That's My Boy [2012]

MPAA (R)  Michael Phillips (0 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
Michael Phillips' review

Ok, leading-up to this weekend, I honestly didn't expect to go see the Adam Sandler vehicle That's My Boy (directed by Sean Anders and screenplay by David Caspe).  Like many other movie-goers, I've found that I can generally take only so much of his humor, which is usually very, very stupid and generally crude.  And honestly, this movie is certainly stupid and crude.  HOWEVER, with it being Fathers' Day weekend, the film having a "Father's Day" theme to it (albeit portraying Adam Sandler playing a particularly awful father) and knowing that men/fathers haven't exactly had an easy time of it over the last generation or two, I decided to give it a shot.

Now, parents, honestly PLEASE DON'T take little kids to this movie!   The film DEFINITELY earns its R-rating.  The list of (thankfully generally off-screen) transgressions in the film is very long and in a "Hall of Shame" sense "impressive."  However, since the transgressions are generally _so over the top/exaggerated_ it is clear they are intended for effect: Yes, Adam Sandler's character, Donny, was a loser.  In the story, Donny knocked-up his teacher in 8th grade (played by Eva Amurri Martino when young and by Susan Sarandon in the present day) who subsequently was sent to prison, leaving Donny (actually initially Donny's dad, but when he turned 18, Donny) to take care of the child, who Donny (who was like 13 years old at the time the child was born) named "Han Solo" after the "really cool character in Star Wars" (played in those films by Harrison Ford).

Needless to say, this was not an "ideal arrangement" and soon as Donny's boy (Han) turned 18, Han (played as an adult by Andy Samburg) _left home_ changed his name to Todd and tried to start his life anew.  And actually he did quite well, majoring apparently in Math (his mother had actually been a Math Teacher, and Donny if not for so messing-up his own life had been actually shown talent in math as well...).

Eventually Han (now Todd) landed a job at a Wall Street firm, found a gorgeous girl, Jamie (played by Leighton Meester) that he was going to marry.  What could go wrong?

Well dad (Donny) who had resigned himself to the fact that his boy Han/Todd was going to be out his life for good, finds that he needs to come-up with some very quick money or else he's going to go to jail.  So on the weekend on which his estranged son Todd's WEDDING was going to be held, Donny suddenly shows-up at his doorstep (and it's not even his son's doorstep but the doorstep of his son's boss' beautiful Cape Cod estate (where the wedding was going to be held) in self-evident (though _also_ initially _unclear_) need of help.  Good God, much ensues ...

Again, this movie _is_ crude.  But honestly what a story it tells ... My hat off to Adam, and my hat off to Leighton Meester (of "Gossip Girl" fame, who's had to deal with "disappointing/problematic parents" for real in own life and who first caught my attention as someone who really could become a serious talent in Country Strong [2011].  The current film is, of course, impossibly exaggerated.  But many, many people and families _also_ have to deal with seemingly impossible situations.  So honestly, good job folks (as well as to Andy Samburg, whose role was actually and clearly more important in this than Meester's though Meester's background so well resonates with the problematics played out in the film).

Once again, parents PLEASE DON'T take a kid who's "10 years old" to this film.  This is a movie that deserves its R-rating.  Still, for even a teenager in the latter years of high school, where there would be issues of "disappointment with parents" at home, this would an _excellent_ (and funny) film to see.  And it MAY BE a good film to see as "father/older teenage son", "parents/older teens" together.


<< 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! :-) >>

Rock of Ages [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1336608/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv068.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120613/REVIEWS/120619993

It didn't take altogether long, maybe 10 minutes into Rock of Ages (directed by Adam Shankman, screenplay by Justin Theroux, Chris D'Arienzo and Adam Loeb based the stageplay musical by Chris D'Arienzo) for me to realize what I'd be up against in writing review for this film.  

Parents, while this movie is rated PG-13 and I doubt that a lot of you would necessarily want to be sit through this movie with your teens as they watch it, _at minimum_ the film should require "a discussion at home" and I honestly believe that an R-rating or even NC-17 rating would be more appropriate.  I say this because, at minimum, there are multiple scenes in which one or another young woman bends down on her knees before a guy and starts undoing his pants..., and I simply can't imagine ANY REASON why a high school kid (or younger ...) ought to see that without knowledge (and at minimum comment) by his/her parents.  This kind of stuff does annoy me: If one's going to make an adult oriented movie, then just rate it appropriately (An R-rating would allow teens to see the movie WITH CONSENT OF THEIR PARENTS).  To play games with the ratings is at minimum childish and at worst it is misguided/evil.  At minimum, the film-makers will be contributing to a new epidemic of herpes and quite possibly worse.   And were those "bending down and unbuttoning his pants" scenes somehow "necessary" to the plot?  Of course not ... So unless the film-makers have made investments in some new herpes medications, I can't imagine any possible reason for including them in the film.  But there we are ...

But that is really just the most childish, stupid (and frankly, utterly needless) problem with the film.  The larger problem concerns what I recently wrote about in my recent review of the kids' movie Madagascar 3, that American film-makers (both on the Right and on the Left) seem to assume that they _need_ to include "villains" in their stories.  And while Rock of Ages does in good part lampooning the otherwise wild excesses of the "Rock God" era of the 1980s (that characterization alone ought to give a serious believing Catholic/Christian pause, as NO ONE short of God ought to receive the kind of adulation given to Rock Stars at that time, or Ball Players or Movie Stars, political figures like Hitler, Stalin, Peron, Quadafi or Assad before or since), it was clear from about 5-10 minutes into this movie that the "villains du jour" were going to be "Conservative Christians." 

These Conservative Christian "villains" in the current story are led in the story by the 40-something Patricia Whitmore (played by Catherine Zeta Jones) wife of a _somewhat_ surprisingly (to non-Los Angelinos) conservative mayor of Los Angeles, Mike Whitmore (played by Bryan Cranston). [Note to non-Los Angelinos both "red" and "blue" -- the mayor of Los Angeles from 1993-2001 was Republican Richard Riordan, which wouldn't surprise ANYONE once one stops and realizes that to be a mayor of any major city in the world requires that one balance many competing forces, not the least of which, of course, is business.  An excellent if somewhat controversial book on "the making of Los Angeles" is Mike Davis' City of Quartz (Amazon) ...] 

Returning to the story ... Now there is clearly _some_ historical truth to the film's presenting of Conservative Christians as opponents to "Rock and Roll."  HOWEVER, ANY Catholic/Christian born pretty much ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD since the end of World War II would know that this history has _never been_ the whole story or practice.  Otherwise, tens of millions of us Catholics/Christians in the United States and hundreds of millions of us across the globe would have to somehow get rid of our record albums/CDs (if anyone still actually as LPs ;-) and/or erase good chunks of the memories on our i-pods / mp3 players.  And I for one have no interest at all in getting rid of my "Pink Floyd" or "Creedence tapes" ;-) ;-) to submit to some a tired, half-baked narrative that was, at best, only partly true.  And I doubt any practicing Catholic here at Annunciata or frankly anywhere else would want to do that either.

Consider simply, that in the late 1980s when I was a grad student studying at USC in Los Angeles, both Eddie Van Halen and his wife, actress, Valerie Bertinelli (both Catholic ... ;-) spent an afternoon happily at the USC Catholic Center to get a respite from the crush of the fans/paparazzi that awaited them at L.A.'s Shrine Auditorium a block or two away where the Grammy Awards were being held that year.  Then REO Speedwagon and Styx (both huge bands in the late 1970s-1980s) were from the "ethnic" parts of Chicago.  At least some of these people were Catholic and it's simply unfair/wrong to assume that _all of them_ (even to this day) would have lost their faith.  Even Rock Stars are _more_ than merely "Rock Stars."  Finally, the parish where I'm stationed at, Annunciata on Chicago's South East Side, has come to be known for its annual Annunciata Fest which hosts a fair number of really good "up and coming" 2nd and 3rd tier bands.  The bands that play here may not be great now, but 5-10 years from now?  Who knows?  And I'm positive that the experiences of musicians from REO Speedwagon and/or Styx would have been similar.

So then the film presents a false and stupid battle.  Yes, there will always be extremists in both the United States and across the world who'll want to "ban" "Rock and Roll."  On the other hand, there will always be extremists who'll think it perfectly okay / normal, to "bite the head off of a live bat" as rocker Ozzy Osborne apparently did back in the early 1980s (when I was going to college).  And there will be young people who will be hurt and/or even die as a result of some of the excesses of the "rock and roll" culture.

So then, what to make of the rest of the film?  If it was Rated-R or even perhaps NC-17 (thus bravely choosing to be an honest movie) and it shelved the needless "fight" with "Conservative Christians" the film still could have been a very nice "nostalgia piece" perhaps even musical about Sherrie Christian (played by talented singer/dancer Julianne Hough) arriving to LA from Oklahoma meeting Drew Boley (played by Diego Boneta) "from South Detroit" at a bar on LA's Sunset Strip called "The Bourbon."  (Yes, Sherrie's name and Drew's coming from "South Detroit" come from a song by the 1980s rock group Journey called "Don't Stop Believing" and the The Doors started at real bar on the Sunset Strip called The Whiskey).   And the rest of the cast, the stoned/lost/searching Rock God "Stacey Jaxx" (played masterfully by Tom Cruise and modeled after Axel Rose of Guns 'N Roses and perhaps Jim Morrison of The Doors) as well as the Rolling Stone reporter Constance (Malin Akerman), the slimy agent/record producer Paul Gill (played by Paul Giamatti) and the Bourbon's owner Dennis DuPree (played by Alec Baldwin) and his sidekick/assistant Lonny (played by Russell Brand) could have all remained in a less "we want to play childish games with the censors and needlessly bash 'conservative Christians'" version of the story.  It would have worked AND FRANKLY WOULD HAVE WORKED BETTER than this confused version. 

But it seems that Hollywood screenwriters seem to continue to believe that they need villains in their stories (preferably of a straw-man variety) and the Rock and Roll culture appears to remain fundamentally childish.

Honestly folks, this film would have been much better if you just went for an R-rated (or even NC-17 rated) picture and frankly "grew-up" ;-).


<< 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 Matchmaking Mayor (orig. Nezvatbov) [2010]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CSFD listing - [CZ orig, ENG-trans]

The Matchmaking Mayor (orig. Nezvatbov) directed by Erika Hníková [CSFD, Eng-Trans] is a documentary, a Czech and Slovak collaboration (subtitled in English) that played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago as part of the 2012 New Czech Films Tour organized by the Czech Film Center and the Czech Consulates in Chicago and New York.  (The tour promises to visit 8 major cities in the United States including New York, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, Washington D.C. and Seattle).

It is about the mayor (a retired general) of a small Slovakian town, Zemplínske Hámre [SK, Eng-Trans], in the picturesque, rolling, gently forested eastern Slovakian countryside, who's done much to turn his town around in his seven years in office.  The open credits declare that he's "Lowered unemployment, built a new [soccer] stadium and municipal swimming pool, improved the streets and sewage systems, brought in cable TV.  By all accounts he's beloved by all.  But there's one problem he's not been able to fix.  In his town are 70 unmarried people over thirty years of age who according to the mayor really ought to be having children.  As such, already two years ago he promised a not altogether insubstantial monetary award to any unmarried towns-person who got married and produced a child within a year of doing so.  As yet, no one has come forward to claim the award.  However, this has not discouraged the mayor from pursuing other options..."

The cynic could say, what can he do?  Well, as a good Catholic mayor with a good Catholic wife (he's pictured at one point napping on a couch in his house under a large picture of the Sacred Heart) in a town inhabited overwhelmingly by good Catholic townsfolk (even those unmarried 30+ year olds are no radical eyes and ears pierced head-to-toe tattoo covered "monsters."  They are -- both male and female -- good honest, salt of the earth folk that one truly finds _in any parish_ -- one 40+ year old single woman is introduced to us as she's finishing mopping clean the floor of the sanctuary and is continuing to sponge clean the tarnish off the brass on the tabernacle in the parish church...) he does what any good Catholic authority figure would do in a case like this -- He guilts them:  "Don't you want to get married?  Don't you think God wants you to get married?  Don't you see that the town, the country, indeed the world needs you to 'settle down' and have kids?  Don't think it's going to be easy for you in the second half of life, who's going to take care of you as you get older?"  And he means it sincerely.  And both the men and the women, salt of the earth as they are, kinda dip their heads and smile, "yes, mayor..." and of course continue with their day...

Finally, the mayor and his wife decide that they are going hold an end-of-summer municipal 30+ singles' get-together, and invite not just all the men and women of the town that fit that category but also those singles form all the other towns and villages in the area (I'm guessing, within a 5-10 km radius).  And the camera follows the mayor's wife personally inviting every single single-person in at least the town to the get-together.  What could go wrong?

Well, it doesn't really succeed.  I'll leave it to the readers here to find, see or rent the film to find out why...

However, as gentle, pastoral as the set-up to the film was, I will say that the last 10 minutes of the film are surprisingly harsh and bring the film (and the audience) back to reality but then really make the film potentially an excellent discussion piece.

For the documentary film-maker is after all a young, educated, (Czech) woman from Prague (the city) and the mayor is an older (Slovakian) man, a former general (therefore obviously also educated and obviously more than competent/successful throughout his career) who's otherwise been a very successful mayor of that small Slovakian town (in the countryside).  And the voices (and prejudices) of both come out loud and clear at the end.  And of course what makes the film so great is that _both_ of these people are at least partially right. (Indeed, the Czech young woman film-maker doesn't really say all that much.  But she doesn't have to: She controls the camera ...).

I would also add that there would be plenty of Slovaks (especially younger ones) who'd probably agree with the young Czech woman film-maker's exasperation at the end, while more than a few Czechs (especially older ones) would sympathize more with the older, retired general, Slovakian mayor.  But the play stereotypes here (especially if understood as being _intended as play_) actually works quite well here and enhances the the message that both the older retired (more regimented) general and the younger (more feminist?) film-maker from the city have a point ...
 
Finally, I would add that I recently saw another documentary, a Russian one, (called Russian Reserve) which concerned itself with much the same problem (the gradual dying of rural-village life) as this film did.  And I'm more or less certain that the Russian Orthodox priest's (typically big country "Russian" and typically "Orthodox") opinion at the end of that film would probably irritate both the young Czech film maker from Prague and older Slovakian mayor from the countryside.  But his insight into the matter is worth consideration as well.  (Find / rent that film too ;-)

To Americans, especially American Catholics from cities like Chicago packed with people of Slavic decent, I'd definitely recommend this current film as you'll recognize faces and attitudes throughout it (and not just of the single people in their 30s+ but also of their parents, neighbors, coworkers, etc).  Again, none of the single people in this film are portrayed badly.  They are kind, salt of the earth folk.  But one gets the sense that most of them are probably never going to get married...

ADDENDUM

It might also be worthwhile for readers here to consider this film to be a less harsh/more balanced and certainly "more true to life" (it's a documentary after all...) playing-out of the story in the film Chocolat [2000], which centered on "an epic battle" (fictional but at times very, very funny and certainly at other times very, very pointed) played out in a small French provincial town in the late-1950s / early 1960s between an unmarried 40-something "woman in red" newcomer to the town and the upper-end of middle-aged mayor whose "great, great, great grandfather's statue stood in the middle of the town's square."


<< 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! :-) >>

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted [2012]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-1)  Bill Zwecker (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1277953/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv067.htm
Bill Zwecker's review -
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/12979488-421/daffy-madagascar-3-tops-original-film.html

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (directed by Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath and Conrad Vernon, screenplay by Eric Darnell and Noah Baumbach) is, for an American (Hollywood) production, a generally okay kids' affair.

I say "for an American/Hollywood production" because American/Hollywood comedies generally still need villains, someone or someones at whose expense jokes are made.  In the case of Madagascar 3, the jokes are made at the expense of a hapless French female Gandarme named Captain Chantal DuBois (voiced by Frances McDormand) -- aren't the French _always_ "hapless?" -- and to some extent at the expense of a sullen Russian accented Siberian tiger named Vitaly (voiced by Bryan Cranston) -- aren't Russians always sullen/bitter sounding?  (Actually, even the selection of Mde Gendarme's last name as "DuBois" is rather strange and at best unfortunate, because African American lawyer/statesman W.E.B. DuBois had been a towering figure in the African American community in the latter part of the 1800s / early 1900s in the United States and was one of the founders of the NAACP.  More on the film's somewhat strange treatment of Africa and African-American actors below...). So in the midst of the laughs, there's the message intended presumably for American audiences (I can't imagine that this film would go over very well in France or in Russia) that the French are losers and the Russians are bitter (presumably because "we beat them" in the Cold War ... ).

Now the question could be asked -- don't comedies have to have _some_ villains?  Even It's a Wonderful Life [1946] had the rich-banker Mr. Potter as the villain.  (Villains are not necessarily chosen by "right wingers."  The Left is also quite adept at creating them as well ...).  However I'd like to suggest that the Italians, for instance, have proven capable of creating successful comedies with _no_ discernible villains.  Two recent examples that I reviewed on this blog are Immaturi [2011] and Habemus Papam [2011].  But we Americans seem to need to see "Bugs Bunny hit Elmer Fudd over the head with a 2x4" and then we laugh.  I just offer this observation to ask why this should be and to note that creating villains is probably "bad for business."  Again, I would imagine that Madagascar 3 would probably _not_ be an easy sell in France or in Russia...

... or for that matter among some African Americans or in Africa.  Why?  Well the whole premise of this movie is that Freedom in Africa is boring and it is better to live In a Cage (In the Zoo) in New York.  The movie begins with Alex the Lion (voiced by Ben Stiller) waking-up panicky after a dream in which he saw himself dieing all alone, in a boring drought-stricken black-and-white desert in Africa and thinking how much better it was to, yes, live in a cage, but be the "center of attention" in the Zoo back in New York.  When he tells his dream to others, the rest of his animal friends agree, and so then they decide to go back to New York (via Monte Carlo/Europe).  And much, of course, ensues ...

Now there are African American performers in the movie.  There's Gloria the Hippo (voiced by Jada Pinkett Smith) and Marty the Zebra (voiced by Chris Rock) -- I think that most folks could rather quickly see some rather obvious problems that one could have with both of those castings.

I spent much of the movie thinking that Stefano the Italian-accented Sea Lion was voiced by Eddie Murphy (which I would have found kinda cool because from my Seminary days which I spent mostly in Rome, I actually marveled at how well the Italians dubbed Eddie Murphy's characters when his movies played in Italy) but now I realize Stefano was actually voiced by Martin Short (okay, but IMHO Eddie Murphy would have been a much more inspired choice for that character).

So, all in all, the movie was fun.  It's like I say a generally "okay" affair.  And certainly there have been some rather awful children's movies that have come out over the past few years (I think back to Hop [2011] and Hood Winked Too [2011] which IMHO were absolutely horrendous).   Still, I didn't particularly like the message or casting in this picture.  And I do believe that Hollywood and America could do better if it / we chose to do so.


<< 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! :-) >>

I Wish (orig. Kiseki) [2011]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1650453/
Roger Ebet's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120530/REVIEWS/120539998/1023

I Wish (orig. Kiseki) written and directed by Hirokazu Koreeda is a lovely, gentle Japanese film (subtitled into English) about two young brothers, separated, each living with one parent, as their parents divorce.  Twelve year-old Koichi (played by Koki Maeda) now lives with their mother Nozomi (played by Nene Ohtsuka) who returned to her parents (played by Isao Hashizume and Kirin Kiki respectively) to the smaller, more provincial town that she was from, while the younger brother Ryonosuke (played by Ohshirô Maeda) stayed with their father Kenji (played by Jô Odagiri) in a bigger city.

Both boys have adjusting to do, but the older brother (perhaps because he had to move, perhaps because he was simply older and knew better what was going on) has had a harder time of it.  The two talk occasionally by phone as they do with their parents.

The two boys finally decide to meet at a uniquely modern "auspicious time:" A new bullet train line was going to be inaugurated that was going reach for the first time the provincial town that Koichi and their mother had returned to and this was a real big deal for that town.  (Presumably the larger city where Ryuonosuke was living in with their father was already connected to the web of Japan's bullet-train lines).  The two brothers decide to meet somewhere along the line between their two towns to watch the bullet trains pass by.  Between them and their friends they came up with a story that if they spotted two of these bullet trains pass by each other, they would approach each other with such speed that ... anything could happen and therefore any wish that they could wish for ... would come true.

The rest of the movie becomes planning with each others' friends how they would meet to watch those bullet trains go by.  To an American like me, it seems fascinating that Japan would appear so safe that the parents of a dozen or so 10-12 year olds would allow them to travel by themselves to a midpoint between these two towns and even spend the night there (okay at one of the 10-12 year old's grandparents -- but at least one group of those kids wouldn't have even known the grandparents) to watch these two bullet trains pass-by.  But, well, that appears to be Japan...

When they do see the two trains pass-by, the kids do wish for all kinds of things that one could imagine a 10-12 year old to wish for.  Koichi publicly wishes that a nearby just volcano would blow-up and force him and his mother to move back to the larger city where his father and younger brother live.  Privately he'd settle for his parents to getting back together.  Well do they?  What do you think?  How would you end a movie like this?  How do you think writer/director Hirokazu Koreeda does?  Guess ;-)

Walking too Fast (orig. Pouta) [2009]

Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CSFD.cz listing - [Cz orig / Eng Trans]

Walking too fast (orig. Pouta) directed by Radim Spaček [CSFD, Eng-trans] screenplay by Ondřej Štindl played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago as part of the 2012 New Czech Films Tour organized by the Czech Film Center and the Czech Consulates in Chicago and New York.  (The tour promises to visit 8 major cities in the United States including New York, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, Washington D.C. and Seattle).

Note to readers: As many of you would know from previous reviews, I am of Czech descent.  However, it's in good part on account of the legacy of Czechoslovakian film-making, notably that of the Czechoslovak New Wave of the 1960s (that arguably helped bring about the Prague Spring in 1968 and the subsequent Soviet invasion to crush it) that I grew-up in a family that enjoyed and talked about movies.  Further since the fall of Communism in Czechoslovakia in 1989 in the Velvet Revolution (led in large part by artists), Prague has become not just home to a native film industry but a favored location for Hollywood film-making.  Tours like this, no doubt, are promotional attempts by the Czech government / film-industry to keep things this way.  Still, Czech-American though I am, I do believe that the Czech and Slovak film industries objectively do have a legacy worth indulging and so ... on with the review here ;-)

Walking too fast (orig. Pouta), a winner of three Czech Lions [CZ, Eng-Trans] (the Czech equivalent of the Academy Awards) is set in Czechoslovakia during the later part of the Communist era.  The film is a study of the effect of power on even the individual police officers tasked with maintaining an authoritarian regime _and_ the limits of power in any case.

Antonín (played by Ondřej Malý [CSFD, Eng-trans]) an ethnic Czech, who nonetheless had been born in the countryside prior to moving to the city (presumably Prague) is a member of the State Security Service, the StB [CZ, Eng-Trans].  Along with his Slovakian partner Martin (played by Lukaš Latinák [CSFD, Eng-Trans]) who thus was also presumably not from Prague but grew-up in the more rural eastern, Slovakian part of the country, are tasked with watching Tomáš (played by Martin Finger [CSFD, Eng-Trans]) a not particularly important dissident writer.

It's rather boring work.  Yet both Antonin and Martin certainly believe in the value/importance of what they are doing.  They've been told by their higher-ups that they are doing this for the good of the working class / nation and they believe it.

Indeed, both Antonin and Martin resent Tomáš.  After all, they both came from the countryside, both had "honest jobs" in their minds (and in the ideology that they were sworn to defend) defending other "honest working people" from hippie/elitist purposefully unemployed "parasites" like him. For Tomáš is unemployed because as a dissident -- one opposing the regime -- he can't hold a job in his declared profession, writing (The Regime won't publish his writings, because he's choosing to write things opposed to the Regime).  But he's not working anywhere else, instead choosing to take the lowest possible state-mandated dole.  (In American terms, he's "on welfare.")  In one of the scenes in the movie, the two pick-up Tomáš and drive him to a quarry at the outskirts of the city and briefly dump him outside of it telling him: "Why don't you take a real job among those who work here?"  But as a dissident, he's arguably "striking," holding-out for the right to write (and have published) what he pleases.  So there's the battle ...

Note here: Actually most dissidents did work, usually doing the most menial jobs in society.  The future Cardinal Miloslav Vlk [CZ, Eng-Trans], for instance, worked as a window washer for years during the Communist dictatorship.  The future President of the Republic, playwright Václav Havel, stoked furnaces.  Other dissidents washed toilets of the Prague subway systems.  This was not by choice, but rather pretty much the only jobs that they were allowed to do.  (And yet, they had to work somewhere, so as _not_ to be labeled "parasites").  So it might be an exaggeration that Tomáš would have done nothing or have chosen to do nothing.   However, from the point of view of the enforcers / "believers" of the Communist system, dissidents were basically spoiled "ingrates" who refused to appreciate "all that the Socialist paradise was giving them.")

However, what really sets Antonin off is that this (again, in his mind) lazy, no good, elitist parasite, Tomáš, finds himself a girlfriend, a young rather attractive Slovakian transplant (again presumably from the countryside) named Klára (played by Kristína Farkašová [CSFD, Eng-trans] who's working in a factory in town.  What does she see in him?  Besides, that low-life purposefully unemployed elitist writer already has a strikingly beautiful and doting wife while he chooses to "play dissident!"  And it's true, Silvia (played by Barbora Milotová [CSFB, Eng Trans]) is holding the family together, working (if I remember correctly in a school as either a teacher or a nurse), and taking care of their kids, while the unemployed Tomáš "plays dissident" and now even cavorts with a cute red-headed Slovakian factory-worker who has to be 10-15-20 years younger than he is.  How could that be?  Why should that be?  Yet such have been artists, writers and musicians across all the ages -- often penniless, difficult to live with and to a _lot of people_ seemingly unbearably lazy.  Yet across the ages, they've _always_ been ... attractive.  How is _that_ fair? ;-)

So Antonin decides that he's not going to let this stand.  After all, he may be a short, balding, 40+ year old and actually also with a kind, soft-spoken, lovely and doting wife (played by Monika Fingerová).  But Antonin's comparing himself to the "lowlife" Tomáš.  It's HE, Antonin, who has an "honest job" and "a badge."  And yes, his particular kind of badge (he works for State Security) gives him an awful lot of clout.  No one, and I mean, NO ONE in his/her right mind would challenge his authority when he's carrying _that kind of a badge_ (for fear of getting themselves needlessly in trouble with "State Security"...)  But then is that kind of power _enough_ to "get the girl"?  And once he starts using his power for personal ends ... what happens to whatever "honesty" was in his work?  Welcome to the rest of the movie...

It all makes for a fascinating movie, and to be honest, as I've written this review, I've probably gotten more "into the head" of Antonin than I'm particularly comfortable with.   And truthfully, the film does not portray the moral life of the dissidents particularly well either.  On the other hand, that's the beauty of freedom.  In freedom, the hope is that one can truly tell a story that's truly painted in shades of grey.


<< 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! :-) >>

Prometheus [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  Roger Ebert (4 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/
CNS/USCCB's review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv066.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120606/REVIEWS/120609989

Prometheus (directed by Ridley Scott, written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof) is certainly a grand (at times grandiose) film that follows very much the style/conventions of both high science fiction and Scott's own films.

With regard to following long-standing the conventions of Sci-Fi film-making, Prometheus pays obvious homages to preceding films, notably to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Oddysey [1968] and then to Ridley Scott's [IMDb] own Alien [1979, 1986, 1992, 1997] as well as Blade Runner [1982] films.

The opening sequence of the Prometheus featuring a large gray (though very muscular) humanoid alien treading on an apparently still lifeless but already well watered planet harkens back to the opening sequence of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Oddysey of a group of excited apes apparently encountering some alien presence.  Further, the presence in Prometheus of a not altogether friendly (robotic) android named David (played masterfully by Michael Fassbender) who accompanies and (as programmed) nominally if _resentfully_ "helps" the human crew on the space-ship/expedition named Prometheus is a further more or less obvious homage to 2001's HAL [IMDb].  David could further be compared/contrasted with StarTrek: The Next Generation's [IMDb] android character named Data IMDb] who seemed far better adjusted in his relations with humans than David appears.  (But then the StarTrek franchise has generally had a far more positive outlook with regard to the future than the far more dystopian visions portrayed in many sci-fi films, those of Ridley Scott being perhaps emblematic sci-fi's cinematic "dark side.")

Then two thematic concerns in Ridley Scott's [IMDb] previous sci-fi films -- life's "will to survive"/"propagate" portrayed in the Alien series and "search for one's maker" present in Blade Runner -- are present here.   While over the years, the Alien series' treatment of reproduction, presented as almost monstrous (the Alien monsters in the series of films follow a truly bewildering number of pathways to reproduce and all at the expense of other lifeforms), should probably give the Catholic pause, the CNS/USCCB's review focuses on (and IMHO rather unthinkingly condemns) the current film's suggestion that life on earth could have come (perhaps by means of Aliens) from somewhere else in the universe.  This rather reflexive condemnation of the possibility of life coming to earth from elsewhere (and even perhaps, but _not_ necessarily guided by intelligent essentially good (angelic) and/or essentially bad (demonic) Aliens rather than directly by God, Creator of All) seems _to me_ to carry the same flaws in thinking as the knee-jerk condemnations by many literalist American Protestant denominations of Evolution.

Is the Catholic Church, which has famously _refused_ to condemn Evolution, heading in a direction in which we'll soon be stuck in the same "God had to create the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th because the Bible tells me so" (never mind that the poetic imagery of the six day creation story of Genesis 1 may have only sought to express that God created the world/us in a planned purposeful way) coul de sac that our least educated "Solo Scriptura" Protestant brothers and sisters have chosen to place themselves in?   Honestly with all the educated minds in the Catholic Church, both now and across the centuries (we were the ones who built Europe's first Universities, the Jesuits (as well as the nuns) in particular maintain a world-wide network of state-of-the-art universities across the globe, and folks from Copernicus, to Mendel, to Tielhard de Chardin, to Karl Rahner to heck, even Martin Luther, were _all_ Catholic religious), are we honestly going to turn back from asking tough questions (and respecting the answers) now?   There was ONE TIME and only ONE TIME when the Catholic Church chose to impose its will on Truth in defiance of the results of scientific inquiry.  That was in the case of Galileo at the dawn of the use of the scientific method (which Galileo arguably invented, hence wasn't even widely known let alone accepted at the time) and the Catholic Church has been apologizing for its ONE OVER-REACH in such matters ever since.

Returning to the story ... ;-) ... Prometheus is about an expedition, set 100 years into the future, in search of our possible Creators.  Near the beginning of the film, some previously unknown cave drawings were found somewhere in Scotland a few years before the expedition is assembled.  (According to the story) the cave drawings prove to be more explicit than anything found previously as to the location from where supposedly such Creator beings (called in the film, "The Engineers") had come.  A rich, but sick/elderly industrialist named Peter Weyland (played by Guy Pierce) organizes an expedition to an earth-sized moon orbiting a planet belonging to the star system depicted in the cave drawings.  He does so in part because of the quest and in part hoping that if these beings created us, they could perhaps fix him.

The expedition, traveling by means of a scientific vessel called the Prometheus after the Greek God who helped humanity by giving it fire, arrives at said earth-sized moon only to be disappointed.  Though with an earth-like atmosphere, the planet appears totally uninhabited.  Soon, however, they find an pyramid-like structure, which they then descend to the surface to investigate.  Much, of course, ensues ...

Even as all this is "ensuing," as in the case of many other Sci-fi films, the actual action isn't as important as the various characters' motivations and interactions in what was unfolding.  Peter Weyland motivations though somewhat conflicted are rather easy to grasp.  He was being simultaneously altruistic and selfserving -- financing this trip in part out the sheer coolness of the mission (seeking reach the folks who may have made us) and in hopes that our would be creators could perhaps help him.  The chief scientist on board, Elizabeth Shaw (played by Noomi Rapace) explicitly a Christian believer sincerely hopes to meet God or at least those who would have created us on behalf of God.  Her more skeptical boyfriend Charlie Hollaway (played by Logan Marshall-Green) as well as David the Android (played by Michael Fassbender) make fun of her faith throughout the film BUT SHE MORE THAN HOLDS HER OWN.   The rest of the crew, including ship's icy captain Meribeth Vickers (played by Charlize Theron) and her more amiable helmsman Janek (played by Idris Elba) as well as some of the other lesser experts/engineers on the expedition are less than enthusiastic or ambivalent about the mission, fearing honestly for their lives (not unlike apparently the crews on Christopher Columbus' first voyage to the Americas).

David the the Android, indeed, is a fascinating character in all this because unlike the humans on this ship, HE KNOWS HIS "MAKER" (humanity, us ...) and he's both unimpressed (he's smarter, far more capable than any of us) and resentful (despite that he's programmed to serve us anyway).  So he doesn't particularly understand why people like Peter Weyland or Elizabeth Shaw would be so keen on finding their makers, and more or less openly snickers (as much as an android could snicker) when the "Engineers" (POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS) who may have been responsible for our Creation turn out to be something other than we would have hoped/expected.

Be all this as it may ... when the human expedition reaches the largely desolate earth-sized moon and the apparent pyramid artifact built there, it begins to explore the region around and within the pyramid.  To their dismay, they find that "the Engineer" race that they had been looking for appeared to be (largely?) extinct.  And to their horror, they find some rather vicious and slimy octopus/snakelike creatures there.  What were these strange, apparently unintelligent but certainly driven/vicious creatures?  What happened to "the Engineer" race?   As is often the case with regards to Voyages of Discovery (remember Columbus again...) the expedition/viewers are soon left with more questions than when they had when they arrived.

This film has been billed as a prequel to the Alien series, by the end of the film, some of this becomes to be clear.  However, it is obvious that there is room for several more films to both tie-up the connection between Prometheus and the first Alien movie and to develop the direction that Ridley Scott's [IMDb] and the other makers of the film wish to take the audiences with regard to humanity's possible origins and how these origins could fit together with regard to our previous belief systems.

So perhaps here the CNS/USCCB's warning (though condemnation??) is somewhat appropriate -- Ridley Scott's [IMDb] and the script writers are "playing jazz" (exploring the implications) here with regard to a couple of strands of popular thought -- Intelligent Design as explanation for human/the world's/universe's origins and Ancient Alien Theory.  It should go without saying that these _very difficult_ to prove musings should be approached with large grains of salt.

Still, I've long appreciated that one of the possibilities with regards to Intelligent Design at least with regard to the origins of life on earth / humanity's origins is that God need not have _directly_ created either life on earth or humanity.  Life created/coming to existence elsewhere _could_ have arrived to earth by means of bacteria/spore carrying meteorites.  And yes, life growing on earth _could have been manipulated_ by intelligent aliens who would have been clearly "less than God" but perhaps acting in some way according to God's plan (as the film's character Elizabeth Shaw understood as well).  If today we can make a glow-in-the-dark rabbit by adding genes of jellyfish to the egg of a rabbit, there is no reason why a postulated intelligent alien race could have conducted similar manipulations with us or otherwise earthly life a "long long time ago ..."  Again, these are now _scientifically possible_ musings if presently all but _unprovable_ ones.

Finally, a note to parents.  While I think that some of the horror scenes in this film are probably simply too intense, slimy and, yes "gross" for young children, I do believe it okay for most teenagers.  There may be some questions of bad language (I often have a tin ear for this, but I live and work on the South East side of Chicago ...).  The main couple in the film Elizabeth Shaw and her boyfriend Charlie apparently sleep together in the film (not shown, but something which becomes important as the film plays out ...).  Keeping these language and implied sexuality concerns in mind, I nonetheless would think that a teen/young adult would find the film's musings and their implications very, very interesting.  All in all, with parental consent, I'd recommend the film to high school teens and above.

ADDENDUM -- I would remind readers here, that I've been very impressed over the past several years with the Science Channel's television series Through the Worm Hole with Morgan Freeman.  Like any as yet incomplete television series, that series could "go off the deep end" sometime in the future.  However, some of the questions explored in this film have been discussed in a more sober way there.  It would behoove Catholics especially our younger ones to "take a look."  Otherwise, honestly we are going to find ourselves _needlessly_ being left in the dust.  Over 100 years ago, the Vatican, which could have chosen to put its head in the sand and "fear for the the best," instead chose to be brave and created the Pontifical Biblical Commission.  Today, Catholic Biblical scholarship is second to none and we don't fear Evolution or the developments in Historical-Literary Criticism as a threat to our faith.  PLEASE LETS NOT CHOOSE TO PUT OUR HEADS IN THE SAND NOW.


<< 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! :-) >>