Hyde Park on Hudson [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

Hyde Park on Hudson (directed by Roger Michell, screenplay by Richard Nelson) is a biopic/period piece about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (played remarkably in the film Bill Murray).

FDR was elected President of the United States in 1932 three years after the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the subsequent onset of the Great Depression in 1929, author of the New Deal package of legislation that subsequently led if slowly the country out of the Great Depression (at the cost of greatly expanding the role of the federal government in the United States for which many in the "free market wing" of the Republican Party have never ever forgiven him) and who led the United States during most of World War II.

Yet, this film is not about FDR's politics or achievements.  Instead, it is more about his personal life (and failings...) that came to light after the 1991 death of Margaret "Daisy" Suckley (played in the film by Laura Linney) and a suitcase full of intimate letters between her and the President had been found under her bed.  The letters were published in a non-fiction book by Geoffrey Ward (of Ken Burn's Civil War [1985] documentary series fame) entitled Closest Compainion: The Unknown Story of the Intimate Friendship Between Franklin Roosevelt and Margaret Suckley [1995].  A 2007 article about Margaret "Daisy" Suckley appearing in the New York Times entitled At the Home of F.D.R.'s Secret Friend is worth the read as well.

A criticism of the film could be made that if one went to see it without much knowledge of FDR, then one would leave the film thinking of him as simply another (vaguely) "Important Man" who mistreated (took liberties) with vulnerable (younger, and since he was President after all, necessarily less powerful) women.  HOWEVER, I do believe that this film is more complex than simply some kind of a "right wing" hatchet job (Those who have been following my blog would know that I've repeatedly noted here that Hollywood is actually far more conservative in its outlook than its libertine reputation would suggest.  For those who would doubt me here, just consider the way the that the last two sets of Academy Awards turned out [2011] [2012]):

First, the increasing mainstreaming of previously considered "feminist" radicalism _has_ resulted in some remarkable and justified historical revision.  To me, the most obvious example of this phenomenon was the portrayal of male-female relations in the film Defiance [2009] (and the book on which the film was based) about the band of Jewish partisans led by the Bielski Brothers in Nazi-occupied Byelorussia during World War II.  In the past, that story would have been presented as simply a "glowing" account of the heroism of the (largely male) Jewish partisans with the women not playing much of a role at all.  Instead, in Defiance [2009], women were key to the story and often produced a rightfully embarrassing challenge to the way history had previously been remembered.  To put it bluntly: the women were shown as not feeling particularly safe around their male counterparts.  Yes, the male partisans were certainly better than the Nazis (who fed all Jews, male and female, into the gas chambers).  But in a culture of men taking "forest wives" from among the women in their band, the women were forced to "make choices" that weren't exactly "free" ("Should I 'choose' to be a 'forest wife' of this guy or take my chances at being simply taken / raped by one or another of the "freedom fighters" ...?).

So, in the current film, FDR is perhaps a "great man."  On the other hand, he did use women who would have been considered "below his station" including the young, then presumably 20-something, Daisy.  To be sure, he "was generous" to the women he used in this way (rewarded them with access and favors that were beyond the reach what anyone "of a lower station."  BUT ... I do believe the "outing" of FDR in this way to be a fair criticism / correction of the historical record, especially since the Catholic Church itself is (hopefully) coming out of an era of scandal where many of the same tactics of "reward" for inclined to not "out" a "great man" (a priest), and punishment (of those who would be more inclined to do so) had been part of the (clerical / good ole boy) culture of the Church as well...

Second, this is not the first film in which director, Roger Michell has approached the topic of "complex" (and often unequal) relationships between younger women and older men.  Consider simply two of his films Morning Glory [2010] (which was released a few months after I began my blog), and Venus [2006] (which came out before the start of my blog).  Add that the director is English and the current film takes place in the context of the 1939 visit by King George and Queen Elizabeth of England (of The King's Speech [2010] fame) to FDR at his summer retreat on the Hudson and one could understand why this director would be interested in this story at this time.

So what then to make of the film?  I thought it was well acted and crafted.  I do think that some on the fringes of the American Right will probably get an undo thrill in watching a film about the personal life and failings of a towering (and Liberal) icon like FDR.  BUT ... there is a story here in this film and it is one that will hopefully help current and future generations of both men and women from making the same mistakes.

Finally, the film has an R-rating and probably appropriately so.  There is no nudity in the film, but the themes are such that many/most parents would probably appreciate being consulted prior to letting their child (and even a teen in high school) see the film.  


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

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  Michael Phillips (2 1/2 Stars)  AV Club (B-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Michael Phillips review
AV Club review

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey [2012] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Peter Jackson along with Guillermo del Toro, Fran Walsh and Philipa Boyens) is the first of three films based on the J.R.R. Tolkien [IMDb] novel The Hobbit [Amazn] planned to be released over the course of the next several years.

Given that Peter Jackson was able to fit Tolkien's [IMDb] whole Lord of the Rings trilogy into a series of three films, the breaking up of a single book, The Hobbit, (shorter than any of the three books making the LOTR trilogy) also into three films each as long as those made for the LOTR series seems at first, second and third blush to be a brazen attempt to further milk previous commercial success.

But here, honestly, I'd like to say that I DON'T CARE.  If one was at all enamored by (or perhaps more fittingly here, enchanted by ;-) the LOTR series, then just bask in the opportunity to spend a few extra hours in the "Middle Earth" of these films because the New Zealand location, the CGI and the cinematography in general are once again simply AWESOME.  I saw the cheapest possible version of this movie that I could see (the 2D and presumably 24 frame/sec version) and I still was awed.  And I would imagine that _this time_ the 3D, 3D IMAX and 48 frames/sec versions would be _well worth the price_.

Further, I fully intend to recommend this film to younger vocation prospects because The Hobbit, perhaps even more than the LOTR, is about a fundamental question in Life: Does one want to spend it living safely/comfortably as a "half-ling" in a house _already_ "half in the ground" and in a "shire" where "nothing unexpected ever happens?" OR is one ABLE TO TAKE THE RISK, like Bilbo Baggins (played in the film by Martin Freeman) and _accept_ (however reluctantly initially) the invitation of "the Wizard" Gandalf (played by Ian McKellen) and go on "an unexpected journey," a journey that asks one to take up a fight that isn't even really one's own - helping the fun-loving but somewhat crass "Dwarves" (also "little people") regain their dignity/homeland?  Can one do that?

There was a Servite priest who was my "Wizard Gandalf" who entered into my life when I was in my 20s, and I am a Servite priest as a result and I've _certainly_ experienced _plenty of adventures_ both big and small and often across the planet ever since.

So I just loved this movie and encourage ANYONE who still can imagine defending justice and "slaying dragons" to go see it and especially the young: YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DREAM and see a world that is bigger than simply the mundane, to see a world that is _wonder-full_ and ultimately worthy of the greatest wonder -- God.


  << 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 ;-) >>

Playing for Keeps [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

Playing for Keeps (directed by Gabriele Muccino, screenplay by Robbie Fox) continues a several years long Hollywood trend of producing surprisingly serious (or perhaps even inappropriately serious, if one doesn't realize what one is getting into) "rom-coms."

Let me explain. This film is about a fictional former Scottish soccer star named George (played by Gerard Butler) and his American former wife Stacie (played by Jessica Biel).  She had apparently been "swept off of her feet" initially her charming Scottish accented soccer star ex who she met while traveling Europe in her college-student 20s.  But had left him some years later after having growing tired of (and increasingly humiliated by) being asked to play the role of a "ball player's wife" in a partied-up social environment that we Americans "across the pond" understand all too well as well: The "ball player's wife" is asked to smile in the stands while her husband "scores" even as she knows that there are at least ten other beautiful women right behind her who're "smiling" at her husband as well ... After some years of this and having a kid with George named Lewis (by film's start 10 years old and played by Noah Lomax), Stacie had packed up her bags and moved back to more sensible/down-to-earth suburban Virginia to start her life anew.

And that she did.  We find early in the film that Stacie had found a new, more sensible guy, named Matt (played by James Tupper) whom after three years of living with him (along with her/George's son...) she was now preparing to marry.   In the meantime, George's soccer playing career had run its course and the beginning of the film finds him, in his late thirties, having come to Virginia to try to finally reconnect with his kid (and perhaps, of course, with Stacie).  

So this then is the setup for this "rom-com."  It's not a bad film.  But a _light_ "date movie" it certainly is not.  I'm not sure I'd want to take children of divorce to it either.  And I would be ESPECIALLY CAREFUL with YOUNG CHILDREN of troubled marriages/divorce (honestly, Parents take note ...) because this film plays with emotions in a rollercoaster sort of a way that I'd frankly find cruel when it comes to children actually living such situations.

HOWEVER, as a _serious_ "date movie," for young couples contemplating _growing-up_ and entering into a relationship in a serious way (and that would honestly come to mean a serious, lifelong marital commitment...), I honestly think the film could be excellent because it really shows THE EFFECTS (if still in a "safe" / "detached" sort of way) of _not growing-up_ or taking one's relationships seriously. 

I write this because look back at the setup for this film: No matter how this film's plot is resolved (and I'm not going to tell you) _somebody_ in the story is going to get hurt.  The only questions are who/how many? and how much?

Yes, there are points of comic relief in the film.  During the course of the film, the former soccer star George takes on the task of serving as "coach" for Lewis' little-league soccer team, thus finding himself dealing with an assortment of largely crayon drawn upscale soccer moms / parents -- played by Catherine Zeta Jones, Uma Thurman and Dennis Quaid among others.  But even their characters / "stories" are surprisingly sad / pathetic.

So even if the movie does have some laughs, it is fundamentally _not_ a particularly cheerful film.  However, if it helps couples to enter into de facto serious relationships _seriously_ then it would be worth the watch.  Honestly folks, no one wants to hurt people when we are young, BUT if we take our time growing up ... we will.


  << 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 ;-) >>

Killing them Softly [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

My sense is that one's reaction to the quite violent, certainly appropriately R-rated film (parents take note...) film Killing them Softly (directed and screenplay by Andrew Dominik based on the novel by George V. Higgins), certainly aiming for Oscar consideration, will depend on one's politics.

This is because the film set in the New Orleans underworld in the fall of 2008 as the current Financial Crisis was unfolding juxtaposes speeches made at the time by the outgoing President G.W. Bush, his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the incoming President Barrack Obama, with a terribly ill-conceived and consequently botched attempt by a small group of "lower level wiseguys" to "knock-over" a mob run (hence already illegal) poker game.

Thus to buy-into the film one has to ask oneself if one accepts the film's premise that the U.S. economy is _also_ being run by a clique of perhaps far richer but still not altogether bright / "out of their depth" "white-collar wiseguys."  America's right-wing not withstanding, my sense is that probably the vast majority of American adult viewers and probably most viewers world wide will probably giddily relish indulging in the film's cynical / "hard boiled" premise even as they suspect the view to be over-simplified.  (To this date NO ONE has been charged much less gone to jail for the 2008 Wall Street financial meltdown...).

To the story... The film begins with lower level "wiseguy" Johnny Amato (played by Vincent Curatola) who runs a New Orleans dry-cleaning business talking two 20-something drifter-lowlifes, Frankie (played by Schoot McNairy) and Russell (played by Ben Mendelsohn), into knocking-over an illegal card game run for the mob by 40-something Markie Trattman (played by Ray Liotta).  The game had already been "knocked-over" _once_, a number of years before, and some months afterwards in a drunken stupor, Markie had _stupidly_ confessed to having staged it himself.  After being subsequently roughed-up/making appropriate amends, Markie had been given back responsibility for the card game (presumably because the mob bosses felt that Markie would ensure that the game would now be "the safest" in town ... from their perspective).

But that's how Johnny Amato got his "bright idea."  IF ANYBODY "knocked-over" Markie's card game, guess who the Mob's gonna blame? -- Markie.  So good-ole Johnny explains to Frankie: "We have to do this because if we don't SOMEBODY ELSE WILL, and _we'll_ then be kicking ourselves for being so stupid for having had the idea and not doing it first..." (Sounds kinda like the logic behind the "mortgage backed derivatives" frenzy of the mid-2000s)  "You're a genius boss!" exclaims Frankie ... and a few days later there's Frankie and Aussie-accented Russell with pantyhose over their heads knocking over Markie's card game ...

But of course, the Mob's a little more intelligent in sifting through the pieces after Frankie and Russell knocked-over the card game than Johnny expected.  A few days later there's a mob "driver" (played by Richard Jenkins) talking to the cool, straight talking "go to fixer"/assassin Jackie (played by Brad Pitt).  The "driver" explains that the Mob still has a "soft spot" for Markie, screw-up that he's been ... Jackie tells him that "guilty or not" Markie's gotta go down "in order to _restore confidence_" (again, sound familiar? ...).

And then there are the other three "clowns."  What of them?  Well Jackie suggests "outsourcing" some of the work to a friend named Mickey (played by James Gandolfini) from Maryland because Jackie himself knew one of the guys involved and it's "it's kinda hard to kill someone you've had a working relationship with ..."

The rest of the film _methodically_ ensues ...

Again, almost every adult in America and probably across the world will understand this film.  The question is whether one buys its fundamental premise. And my sense is probably most viewers, at least on a gut level will...  I would add, that I suspect that both Brad Pitt (for Best Actor in a Leading Role) and Richard Jenkins (for Best Actor in a Supporting Role) will get consideration for Oscar nominations for their performances...

ADDENDUM - A great documentary on the 2008 Financial Crisis, reviewed here, and the winner for Best Documentary at the Oscars last year, was Inside Job [2010].


<< 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! :-) >>

Silver Linings Playbook [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

I am honestly baffled at the praise being given to Silver Linings Playbook (directed and screenplay by David O. Russell based on the novel by Matthew Quick) to say nothing of the "Oscar Buzz" that appears to surround it. Perhaps the buzz is the result of the book's/film's stab at presenting bi-polar / obsessive-compulsive disorder on screen.  Certainly, there have been plenty of dramas built around alcoholism/various kinds of addictions and even a few films about autism over the years.  But this film, honestly felt like a rather average romcom (though it perhaps intended to be more than this, but _didn't_ have the courage to be that then) only to be picked up and be inexplicably "graced" by (as is generally the case of Grace after all ...) more or less undeserved critical praise.

Don't get me wrong, I _like_ the actors.  I believe that Bradley Cooper's performance in The Words [2012] was far better than he (or that film) was given credit for (and arguably better than his performance here).  I _also_ like Jennifer Lawrence.  I was just beginning this blog when Winter's Bone [2010] came and and very quickly went, so I missed her there.  But she was _outstanding_ as Raven/Mystique in X-Men: First Generation [2011], basically "okay" (probably her biggest role but mostly "action") in The Hunger Games [2012] and even honestly quite good in the still "young" role in the recent horror picture House at the End of the Street [2012].  Then Robert De Niro is, of course, a legend.  But over all, this film feels far more like Meet the Parents [2000]/Fockers [2004] than Rain Man [1988], Clean and Sober [1988] or Shame [2011].  Consider simply last year's film, Take Shelter [2011] a film _also_ about borderline mental illness and how much more _gravitas_ it carried than this one.  I refuse to accept that Silver Linings Playbook is "as good as it gets" to take the title of another Hollywood film [1997] made about OCD.  SLP is not a terrible movie but IMHO it's not a particularly great one...

So what then is this rather average film about?  The film begins with Pat (played by Bradley Cooper) a former smalltime college professor who having been recently released from a State mental institution is now staying with his parents Pat, Sr (played by Robert De Niro) and Dolores (played by Jacki Weaver), his wife Veronica (played by Julia Stiles) who he is separated from having put a restraining order on him.

What did Pat do to warrant being placed in a State operated mental institution and even following release having a restraining order held against him by his estranged wife?  Well, coming home from work one day, he found his Department Head having sex with his wife in the shower and ... enraged (or perhaps ENRAGED) he nearly beat his now former Department Head to death.  Early in the film, we hear Pat telling the Counselor, Dr. Patel (played by Anupam Kher) who he's still required to see "I just had one bad incident in my life ..." and Dr. Patel, telling him in a calm but straight-forward voice "one bad incident can be enough..."  While incarcerated, Pat was diagnosed with having Bi-Polar disorder.

Back home now, trying to really hard to rebuild his life his shattered life on account of that "one bad incident" and still under all kinds of medication ... he _does_ exhibit _some_ classic characteristics of Manic behavior.  (1) Despite what has happened to him he remains almost "wildly optimistic."  Indeed, he calls his journal "The Silver Lining Playbook" from which the story gets its name.  And he honestly keeps believing that _somehow_ his estranged wife will take him back.  (2) Besides this almost insane and (one suspects) forced optimism, he stays up late at night, arguing with the books that he's reading (he used to teach literature...) and he tries really hard to put himself into great physical shape (again to try to win his estranged wife back).

We know, of course, that she's _not_ coming back.  And I think that more than a few of us looking at the film would wonder if he's really mentally ill.  BUT then he did nearly kill a man. BUT WHY DID HE DO THAT?  Because he caught him having sex with his wife in the shower?  BUT then why was his wife cheating on him to begin with...?

But none of this matters.  For the foreseeable future, Pat is going to be consigned to a whole lot of supervision while being prescribed a whole lot of psychiatric drugs (all with varying side-effects) with the goal of stabilizing him (rather than further destabilizing him).  AND YET he really should be happy that he's not in jail or still in a mental institution...

Into this story of a wounded, arguably shattered man, who's future is (one hopes) in the hands of competent experts at least as much as it is in his own hands, enters another wounded person.  She's a young widow named Tiffany (played by Jennifer Lawrence) who was actually a mutual friend of Pat and his estranged wife.  Tiffany _also_ took _her loss_ badly and began to act out in all sorts of (apparently sexually) inappropriate ways to the point that her parents finally had her institutionalized (for depression).  And she too, now out of the mental institution has also become a veteran of a rather robust regimen of psychiatric medicines.  (When the two sets of parents set these to broken 30-something year-olds together, Pat and Tiffany share stories of what it felt like to be on Lithium and so forth ...).

So there is the story.  It's awful.  It's confused.  Honestly more than a few viewers will wonder if either of these two people were really as "mentally ill" as diagnosed.  And yet _both_ had acted out (he once, she apparently for a sufficiently long amount of time to warrant serious concern by her parents/loved ones) in _dangerous ways_.  The coup de grace of course is that Pat's father is more or less obviously obsessive compulsive but beyond being asked by the Philadelphia Eagles to stop attending their games (because he would apparently get into fights in the stadium during their games), he's never been treated for anything...

But that then is life ... and again whatever secret doubts the viewer may have about the judgements/diagnoses that society has made about all three of these characters -- Pat, Tiffany and his father -- hopefully one understands _why_ society made those judgements.

So how does this movie flow from here?  Well, it's a Hollywood movie so it has to end reasonably well.  Much does ensue.  A narrative is sort of pieced together.  But the story isn't particularly pretty and it certainly is not neat.  It ends with perhaps as much ambiguity / confusion as it began:

Is Pat really that sick and can he "get better?"  Honestly, who knows?  BUT he really did have that _one really bad incident_ and honestly, would you/could you trust him?  Sigh ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Jab Tak Hai Jaan [2012]

MPAA (NR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Los Angeles Times [Mark Olsen]
Times of India [Gaurav Malani] [Meena Iyer]
Hindustan Times [Anupama Chopra]

I came across Jab Tak Hai Jaan (directed by famed and recently deceased Bollywood director Yash Chopra [IMDb], screenplay by Aditya Chopra [IMDb] along with Devika Bhagat [IMDb]) largely by accident here in Chicago.  I had been at our city's current "flagship" movie theater, the AMC River East 21 on Illinois Street, to see a different film and saw this film advertised.  Sticking to my earlier plans, I proceeded to see the film that I had come to see, but afterwards looked the current film on the IMDb database and made subsequent plans to see it as well.

And I'm certainly glad that I did.  Most moviegoers in the United States will now be familiar with the phrase "Bollywood," and even the grand sketches of its success "back in India."  The success of English language films like Monsoon Wedding [2001], Bride and Prejudice [2004], as well as actors/actresses like Irrfan Khan (appearing recently in Life of Pi [2012] as well as The Amazing Spider Man [2012]) Freida Pinto (Miral [2010], Rise of the Planet of the Apes [2011], The Immortals [2011] and Trishna [2012]) and Dev Patel (The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel [2012]) all having been introduced to American audiences in the Slumdog Millionaire [2008], have gradually increased American (and especially Hollywood) appreciation for the movie-making talent that exists on the Subcontinent.

Indeed, it would seem that American artistic/film-making community existing in Hollywood has tried very hard in recently years to embrace both the talent, and no doubt profit-making potential existing in the so-called "BRIC" countries -- BRAZIL (recent Hollywood productions The Incredible Hulk [2008] and Rio [2011] as well as the Brazilian films like Central Station (orig. Central do Brasil [1998], City of God (orig. Cidade de Deus) [2002] and The Craft (orig. Riscado) [2010], Day of Black (orig. Dia de Preto) [2011], Once Upon a Time Was I, Veronica (orig. Era uma vez eu, Verônica) [2012] reviewed here), RUSSIA (recent Hollywood productions like Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol [2011], The Darkest Hour [2012] (the Chernobyl Diaries [2012] take place in neighboring Ukraine ;-) as well as Russian films like Elena (orig. Елена) [2011] reviewed here), INDIA (English language films listed above as well as more "artsy" film-festival caliber Indian films like Patang [2012] and Valley of Saints [2012] reviewed here), CHINA (like the fantastic/"Indiana Jones" quality H.K. originating film Detective Dee and the Phantom Flame (orig. Di Renjie) [2010] as well as the more artsy but again of the highest quality Snow Flower and the Secret Fan [2011] reviewed here).

So it would seem both inevitable and IMHO supremely positive that well produced Indian language (and _excellently subtitled_) authentically Bollywood films would start showing regularly in American cinemas (and from the previews shown in conjunction with the showing of the current film, it would seem that a steady stream of Indian Bollywood films is going to start playing at the AMC River East theater hiere in Chicago).

So then, after such a rather long introduction to this film, what is it about? ;-).  Well not surprisingly (for Bollywood films) it's a grand and great love-story.

The film begins by introducing us viewers to Major Samar Anand (played by famed Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan [IMDb]).  He's presented as a legendary "sapper" (one who defuses bombs), who defuses the most intricate of IEDs (improvised explosive devices) set by Kashmiri (generally Muslim) terrorists/freedom fighters (depending on one's point of view) all across Kashmir.  And he does so WITHOUT EVER WEARING ANY PROTECTIVE GEAR.  He goes where only robots and other otherwise _very well protected sappers_ go and generally makes short work of diffusing seemingly incredibly complicated bombs.

Samar's character/job no doubt pays homage to both the recent Oscar-winning American film The Hurt Locker [2008] but above all to the Indian Sikh character named Kip in Michael Ondaatje's famed novel The English Patient (Amazon) made subsequently into an Academy Award winning film (Amazon).  In Ondaatje's story, Kip was portrayed as being "sapper" (and largely under-appreciated) during World War II.

In the current movie, Samar is certainly respected by his fellow soldiers in the Indian Army who consider him almost a legend.  It also becomes rather quickly clear that he's gained the admiration of some of India's young women as well.  In fact, in one of the first scenes of the movie, we see a beautiful young woman, who we soon learn is a young broadcast journalism apprentice "for the Discovery Channel" named Akira Rai (played by Anushka Sharma) come up with a scheme to try to draw his attention.  He decides to jump right in front of him into a huge, deep and cold reservior by whose banks he's gone to rest after disarming a particularly complicated IED, forcing him now to (eventually) jump in and rescue her as well.

Save Akira he does.  But after leaving her with his jacket to warm her (remember Kashmir is at the "roof of the world" so the water in its lakes would be _really cold_) he coldly drives off with his motorcycle back to the base, leaving her alone there to contemplate what just happened.

Now _why_ would someone become both such a risk-taker when it comes to disarming bombs and then so cold around women?  (One recalls famous question asked of another man named "Sam" in another this time Hollywood film (Casablanca [1942]) asking him why he treats such good-looking women women so badly, noting "Remember, they might grow scare one day...").  But both Sam in Casablanca and Samar in this film had their stories ... And with a somewhat hokey plot-twist (but look this film _is_ a romance) Akira soon finds out Samar's: For inside Samar's coat pocket, which he had left her to warm with, was his journal ... and the rest of the story unspools from there ...

For 10 years back, when Samar was in his 20s, Akira reads, Samar was a carefree Indian expat living in London, working odd jobs and happily playing Punjabi songs on the street on his guitar.  And it was there that he had fallen in love ... to a far wealthier Indian young woman, named Meera (played by Katrina Kaif) his age, who was destined to take-over her father's (played by Anupam Kher) highly successful London-based business.

How would these two meet?  Well, Samar first spotted Meera while working as a street sweeper in front of a presumably Catholic Church in a fashionable residential district of London.  (Meera would go to the Church to pray at night and ask "Sir Jesus" for various favors.  But being a good girl, would always make some sort of a sacrifice as well. "Sir Jesus if you grant me this, I'll give-up that..."  It's kind of a naive kind of prayer but it suits her still optimistic 20-something character).  Samar spotted her coming out of the Church but she didn't really notice him.

However, she does notice him some days later happily playing his Punjabi songs in some London park somewhere and she later comes to him with a request: She wanted him to teach her how to play a nice Punjabi song for her father's upcoming 50th birthday which would also actually signal the beginning of his retirement.  (There's an ancient Indian tradition that the first stage of one's life is to be devoted to the basic physical aspects of life, above all caring for and creating one's family.  Then in the second stage of one's life, beginning around 50 years of age, with the parents having been taken care or and the kids grown and _getting married_ to begin to _withdraw_ from the physical world and begin to focus more on one's Spiritual life.  Approaching 50 myself now, I do have to say that I do think that I appreciate now some of the wisdom present in this tradition).

So Meera's _not_ infatuated with Samar at this point.  She just wants to hire him to teach her how to play her guitar better.  But Samar, who is perhaps more taken with her already, tells her that he doesn't want her money.  Instead, he tells her that he'll teach her for free, BUT that she's going to have to trust him, because, he's going to teach her to play more than just the notes.  And he does ... and in the course of those lessons that involve far more than just guitar playing (but emphatically _not_ "simply hopping into bed together" that _again_ would be way too "easy") she does both begin to find herself, and yes, fall for him.

But, of course, the two are not of the same _class_ (not necessarily caste but class is the issue here).  And Meera's dad (remember, he's getting himself ready for a traditional Indian style retirement and so has to get all his loose ends together) has de facto _arranged_ a nice marriage for his daughter to a nice, good-looking. responsible and almost certainly to be successful English-boy Meera's age named Roger (played by Jay Conroy).  What to do?  Pick the almost certainly to be successful English "hunk" named Roger, or the smiling, hardworking and charming Samar who's dirt poor and actually lives with a similarly dirt-poor Pakistani room-mate (played by Sharib Hashmi)?

Asking Sir Jesus to help her to "do the right thing" and follow her father's wishes, she promises to not get further involved with Samar.  BUT, of course, she _can't_ keep that promise. ;-)

Then when she definitively realizes that she can't be without Samar (and tells him that) Samar kisses her and drives off on his motorcycle ONLY TO GET INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF HER.  She drops to her knees ... and promises Sir Jesus if he spares Samar his life that she'll _never see him again_.  Samar lives ...  4 days later, Meera comes over to the hospital to tell Samar (who's very happy to see her ...) to tell him that she prayed for his life ... and ... since he has it back, she now must never see him again AND SO LONG AS SHE NEVER SEES HIM AGAIN, HE'LL BE "OKAY."  Readers, do you now understand _why_ Samar could take a job like a "bomb diffusing expert" and NEVER wear any protective gear?  (So long as he never saw Meera, he would live, but without her he just wanted to die...)

Now that's ONE HECK OF A MESSED-UP / "IMPOSSIBLE" ROMANCE.  And certainly, the _young_ currently 20-something Akira, reading this Samar's sad story is REALLY, REALLY IMPRESSED.  So she asks her boss to allow her to make a story about "The Man Who Can Not Die" ... and much, much still ensues.

It's a Bollywood movie so all has to end well.  Even (and thankfully) Meera's somewhat messed-up theology gets fixed (why would "Sir Jesus" keep Samar alive only to keep him apart from her???) But much still happens and even the more or less inevitable evolving love triangle -- involving Samar, Meera and Akira -- gets resolved, in interestingly enough, a definitely an "Eastern" sort of way ;-).

It does make for a great and grand love story and yes I'm _not_ at all surprised that Meera and later Akira would find Samar (and his life) so fascinating.  For life is, indeed, more than just "hitting the right notes."

All in all a Great story and great job! ;-)


<< 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! :-) >> 

Hitchcock [2012]

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

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Hitchcock (directed by Sasha Gervasi, screenplay by John J. McLaughlin, based on the book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho [1990] by Stephen Rebello) definitely has its moments.

The beginning sequence where the character Alfred Hitchcock [IMDb] (played marvelously here by Anthony Hopkins) introduces himself to the audience is just great -- both shocking and funny -- exactly what one imagines the famous director to have been like.  And Hopkins does not let up, giving a great performance and probably one of the funniest/most enjoyable to watch (and probably to have played) of his entire career.

Similarly, Helen Mirren does an outstanding job playing Hitchcock's wife Alma who both had a life/career of her own and (as the viewer sees....) had to put-up with quite a bit of annoyances, some frankly a bit creepy (Parents take note ... I would have preferred honestly an "R" rating to "PG-13" for the film), being married to in her own words (with appropriate half-playful/half-serious inflection to be imagined here by the reader) "the great Alfred Hitchcock."

Even Scarlet Johansson gives a stellar performance as Janet Leigh [IMDb] who played the key role of Marion Crane the "wayward secretary" murdered by the "psycho" Norman Bates in Alfred Hitchcock's famous film.  In Hitchcock's Psycho [1960], Marion Crane was simply a "striking" (and to Hitchcock and much of late-1950s Hollywood, "striking" meant "young, voluptuous and blonde") but "bad" woman who the script leads to a very, very _bad end_.  Yet Johansson's Janet Leigh reminds the viewer that Leigh (in contrast to Marion Crane) was far more than a "fattened calf led to slaughter." Leigh who played the "bad" Marion Crane who was murdered in the shower by Norman Bates was _actually_ a wife and mother concerned actually about how her role would look _not merely_ to "movie audiences" but to her family and especially to her kids.  It all kinda makes the famous shower/murder scene in Psycho feel a bit different.  Yet, Janet Leigh was _not merely_ a wife/mother.  She was _also_ a professional actress.  As I write this, I find myself actually _in awe_ of Scarlet Johanssen's performance, even if it was supporting to Mirren's and Hopkins'.

Yet, despite these three outstanding performances -- and one could add James D'Arcy's admittedly rather small role in this film (but again IMHO _flawlessly_ executed) of playing Anthony Perkins [IMDb] (who played Norman Bates in Hitchcock's Psycho) -- this film about Hitchcock making his famous film still feels strikingly _flat_.

How could it be that _so many_ individual performances in this film would be _so good_ and yet the final product be soooo ... mediocre?  Blame it on the direction, blame it on the editing or on the script.  But it's honestly a shame.  Both the idea for the film and the individual performances were just great.  Yet this would seem to be one film that just did not come together.  And that deserves one big sigh ...


<< 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! :-) >>