prided himself in being pulseless/stonefaced.  He's not going to be intimidated by anybody ... not even apparently BY A FORMER MERCENARY.  So he tells Clas basically "F-U, there's no way you're going to get this job and after a few phone calls I'll make sure you get a job of any kind in this whole country."  Well you just don't say that to a guy like Clas ... The rest of the movie follows...

The movie becomes a fascinating study of the levels of degradation that a one could be willing to undergo in hopes of protecting or extending one's honor/reputation.  Roger and Clas both pretend to be members of  Europe's 21st century "elite."  And yet they become utter savages ... in hopes of taking/defending what they believe is "rightfully theirs."

How does it end?  Well, see the movie.  I will say though that the film becomes more than just a battle of two hard-headed/egotistical men.  Both of two women in the film come to have significant/enlightening roles as well.

Parents - the film is deservingly R-rated for both the obvious reasons (sex and violence) but also frankly that there is no compelling reason that I could think of that a minor would need to see or particularly understand the film.  This, like many others like it, is for young adults and above.


<< 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! :-) >>

Chernobyl Diaries [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1991245/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv064.htm

Chernobyl Diaries (directed by Bradley Parker, screenplay by Oren Peli along with Shane and Carey Van Dyke) is often a formulaic suspense/horror story -- College kids on a trip (what could possibly go wrong?) following a script written by the same guy who gained fame by making the Paranormal Activity movies (so do you think that there will be "left behind" hand-held video footage?).  Nevertheless I do believe that the film does succeeds at times in breaking some new ground.   And lets face it, for a relatively low budget "b-horror" film, expecting much more of a film like this is almost certainly expecting too much.

The main "new ground" that it breaks is that, like recent "alien invasion" film The Darkest Hour [2011] and possibly Battleship [2012], along with the "haunted house" story The Lady in Black [2012], the Chernobyl Diaries leave American shores.  It's probably "good business" to do so as Hollywood tries to reach-out to and develop new markets overseas.

But IMHO it's good for both American and non-American viewers as well.  Non-American fans of such films get to see them being set on their own turf and (hopefully) increasingly with their own stars and American viewers get to learn something of these other places and their people as well (or perhaps in a more indelible way) .  For instance, American viewers of The Darkest Hour [2011] would be reminded that Russians would know a thing or two about fighting a desperate battle against an army of merciless invading aliens as they actually fought back such an "alien invasion" _for real_ in beating back the Nazis in World War II.  The Lady in Black [2012] would remind American viewers that pretty much the birthplace of creepy "Gothic literature" was England of the 1800s and that when it comes to stories set in creepy sea-side mansions, where the fog and the tides become all but monstrous characters themselves one really can't do better than setting such stories "somewhere in the Isles."  In the case here, the Chernobyl Diaries is largely set at the site of possibly the world's worst nuclear disaster to date (though the more recent accident at Fukushima in Japan may have actually been worse) and plays an enormous homage to all the Japanese and American "radiation produced monster movies" of the 1950s-60s beginning with Godzilla [1954] and continuing with any American film from that era beginning with the words "Attack of the Giant/Radioactive/Killer ..."

So while I have no doubt that many film-goers, both American and non, will continue to find these kind of films irredeemably stupid, I've never had such a negative view of these films.  Yes, such films are generally simplistic/cartoonish and yes they often wildly exaggerate to express a point (Note that these scifi/horror films are arguably descendants of the artistic movement called Expressionism).  On the other hand, I do believe that they can warn, teach and even bring people together.

So what then is this film about?  A small group American college friends/students -- Chris (played by Jesse McCartney), his girlfriend Natalie (played by Olivia Dudley) and her friend Amanda (played by Devin Kelley) are coming to the end of their summer tour of Europe by visiting Chris' brother Paul (played by Jonathan Sadowski) who's working for a firm in Kiev, Ukraine.  They have one more stop -- Moscow -- before they head home to the Unitest States and continue with their lives.  Paul asks his three visitors if before heading to Moscow they'd like to take a day trip to Chernobyl, about a two hour drive north of Kiev.  "But isn't that the site of like the worst nuclear accident in history?" his brother asks.  "Yes, but I have a friend, Yuri (played by Dimitri Diatchenko) who runs a small 'extreme tourism' agency here in Kiev and he can take us there."  After some initial skepticism/doubts decidse "what the heck?" and to try this out.

So the four show-up in the morning at Yuri's storefront travel agency.  A couple of English-speaking backpackers from Norway, Michael (played by Nathan Phillips) and Zoe (played by Ingrid Bolso Berdal), join the group as well.  They all jump into a rather old, functional-looking van driven by Yuri and head-off to Chernobyl.  What could go wrong?

Well, about 20 kilometers outside of Chernobyl, they are stopped at a military check-point and told to not go further.  Yuri, doesn't entirely understand why, because he's led other groups there before.  But this time the guards simply won't let the group go further.  They tell him that the exclusion zone is temporarily closed "for maintenance."   "Okay, he tells the guards," and begins to back the van up.  He then turns to his group and tells them "Don't worry, this is not the only way to get into the exclusion zone."  Sure enough, some time later, they drive-up to the outskirts of the abandoned town of Pripiat, the main town that had been abandoned as a result of the Chernobyl disaster.  Would it be dangerous to be there?  Presumably yes (hence the check-point some 20 clicks down the road).  But Yuri, a former Ukrainian special forces officer, also has a small Geiger-counter on his person to presumably warn him if they come across any really high radiation hotspot.   Again, what could possibly go wrong?

The place of course looks really, really eerie (and is real).  After all, there are these huge apartment buildings municipal buildings and public spaces, and they've all been abandoned for over 25 years.  Rust, weeds and weather have taken their toll.   Amanda, something of a photographer is taking pictures of everything.  Yuri tells the group that Pripiat is "a place where nature is once again reclaiming it all."

But then, nature and high-energy radiation can make for an unpredictable combination.  Walking by a pond, they come across some rather strange (and vicious?) looking fish.  During the afternoon they have a few more run-ins with some other feral creatures running about this huge exclusion zone surrounding the abandoned city of Pripiat and the adjacent Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

As darkness approaches and they return to the van, they run into a significant problem: Yuri finds that he can't seem to start it.  The cables to the distributor cap appear to be either strangely corroded or more likely sabotaged.  But by what/whom??)  Welcome to the rest of the movie ...

The viewer will recognize that the film-makers have applied _some_ but not all the techniques that made Oren Peli's first Paranormal Activity [2007] movie such a great and suspenseful horror film.  And I must say that they chose _wisely_ which techniques to apply and when, the effect proving to be quite good.  I found the Chernobyl Diaries a far better suspense/horror movie than either Paranormal Activity 2 [2010] and Paranormal Activity 3 [2011].

And the movie does have a message, even if exaggerated for effect, which is the same as all these kinds of movies since the first Godzilla [1954] movie hit the screens that Radiation and Nature don't mix very well, that truly unpredictable effects/problems can arise, and therefore some caution / humility on the part of humanity with regarding such inherently hazardous technologies as nuclear energy is not a bad thing.

Parents, do note that except for language (which is often quite crude ... "What the <bleep> [was that...]?") and that the film is, in fact, a rather scary movie, there's not all that much that would be of enormous concern here.  Still because of its scary/horror intentions, I wouldn't recommend it for a pre-teen audience.  And the language would probably annoy/trouble many.


<< 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! :-) >>

Hick [2011]

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

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Hick (directed by Derick McMullen, screenplay by Andrea Portes based on her novel by the same name) is a tough appropriately R-rated story about a 13 year-old girl named Luli McMullen (played by Chloë Grace Moretz) from the Nebraskan countryside who runs away from home.

Now why would she do that?  Well, parents take note: Because her parents were arguably world-class losers.  What do I mean?  Well the film opens with Luli's 13th birthday party.  Where is it being held?  In a tavern.  So none of Luli's actual friends are there.  Does she even have any friends?  Instead, the crowd is mostly "regulars" that one would find at a random tavern in a random small town in the American Midwest on a random weekday night.  Ma' brings out a cake with a big "13" candle on it.  Luli dutifully blows the candle out.  Then ma' proceeds to gossip with every woman and flirt with every guy in the establishment while Luli is left to sit alone on a bar stool and draw in her little sketch pad/notebook while pa' slinks back into a booth somewhere in the back of the place and proceeds to drink himself into oblivion.  Oh yes, and what of Luli's big present?  An uncle gives her real Magnum-44 revolver in a gift box with a bow on it.  Fortunately, the family appeared to be too cheap, too broke or both to provide the bullets...

A few days later, when ma' runs off with a traveling salesman and pa' is too drunk/hung-over to care, Luli decides that she's had enough of home and decides to head for the Las Vegas [IMDb].  Why Vegas?  Well growing-up as a latch-key kid on an isolated farm far outside of town with both parents pretty much "doin' their [horribly self-destructive] things" she's probably watched more TV than the norm.  And indeed, while left at the farm alone, again ... an ad comes on the TV saying "Come to Vegas!"  Luli, with her gun in her hand does a few Dirty Harry imitations.  Okay Dirty Harry had been from San Francisco, but the 13 year old isn't particularly concerned about the details.  Frisco or Vegas, who cares?  Anything would be more exciting than being stuck on the farm, already effectively abandoned, while her parents destroy their lives.  So she packs a large purse, yes, takes the revolver with her ... and starts walkin'.

Now clearly one can't possibly hope to walk all the way from Nebraska to Vegas.  So she has to hitchhike.  And with this come the inevitable problems.  On her journey, she takes rides from two drifters/grifters, one a washed-up/injured former rodeo rider named Eddie (played by Eddie Redmayne), the other a 20-something woman named Glenda (played by Blake Lively) who could have also run-away from home when she was a teen.  The story proceeds rather predictably if often heartrendingly from there.

What perhaps makes the story all the more tragic to watch is that Luli has a hobby/talent.  She likes to draw and draws very, very well.  So throughout the story, as often terrible things happen to her, or nearly happen to her, she draws.  And it's not as if she's not aware of the dangers that she faces or the terrible things that both happen to her or nearly happen to her.  But the pictures she draws often seem utterly disconnected from her actual life.  But then there are _also_ pictures that hit what has gone on in her life right on the head.

So what to make of her pictures?   They are the pictures of a 13 year old, but also of someone who's had a very difficult life.  In my mind, her pictures, and her voice-overs talking about many of them are what makes the movie.  And the effect is very, very poignant and very, very sad.

Would I recommend this movie to teens?  Parents, I do believe that the R-rating is definitely appropriate.  Yes the movie is about a teen, but a teen coming from a very troubled situation.  Hence parental judgement here as to whether or not to allow one's own teens to see such a movie is entirely appropriate.  Now the simple/crass -- "sex or violence quotient" isn't particularly high.  There is no nudity, but sex, indeed at times rape is certainly assumed.  There is also one scene in which Eddie probably bludgeoned a man to death.  And yes, the gun eventually does go off.   But beyond all this, the whole "running away from home" theme _could_ give some teens ideas.  On the other hand, the film is often so depressing, disturbing and sad that it may actually serve as a deterrent to kids contemplating running away from home. 

A note about the ending (POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT).  Alec Baldwin playing a character named "Beau" comes into the picture near the end to become something a savior figure for Luli.  But by the time we reach that point in the film, most viewers would see his character as almost a "divine intervention" on the part of the film-makers.  Yes, he appears at a point in the story where he is able to pull her out of a path that seems headed toward certain and awful doom.  Yes, he doesn't want or take anything from her and sets her on a path (that doesn't include him) toward hope.  But the jaded viewer could easily imagine that even this almost "divine intervention" (heck his name is "Beau" signifying an "angelic aura...") would still somehow end in disaster or further betrayal.

The message is: kids no matter how bad it is DON'T RUN AWAY FROM HOME.  No matter how bad it is, do what Luli seemed to do in her better moments -- draw (reflect, PRAY).  And as you get older, put the pieces together.  Learn some skills (in school... THAT'S what it's for...), get a job, get independent and THEN "walk away..."  If you just end up doing something foolish/despairing and end-up dead, the Evil One (I'm not kidding) wins ...

Finally, this is the fifth film that I've seen in the last year about wounded/scarred young women from troubled pasts -- Martha, Marcy May Marlene [2011], Under My Nails [2012], Girl in Progress [2012] to say nothing of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo [2011] and now Hick.  A second tier of recent films touching on the same theme could include Country Strong [2010], Sucker Punch [2011] and possibly even the recent Mexican film Has Anyone Seen Lupita? [2011].  Are we seeing the emergence of a new kind of "femme fatale?"  One which is perhaps more authentic -- not necessarily a "danger to men" but one who is simply being ground-up/damaged by upbringing and circumstance?


<< 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! :-) >>

Men in Black III [2011]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

Men in Black III (directed by Barry Sonnenfeld, screenplay by Ethan Cohen and others, based on the Men in Black comic book series by Lowell Cunningham [IMDb]) continues the highly imaginative and highly successful franchise (MIB [1997], MIB II [2002]) about a "super-secret U.S. government agency" responsible for managing the various needs, eccentricities (often wild) and, often enough, bruised egos of a truly "sky-is-the-limit" variety of extra-terrestrial visitors making their way, passing-through, and even residing on earth, all the while keeping earth's human population oblivious to all these extraterrestrials' presence.

It's not an easy job -- for either the "men in black" in the story or for the films' creators!  Indeed, coming to this third installment -- and I confess that I have been a HUGE FAN of the previous two MIB films as well as Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy [Amazon] book series that IMHO shared a similar imagination -- I wondered how the film would go.  After all, how does one put-together a coherent enough story (and do this for a third time) when the story's fundamental worldview is one in which truly _anything_ is possible?

Indeed, I sort of wonder what God (after all, we Christians/Catholics believe that we were created in God's image [Gen 1:27]) would think of these films' creators' "God-like" imaginations.  Would God be a fan? ;-) ;-) Or would God be saying "No, no, no you have the physics (or biology) all wrong.  If it were really the way you present things, then 'this or this' would happen.  So I'm sorry, it just doesn't work." ;-) ;-) Or would God say "Hmmm, I wish I had thought of that! ;-)  [Me], I just love these people!" ;-)

So clearly, I'm just a huge fan of the imagination present in the MIB series, and certainly one who as encouraged people (and especially the young) to live with an attitude of wonder: "The heavens are singing the Glory of God ..." (Psalm 19:1-2, St. Francis Canticle of the Sun [Marty Haugen hymn]).

But do the film-makers pull it off?  Do they put together a coherent story in a world where truly anything is possible?  Happily, I believe that they do ;-).

So what is the film about?  The film begins with Galactic archfiend Boris the Animal (played by Jemaine Clement, Russian viewers of this film may not particularly like that the film's primary villain, extraterrestrial though he is, has such an obviously Russian/East Slavic name ...) breaking out of a super-secret (and presumably super-secure) prison (on the moon) with thoughts of both revenge and saving his own people.  Finding his way back to earth, he shakes down a human-looking alien working at a somewhat seedy "electronics store" somewhere in New York for a time traveling device, which though oddly shaped turns out to be basically the size of a small ipod/smart phone of today ;-).  With that device, he seeks to go back some 40 years in time (to 1969) to kill MIB's Agent K (played in the present by Tommy Lee Jones and in younger 1960s form by Josh Brolin) and thus allow keep Agent K from "saving the world" from invasion by Boris' planet devouring people (hey they have to eat too ... ;-).  When Agent K's partner, Agent J (played by Will Smith) wakes up one morning to no reference to the existence of Agent K (except that he had died 40 years previously), it becomes clear that Agent J must "go back in time" as well to save his future partner (and thus the world).  Much ensues ...

Among that which ensues is, (SPOILERS FOLLOW but probably worth the read ... ;-) among other things, a racial profiling that Agent J (played, after all by the African-American actor Will Smith) _as well as the audience_ is no longer used to.  He finds himself having to explain to two skeptical NYPD cops (white): "Hey, just because I'm black, dressed in nice clothes and driving an expensive car doesn't mean that I stole them!" (It turns out that he _did_ steal the car ;-), but only "on police [MIB] business" to get quickly from Chrysler Building in New York's Manhattan to Coney Island where he knew from police reports that he read in OUR TIME that Boris was going to kill an extraterrestrial victim).   Agent J as well as the younger Agent K also attend a party hosted by Andy Warhol ... which given Warhol's legendary eccentricity actually makes "a lot more sense" in world of the film than in ours ;-) ;-). 

The climactic scene (OBVIOUS SPOILER...) takes place the scaffolding at the top of the launch tower of Apollo 11 in the closing minutes before its launch with Agents J and K fighting it out with Boris.  I mention the scene here because it is priceless.  The countless millions of people around the country and around the world watching the launch, all dressed in characteristic 1960s summer-clothes and sitting in front of their big wood framed 60s-era television sets, are of course completely clueless of fight taking place at the top of the launch tower.  The crew of Apollo 11 sitting in the space capsule on the other hand sees everything.  But as they look on, one of the crew members (Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin or Michael Collins?) says to the others "Hey, I'm not calling this in. [If I do...] they're gonna scrub the launch ..." :-) So they let the two "men in black" and the odd space alien (teamed also with his second time-traveling incarnation) fight it out.

The launch of course takes place (SPOILER?) The world is saved (SPOILER?) And we learn a few more things about the characters of Agents J and K as well (SPOILER? ;-).

Who could not love a movie like this?  PARENTS NOTE that the CNS/USCCB review mentions that some of the language is not particularly suitable for minors.  To be honest, I didn't catch this.  But (1) I've missed this before, notably last year with Super 8 [PG13-2011] and this year with Cabin in the Woods [R-2012] where I found myself blushing after having initially recommended the films to parents and teens with minimal (in the case of the the first movie) or some (in the case of the second) reservations.  The language in the first movie and the drug use/references in the second were far greater than I initially remembered. Still (2), Roger Moore, author of a a column "Parents Guide to Movies" that gets printed in the Tribune company's papers (Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Orlando Sentinel, etc) noted that Men in Black III's PG-13 rating is entirely appropriate with only a smattering of perhaps a "half a dozen or so bad words."  But parents take note.  And also keep in mind (3) that questions regarding language do vary regionally.  The language used here in the neighborhood of my current parish, Annunciata on the South-East side of Chicago, is, well, that which you'd expect of a parish/neighborhood that feels very much like that of a Everybody Loves Raymond [IMDb] episode or John Candy film.  But the language used here in Chicago is probably "saltier" than want one would expect in California or the Southern United States ...

In any case, some Catholic/Christian parents may find the language in the film occasionally troublesome for youngsters/teens.  Still, on the whole, I found the film "very, very cool" ;-) -- and especially for the young and young at heart ;-) ;-).


<< 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! :-) >>