Frankenweenie [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1142977/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv119.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121003/REVIEWS/121009987

Frankenweenie (directed by Tim Burton, screenplay by John August, help with the story by Leonard Ripps based on Tim Burton's very first stop motion animated short film which carried the same name) is a stop motion animated film, marvelously filmed "for effect" in black and white (honestly, who;d think of making an animated film in black and white anymore? ;-) which tells the story of Victor Frankenstein (voiced by Charlie Tahan) a somewhat nerdy kid living in a small town/subdivision somewhere in the United States today.

Victor prefers to tool around with gadgets in the attic of his family's house and playing with their dog, Sparky, to anything else while lovely parents, Mr and Mrs Frankenstein (voiced by Martin Short and Catherine O'Hara) and here especially dad, Mr. Frankenstein, would prefer that he go outside and play some sports.

So Victor goes out for baseball.  At his first game he shows potential, hitting a ball for a very, very long home run.  Tragically however, Sparky, who's used to "playing catch" with Victor runs out to get the ball.  He gets to it before any of the opposing team's players can reach it, but as he trots back to return the ball to Victor, he gets hit by a car.  So Victor, who actually could have become a pretty good baseball player, tragically finds that the game/sport killed his favorite friend in the world, his pet dog Sparky.

The next scene shows a very sad Victor along with his almost as sad and certainly guilt ridden parents burying Sparky in the town's pet cemetery.  What now?  Victor's best friend is dead and Victor will probably not play baseball for a very long, long time...

Well Victor being something "somewhat nerdy," is enrolled in his school's "advanced science class," a class that is filled with some _really nerdy_ and, honestly, _very creepy-looking_ kids, especially hunch-backed Edgar"E" Gore (voiced by Atticus Schaffer).  The teacher is a wild-eyed/crazed mad-scientist-looking _immigrant_ with a Polish name, Mr. Rzykruski (voiced by Martin Landau).  He keeps telling the kids that "this country does not produce enough scientists so it has to _import_ them" (which actually is true, but seriously, Mr Rzykruski is one scary looking dude ...

It turns out that one of the demonstrations that Mr. Rzykruski shows the kids is that he could make a dead frog's limbs move by running electricity through it.  Well, Victor, seeing dead frogs limbs stretch and contract as Mr. Rzykruski sends and then stops an electrical current through its body, gets an idea...

That afternoon, he collects all kinds of random electrical gadgets from around the house and takes them to the attic.  Then at night he goes out to the pet cemetery and digs up sparky's casket.  He connects the dead body of Sparky to all the gadgets that he collected from around the house.  Then for good measure, and with a thunderstorm arriving, he sends up several balloons and kites into the sky each tethered with electrical wires which connects to ... Sparky.  Finally a lightning strikes the kites and sends a frightening surge of electricity through the the wires into Sparky's body, and ... the rest of the movie follows ;-)

I did think the film was a very cute retelling of the Frankenstein story.  I'm not sure that I particularly liked Mr. Rzykruski being so obviously portrayed as first "a foreigner" and then as "a Slav" (Polish at that).  But then the Frankenstein legend written in WASPish England always played-up Frankenstein's German accent/ "foreign mannerisms" in the past.  So this could be a more current adaptation of the same idea.  Similarly, the "ignorant/fearful villagers" of the original Frankenstein story became the _small thinking_ "Hey, don't have your dog run through my petunias," anti-science "neighbors" of Victor (Frankenstein)'s subdivision ;-).   And then there's the portrayal of the really creepy looking "nerds" of Mr. Rzykruski's sceince class ...

Anyway, the film's both cute and somewhat disturbing.  But then it was intended to be a kinda scary story for little kids.  So IMHO, I'm giving it a pass and I do think it works, and works well!  Good job Mr. Burton!


<< 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! :-) >>     

Taken 2 [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1397280/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv118.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121003/REVIEWS/121009988

Taken 2 (directed by Olivier Megaton, screenplay by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen) as a PG-13 action flick is, IMHO, about the best as they come.  Indeed, while I know that there'd be many who'd disagree with me, I'd say that this film is _better_ than the original.

As in the first film, Taken [2008], retired presumed former CIA assassin Bryan Mills (played by Liam Neeson) is having difficulty coping with normal life.  The beginning of the film has him coming over to the home of his ex wife Lenore (played by Famke Jannsen) and their daughter Kim (played by Maggie Grace).  Kim had failed her driving test twice and they had an appointment to help her work on her parallel parking.  But Kim's not home.  "Why?"  "Well she has a boyfriend."  "A boyfriend?"  "She didn't want to tell you.  Promise me that you're not going to interfere."  "How could I?  I don't know she is."  "Well you flew to a city of 12 million and two days were able to find her."  Hmm... the next scene has Bryan knocking on the door of Kim's new boyfriend Jamie (played by Luke Grimes).  "Promise you're not going to kill this one" Kim asks in front of him ;-).  The daughters of overprotective fathers in law enforcement all over the world probably could relate ;-).

Anyway the movie really starts rolling afterwards.  Lenore who had been remarried confesses to Bryan a few days later that her second marriage is at its end.  Apparently husband #2 proved to have his own issues.  The immediate problem, however, was that soon to be ex-husband #2 in a pique of anger had cancelled the reservations for the vacation that she, hubby #2 and Kim were to take and she didn't know what to do.  As sensitively as a former CIA assassin, who's marriage to Lenore had collapsed no doubt to his previous lack of sensitivity, could offer ... Bryan suggests "Well, I'm going actually to Istambul for a couple of days next week to do 'a job.'   I could stay there for a week or two afterwards with you two if you'd like.  No pressure.  Just call me before the job is finished and I'll stay on.  If not, I'll just come home again."  In the next scene, we see an Arab sheik thanking Bryan for his security detail work for him in Istambul.  Brian checks his phone, there are no messages.  So he shrugs and appears to be ready to get his specialized suitcase with all his "gear" to head home to the States when his ex-wife and daughter surprise him.  They came out to Istambul afterall!

Now all would go like a nice family vacation (if on a rather blank credit card ...) if ... it had not turned out that the Godfather of the Albanian clan that had run that sex trafficking ring in Paris that had abducted Kim in the first movie and which Bryan had so thoroughly "dismantled" / rampaged through in the first movie did not take the deaths of so many of his clansmen, family members and even his own son so "personally."  Never mind that the son had run an evil sex trafficking ring, a son is a son, and Bryan had killed him.  So the father of this Albanian quasi-mafia clan (played exquisitely by character actor Rade Serbedija) wants revenge.  When he finds out from his sources that Bryan is in Istambul, well ... the rest of the movie follows ...

Parents do note here that the movie is, appropriately in my opinion, PG-13.  So there's a lot of shooting, a lot of glass breaking, a _great_ car chase scene where Kim (who, remember, had failed her driving test _twice_) had to drive. "Dad, I don't want to drive."  "Well, do you know how to shoot?" "No." "Then drive!" ;-) ;-), and some quasi-torture scenes (when Brian and his wife do fall into the hands of the Albanian quasi-mafia clan).  However, the camera never lingers and much is (thankfully) left for the imagination.

All in all, as I wrote above as far as an action flick goes, this is honestly an excellent one.  It's all the better when one realizes that underneath it all is basically the story of a father trying really hard to return back to his family, while his family is slowly coming to appreciate what their largely "absent father/husband" had to do "for a living" to "put food on the table."  The first movie really, really clicked with a lot of viewers.  I have a feeling that this one will too. ;-)


<< 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 Perks of Being A Wallflower [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (written and directed by Stephen Chbosky [IMDb] based on his acclaimed 1999 novel by the same name) is worthy of the book about a quiet high school kid with some "back-burning issues" named Charlie.  And IMHO it will almost certainly receive Academy Award nominations in at least a one or another of the following categories: best adapted screenplay (!), best actress in a supporting role (Emma Watson for playing "Sam," Charlie's friend, who he has a terrible and largely unattainable crush on), best actor in a supporting role (Ezra Miller for playing "Sam's" gay step-brother Patrick) and _possibly_ though it'd be more of a longshot, best actor in a leading role (Logan Lehrman for playing Charlie).

By mentioning that one of the key characters in both the book and the film is portrayed as gay, I'm positive that I will have immediately "caused concern" to a fair number of readers who will have found my blog.  On the other hand: (1) that's been part of my point of creating it - to give readers and often especially parents a clear idea of what a film is about so that they can approach it (and their teenage charges) in an informed way and (2) having immediately noted that one of the central characters in the story is portrayed as being gay and further noting now that both the film and the book portray Charlie testing the waters of both sex and drugs, I'd honestly ask parents to reflect back to their teenage years and then seek to assure parents that the descriptions of these escapades given in both the film and the book are IMHO completely believable.

For complete disclosure there's a sequence in the book that was apparently filmed but deleted from the "final theatrical cut" of the film involving Charlie's couple years older but still in high school sister Candace (played by Nina Dobrev) getting pregnant and her asking Charlie to take her to the abortion clinic to have an abortion.  (Parents be _more or less certain_ that this sequence will probably be present in the film's eventual release on DVD/BluRay...)

Yet about 80% of what is described in both the book and the film I lived myself when I was a teenager and I'd give the author/director the benefit of the doubt on the other 20% because I was a somewhat more sheltered kid than than Charlie (though not much more) and more to the point, I was _not_ omnipresent.  So what I did not experience directly, I certainly heard/discussed/debated/argued/whispered about during lunch time conversations in school, on the track during practice after school or in pizza parlors on Friday/Saturday nights.

Now this film [2012] was made some 12-13 years after the book [1999] was written and the book itself was set in suburban Pittsburgh, PA in 1992 (The film continues to be set in suburban Pittsburgh but basically today).   I know from my own experience that one's perspectives do change with time.  One fairly significant difference between the book [1999] and the film [2012] is in its portrayal of the family's faith practices.  In the book [1999], there is only fleeting mention of Charlie's family's Catholicism.  Charlie's family's Catholicism plays a significantly larger (and IMHO ultimately _positive_) role in the film.

To be sure, there is a scene about 1/2 into the film where the director directly compares Charlie's reception of Communion at Christmas (Midnight) Mass to taking LSD.  And I admit that as I watched this scene, my heart sank as I thought angrily to myself "WHY(!) did you have to do this to your film?" But that was only the first reference (an introduction) to the family's religion and further references became increasingly positive.  There's a scene in which Charlie comes to school after having obviously received ashes on his forehead on Ash Wednesday and his more "worldly" vegan/Buddhist girlfriend of the time (as only a high school Caucasian kid from "suburban Pittsburgh" could be a "vegan/Buddhist") Mary Elizabeth (played by Mae Whitman) who was increasingly coming to annoy him, tries to wipe the ashes off (to his even greater irritation).  Reference is made later to Easter (and therefore Resurrection...) and the family is shown several times as praying at dinner. (Indeed, the increase in focus on the family's Catholicism _may_ have played a role in cutting the original book's above mentioned "abortion scene" from at least the theatrical release of the film).

I found the increased reference to Charlie's family's Catholicism both admirable and sensible.  After all, even though the film was in its most general sense a "log" of a somewhat nerdy kid's (a "wallflower's") freshman year in high school, there were definitely "issues" going on.  We're told at the beginning of the film by Charlie that he had "been away" (at some sort of an institution) for the good part of the previous (8th grade) year after his best friend had committed suicide.  Then it was obvious that Charlie had been grieving for the loss of his favorite Aunt Helen (played by Melanie Lynskey) who had died just before Christmas when he was 7 years old.  The last person in the family that she had talked to was Charlie ... So there were _definite issues_ going on in Charlie's family and therefore it is _not_ surprising to me at all that Charlie's family's religion would come into play in its coping with (1) the tragic loss of a beloved Aunt (though as the reader here would suspect, there was certainly more to the story than I'm letting on here ...) and (2) dealing with specifically Charlie's coping with loss of his aunt at 7 and then his best friend (to suicide) some 6-7 years later.  Further, it wouldn't surprise me that the author/director would see this religious aspect playing out a little more clearly in one's early 40s when making the film as opposed to in one's late 20s when he was writing the book.  We grow...

So all in all folks, this is a very good movie.  Parents, I do think that the PG-13 rating, though perhaps somewhat borderline (to R), is appropriate.  I say this because while I do think that parents should be aware of what their kids are watching, this _may_ be one of those films that would be best to leave both teens (and parents) to watch separately / by themselves.  (There's a great scene in the book but not in the movie) about Charlie's father's "big talk" to Charlie as Charlie heads off on his first date (with above mentioned Mary Elizabeth).  Charlie's dad does all the talking, says little but canned if doubtlessly _sincere_ "good advice," and then pats Charlie on the back and says "Good talking to you son..." :-)  But teens just wait, you'll be parents or of your parents' age one day! ;-)  I find the whole film to be like that.  It makes for a wonderful story, but it's one that I'd probably _die_ if I had to see it together with my folks when I was still in high school ;-) ;-).  I had many more reservations with last year's film The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo [2011] which I described then as a hard-R and didn't see any particularly compelling reason for a teen under-17 would "need" to see it.  In contrast folks, this film may honestly become the current generation's The Breakfast Club [1985] / Dead Poet's Society [1989].  Yes, it's that good.

So good job Stephen Chbosky and good job rest of the cast!


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

House at the End of the Street [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review

House at the End of the Street (directed by Mark Donderai, screenplay by David Loucka, story by Jonathan Mostow) is a rather good "horror story" of the Hitchcockian mold.

Recently divorced Sarah (played by Elizabeth Shue), a nurse, and her teenage daughter Elissa (played by Jennifer Lawrence) move to a very nice spacious rental at the "edge of the woods," indeed at the edge of a State Park, near the "end of the street" in some suburban or upstate New York town.  The geography is important.  Bad things tend to happen "at the edge of town/civilization."  Perhaps even a somewhat "political" statement is being made here because we're told that "the edge of the woods" is actually "the edge of a State Park," hence "government owned" and in some American circles today, "government," _any_ "government" is equated with chaos, evil, sinister intent, etc.  So Sarah and Elissa are moving "to the edge of all that is good in this world."

Now the house is rather large for what a nurse could normally afford.  However, this particular house is something of a bargain because of what happened at the neighboring house, the true "house at the end of the street."  A couple of years ago, the very troubled teenage daughter of the family that lived there had brutally murdered her parents and then ran off into those woods at the edge of the street and never came back.  It was assumed that she somehow drowned in a nearby (again, presumably  public) "reservoir."  In any case, her body had never been recovered.

We're told that the townspeople, especially those who lived near the house where this awful event took place were, above all, upset because it "drove down their property values."  So here, presumably stereotypical "yuppie Republicans" were upset not so much that something deeply tragic had happened nearby, but rather that it hurt their pocketbooks.  (I find analyzing the "subtext" in horror films to always be "quite fun" ;-).  In any case, the sordid tragedy that happened in that "house at the end of the street" is presumably the main reason why Sarah and her teenage daughter could afford to rent the place next door...

To their surprise and to Sarah's horror soon after moving-in, the two discover that "the house at the end of the street" is _not_ abandoned.  Instead, the son of the murdered parents lived there now.  The son, named Ryan (played by Max Theriot) himself had something of a troubled past.  We're told that he had been sent to live with his aunt a number of years prior to the daughter's (his sister's) subsequent murder of the parents.  Now an adult, he chose to quietly live there in the house following the deaths of his parents and presumed death of his sister even if the townspeople and especially its young people really hated Ryan on account of his/his family's sordid past.

Into this local drama, of course, enter the recently divorced Sarah and her daughter Elissa, who are completely from out of town and who moved there only because Sarah got a job at a nearby hospital.  Elissa in particular enters the story nursing anger/resentment over the failed relationship of her parents.  Sarah on the other hand is working through the anger over having been more or less obviously betrayed and/or mistreated (in any number of ways) by her former husband.

These two, perhaps inevitable, stews of resentments come to clash over their perceptions of their new neighbor, Ryan.  Elissa sees a victim, who was arguably mistreated by his parents in some unspecified way even before their murder, and now is being horribly mistreated by the townspeople including many of her classmates in her new school.  Sarah who had been "burned" (mistreated/betrayed/both?) by her former husband sees Ryan as simply an unexpected and certainly unwanted danger to her and especially to her still "young/naive" daughter.

Who turns out to be right?  Well see the movie ;-)

I found the movie to be surprisingly good, and (as is often the case) even better after sitting down to write about it.  It certainly won't win any Oscars, and I didn't (and wouldn't necessarily want to) pay full price for it.  But I would imagine that it would make for a pretty good older teen / young adult date movie, or something to definitely bring home and watch at home when it becomes a rental.

I don't think that the film is suited for the very young (you pretty much would have to be at least a teenager to understand its dynamics) but I do think that the PG-13 rating is appropriate.


<< 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! :-) >>   

Looper [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv116.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120926/REVIEWS/120929993

Looper (written and directed by Rian Johnson) is a characteristically dark but rather compelling science fiction movie that uses the concept of time travel to invite viewers to reflect on the consequences of actions (and of our actions).  As a Catholic reviewer, I do have warn readers here that the resolution of the story is legitimately unsettling and a fair question could be asked: "shouldn't there have been another way?"   To say more than this would result in giving too much away, but Catholic readers who do see the movie (especially of my age and older) would immediately understand why the film's resolution would pose some problems.

But let's to the story ... Sometime around 2044 time-travel was invented.  However, it was immediately declared illegal presumably because of its sinister possibilities.  But as is often the case, outlawing something only puts that something into the hands of outlaws.  So, the mafia of the future (circa 2074) finds a way to use this technology to dispose of people to get rid of.

The mafia does so by sending the people it wants eliminated thirty years into the past to a specific location at a specific time, where a hit man (called a "Looper") is waiting for the victim and quickly dispatches him.  Indeed so efficient is the process that the well prepared Looper comes to the site with a a time piece, a gun and a fairly large sheet of canvas laid out at exactly the location (in a cornfield) where the victim would materialize.  After shooting and killing the victim, the Looper would simply wrap the victim up in the canvas sheet throw the wrapped-up body into his truck and take them to an incinerator for complete disposal. 

Occasionally, the mafia would send the Looper back 30 years in time to be eliminated by his younger self.  This was called "closing the loop."  The young Loopers would then realize that they have exactly 30 years to live.  What happens if the younger self does not kill the older self?  Well that's what the movie is about.

Joe (played by Joseph Gordon-Lewitt) is a Looper living in 2044.  How does he feel about his job?  We don't really know.  In a voice-over near the beginning of the film we hear from Joe that "Loopers don't generally think things through."  On the other hand, Joe does seem to have plans.  After going out to his appointed cornfield at the appointed time, immediately shooting the victim who materializes before him, wrapping him up in the tarp which he had meticulously placed over the exact site where the victim materializes, and throwing the body wrapped in the tarp into the back of his pickup truck, he goes to a diner, where he orders a meal and practices his French.  Apparently shooting people materializing in his present from the future is not all that he aspires for...

After getting a sense of Joe's routine, we the viewers are informed that apparently a new mafia boss in the future, known simply as "The Rain Maker," is apparently on a vendetta against the Loopers.  So suddenly a lot of them are finding their older selves being sent back to Joe's present to be expired.  Now some of the Loopers don't seem to care (because they feel assured of 30 years of more life).   A friend of Joe's, also a Looper, named Seth (played by Paul Dano) gets freaked out by the implication of killing his own older self and finds he can't do it.  However, the mafia won't tolerate "loose ends" and so Seth and his older self (played by Frank Brennan) end really, really badly that only reconciliation of time travel paradoxes could adequately portray (Yes, Parents take note ... Seth's and his older self's ends are quite gruesome...).

Still shaken by the death of his friend, Joe finds his own self materialize at the appointed place and time before him, and is unable to shoot him either.  It's not so much that he wasn't willing to do so it, but that the Older Joe (played by Bruce Willis) materializes ready to quickly defend himself.  (Remember that Joe "thought things through" a bit more than the other Loopers....)   And the Old Joe came back to 2044 with a mission.  He was going to find and kill that mafia "Rain Maker" as a boy so that he doesn't grow-up to harm either him or Joe's wife in the future, named Summer Qing (played by Qing Xu).

Old Joe comes back knowing that "The Rainmaker" was born in a specific hospital on a certain day.  It had been 10 years since the birth of the child in question and three boys had been born in that hospital on that day.  However with help of his wife Joe had done his research.  He came back to 2044 knowing where each of those three 10 year old boys were living.  And he came back to kill them all believing that this would change both his destiny and that of his wife.  But to save himself and his wife, the Older Joe would have to kill three little boys.  And of course those three boys have mothers who love them.

This then is the paradox that the younger Joe faces, does he help his older self save himself and his wife (who the younger Joe had not yet even met) or does he help a single mother named Sara (played by Emily Blunt) protect her son?   

He finds a solution.  Again, I did find it problematic and I suspect that many people would find it problematic as well.  Still it does make you think.  What would you do? 

Parents, this film is an appropriately R-rated movie for its violence and occasional nudity / hooker sexuality.  One can also wonder why the future is so often portrayed in such adark way where the men are generally assassins and the women generally hookers.  In any case, though the film does "make you think" it's definitely not "for the little ones."


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

Hotel Transylvania [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB listing

Hotel Transylvania (directed by Genndy Tartakovsky, screenplay by Peter Bayhman and Robert Smigel, story by Todd Durham and Dan and Kevin Hageman) is an animated parable about exclusion, reconciliation and ... finding a way to positively/happily move on.

Dracula (voiced by Adam Sandler) a vampire, having lost his wife to a mob of angry villagers terrified of him, retreats to the woods with his and his wife's infant daughter Mavis into the words where he uses his fortune (he is a count after all) to build a retreat called "Hotel Transylvania" intended _exlusively_ for "monsters" who could go there and "to be themselves."  The hotel becomes  very popular place for the "excluded" -- Frankenstein (voiced by Kevin James) and his wife Eunice (voiced by Fran Deschner), Wayne and Wanda Werewolf (voiced by Steven Buscemi and Molly Shannon) and their brood werewolf cubs (they are "animals" after all ...), Griffin the Invisible Man (voiced by David Spade) and assorted zombies (often working as "staff" ... :-).  But it _also_ becomes a very isolated and lonely place for Mavis (voiced by Selena Gomez) as she approaches her "teenage" 118th birthday ;-).

What to do?  Dracula tries to protect his daughter as best he can from the evil threat of bigoted humans who he believes hate them.  But one day, a bumbling "Euro-traveling" human named Jonathan (voiced by Andy Samberg) finds the hotel and finds it kinda cool!  Wasn't he scared of the zombies protecting the perimeter?  Of course not, he found them quaint.  And worse, at 19-20 he's the same age in "human years" as Mavis.  Much ensues ... ;-).

Parents, this is a lovely story for pretty much everyone except possibly the smallest of children.  The monsters are scared of the humans and think that they are evil.  But it's been 100-200 years since the Gothic novels about Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolfman were written.  And today's humans kinda find them cool and kinda would want them to be part of their lives.  So what to do?  What to do? 

Honestly, it makes for a lovely, lovely and _hopeful_ children's story!

Finally, parents, like many recently released animated films, this film has been released in both 3D and 2D.  IMHO the 3D continues to _not_ be necessary to appreciate the story (I saw the film happily in 2D) though I would imagine that the 3D would probably be quite good as there are scenes in this animated picture that would appear to me would probably have looked really, really cool in 3D.  HOWEVER, I still continue to believe that 3D films are being made primarily to give the studios an excuse to charge an additional $3-4/ticket.  And I wish to tell parents here that the 2D version worked just fine ;-).


<< 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! :-) >>  

Liberal Arts [2012]

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

IMdb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1102140/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120919/REVIEWS/120919981

Liberal Arts (written / directed by and starring Josh Radner) is a lovely film about college life though it must be said it largely takes the perspective of someone approaching middle age looking back.

At the beginning of the film, we meet Jesse Fisher (played by Josh Radnor) a mid-30 something New Yorker and former liberal arts major who's not exactly "living the dream."   Yes, he does have a job, copy-writing for ad agency or public relations firm.  But he's also getting divorced and that gets him an apartment, yes "still in Manhattan," but one that requires him to go to the laundramat to wash his clothes ...

Sitting in a book store, in a new shirt that he had to buy because someone had run off with his laundry, feeling kinda down, Jesse gets a phone call from Professor Peter Hoberg (played by Richard Jenkins) an old professor friend of his from the "small liberal arts college way out in Ohio" where he had gone to school.  Professor Hoberg was retiring and he needed somebody to say a few nice words ("to lie" ;-) about him and the kindly old Prof thought that "no one could lie better [about him] than Jesse."  So he invites Jesse to come over for his retirement party.  Having nothing better to do Jesse accepts the invite as he jokingly puts it from his "second all time favorite professor." ;-)

A few weeks later, in a rental car (no one in one's right mind, unless one was super-rich would own a car in Manhattan because ... where the heck could you afford to park it?) Jesse arrives at his sweet little alma mater, and ... the experience ... energizes him.  Yes, he knows he no longer belongs there ... but ... he can relate _exactly_ to the 19 year olds that passing all around him. 

Yes, he meets a bright-eyed optimistic student there named Zippy (played by Elizabeth Olsen) who's a daughter of some other friends of the retiring Prof. Hoberg who are also attending the party.  And yes the two initially "hit it off" and much of the film that follows is about "will he or not ..."  But he also meets a couple of other students including the bookish, brooding Dean (played by John Magaro) who may have been "kinda like" but perhaps even more bookish, brooding than Jesse when he was at school, and Nat (played by Zac Efron) who's something of a "stoner" but above all happy and probably very much _unlike_ Jesse when he had been at school.

Much lovely nostalgia (and the putting of nostalgia in its proper place...) ensues.  Among other things, Jesse meets his "all time favorite professor," Romantics Prof. Judith Fairfield (played by Allison Janney) ... and learns a thing or two.

I have to admit that I loved this movie, and as has been the case so often as a result of this blog, I've come to love it all the more as a result of sitting down and writing about it.

YET ... even though I think that Zippy's character was very well drawn and perhaps a lot of young women could learn something from her, I do think the film remains one that takes the perspective of "the alum" over
"the student."   

Still for most of us college is a time in our lives that is 4-5 years (My time was actually much longer more like 15 between college, grad school and back to the seminary...).  But then we have then decades upon decades, the rest of our lives ... to reminisce ;-). 

And you know what?  That can be kinda nice ;-).  Good job Mr Radnor!


<< 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! :-) >>