The Heat [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review

The Heat [2013] (directed by Paul Feig, screenplay by Katie Dippold) is the Bridesmaids [2011] of  "odd couple" / "cop buddy" movies: Think here of the Eddie Murphy / Judge Reinhold Beverly Hills Cop [1984+] series or the Dan Aykroyd / Tom Hanks vehicle Dragnet [1987] only here both the "stuffy, by the books" character, FBI Agent Ashburn (played by Sandra Bullock), and the "gritty, streetwise" character, Boston P.D. Det, Mullins (played by Melissa McCarthy), are women.

Ever by-the-books (indeed, she probably knows them from Yale by heart...), the moderately successful but not particularly liked by most of her coworkers (and thus never promoted...) New York based FBI agent Ashburn is sent by her boss (played by Damian Bichir) to Boston (perhaps in part to just get rid of her ...) to investigate / take-down a new and particularly vicious if still somewhat shadowy drug lord who had recently arrived there.  Soon after arriving, she crosses paths with a local force of nature in the form of BPD Det. Mullins, also super-competent, also disliked by her coworkers but at least also feared by them.

After giving-up on trying to get Mullins to stand-down and get out of her way, Ashburn (on advice of her far more pragmatic boss back in NY who simply doesn't understand why Ashburn would not want to work with local law enforcement "One would think that you'd want to learn from her...") accepts the inevitable and brings the streetwise Det. Mullins into the case.  Many, often extended laugh-out-loud (way into the next scene or two) situations ensue... ;-)

Particularly amusing in the film is Mullins' family -- basically the same family from The Fighter [2010] though taken to comedic extremes.  With her hair ever frazzled, chain smokin' Ma (played by Jane Curtin) always greets her hard-boiled (but actually moderately successful...) police detective daughter by flipping her off.  Why?  Well Det. Mullins had sent her own brother to jail.  "What kindah pehson would rat-out her own brahther?" Ma asks.  Well we find out why and while none of us would particularly enjoy doing that to our loved ones either, most of us would probably understand ...

The rest of Det. Mullins' family is a similarly sincere if often hopelessly disordered mess.  Dad (played by Michael Tucci) had a thing for hopelessly corny "athletic/religious art:"  Ever on velvet, Jesus in a Red Sox uniform with a giant bat hitting a baseball outta Fenway Pahk, Jesus in a Bruins uniform bodychecking some other hockey player into the bahds at Bahston Gahden.  At one point in the film, the family has to be quickly evacuated from their home to a hotel for their protection -- ma, pa, three or four brothers, plus two rather high-maintenance girl-friends of theirs -- and one wonders: "Oh my, if these people really had to go into a "witness protection program" how could one possibly "hide" them? ;-)

Then as Agent Ashburn / Det. Mullins work on their case, they encounter a veritable parade of villains and potential villains of every conceivable look or ethnicity.  It's one really messed up Bahston.  But it is all done with a smile. 

Parents, this film is very crude.  So I'm not sure you'd want to take a pre-teen to the film (though I'm not sure that they'd get many of the jokes anyway).  However, like most of Melissa McCarthy's other films, if one can get past the occasional crudity, this is often a very funny movie especially if one's ever been faced with "a glass ceiling." 


<< 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! :-) >>

Dirty Wars [2013]

MPAA (R)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
RogerEbert.com (S. Boone) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review

Dirty Wars [2013] (directed by Rick Rowley, writer David Riker and Jeremy Scahill) is a documentary in which Jeremy Scahill, national security correspondant for The Nation magazine seeks to shed light on the largely secret war that's being fought in our name against Al Queda and other terrorist groups.

Why would one care?  Well, when something is secret, not just "the good" and "the necessary" are hidden but also "the problematic," "the corrupt" and "the screw-ups."   And if this underside of our secret war is not periodically exposed, then this can eventually cause some real problems.

The documentary follows the story of three problematic screw-ups:

The first occurred in Afghanistan where a journalist Scahill came learned of a previously nondescript Afghan family in the hinterlands screaming for justice after four of their family members were killed for no reason in a night raid that even local NATO commanders did not know about.  The family had been celebrating the birth of a son (home video shows the family dancing).  Then the father of the newborn went outside (either because he heard something or because, well, he just needed to go outside) and ... got shot dead an American sniper.  Before the killing stopped, 3 other members of the family were dead.  And for what?  Nothing.  The family was screaming to the journalist that they had been pro-American and that the father who had been shot had been actually an American trained Afghan police officer.  And yes, it would seem that this really was a screw-up because a some days after the incident, an American general showed-up at their family's compound with a ceremonial sheep given to them to sacrifice in compensation.  (The Afghan family had photos of the conciliatory visit of the American general as well...)  But who was he?  Well he was the head of JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command), the command that later killed Bin Laden.

What else does JSOC do?  Well it did kill Bin Laden.  It has also been responsible for the majority of the drone and otherwise remote strikes across that part of the world, including apparently a cruise missile strike in Yemen that, rather than wiping out a terrorist training camp, all but wiped-out a harmless Bedouin clan in the hinterlands of said Yemen that has been herding sheep in those mountains since the basically the time of Abraham.  And a Yemeni journalist who first exposed this tragic remote massacre is languishing in a Yemeni jail as a result of an expressly requested personal favor asked for by President Obama of the President of Yemen.  Basically, a Yememi journalist is languishing in a Yemeni jail so as to not embarrass an American President.  (We don't jail journalists.  We have others jail journalists for us ...).   

Finally, JSOC was apparently responsible for the drone strikes that killed the American Muslim preacher al-Awalki (who had, in fact, radicalized and had joined AlQueda out there in Yemen).  Yet some days later in a separate strike JSOC also killed al-Awalki's 16 year old son.  What did _he_ do?  Nothing ... yet.  But Scahill does ask the question of where have we come to when we've started to kill people simply because they _may_ grow-up to want to kill us?  (Think of The Godfather Part II [1974], that was basically the plot-trajectory the young Vito "Corleone" growing-up to come back to Sicily to avenge the death of his father).  Have we really come to this?

So what's the value of a documentary like this?  Well, even if one doesn't particularly like facing its content (nobody likes to be embarrassed, nobody likes to hear bad things about people who we love, trust and hope are doing their best), documentaries like this are informative and therefore help us to make informed decisions.  Without said information, it is (by definition) impossible to do that.

So as uncomfortable as this documentary must make the viewer feel, it will help make future mistakes like these less likely (other mistakes though hopefully less of them will still probably occur).  And our interest in documentaries like this will also help us to appreciate what others, non-Americans, are going through in the War on Terror, hopefully helping us to empathize with their suffering as well.

So all in all a very good film.  It's painful to watch, but necessary if we are to remain the country that we are hoping to be defending.


<< 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 Source Family [2013]

MPAA (Unrated, would be R)  Roger Moore (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars w. Expl.)

IMDb listing
Chicago Tribune (R. Moore) review

The Source Family [2013] (directed by Maria Demopoulos and Jodi Wille) is a documentary that I recently saw at the Music Box Theatre in Chicago.  The film is now available at Amazon Instant Video.  I went to see the film after reading the review by Roger Moore in the Chicago Tribune the week that it played here.

I found the film intriguing because it is about a 1960s era Los Angeles based cult, now defunct, originating around a health food restaurant named The Source and its charismatic founder/owner, born James Edward Baker in Cincinnati in the 1920s but who after fighting in WW II settled in L.A., became interested in "healthy food/healthy living," founded said health food restaurant and came to go by the name of Father Yod and later YaHoWha (yes, that's pretty close to the Divine Name of the Biblical Old Testament, and yes he came, for a time, to believe that he was God ...).  Most interestingly for me was that the film was made by some of his former followers who, even 40+ years after the experience of living with him at his "commune" first in a Hollywood Hills mansion in L.A. and later on a farm in rural Hawaii (both clearly costing a pretty penny... all ostensibly paid for by said health food restaurant The Source...), did not find the experience to have been a particularly negative one.  To be sure, the former followers are pretty honest in the film about "Father Yod's" behavioral oddities and some of the problematic (at times frankly, illegal) doctrines of his teachings.  Still I do believe that the film does serve as a window into the world of a charismatic cult FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CULT'S OWN MEMBERS and can provide clues as to why someone would join such a group.  (Parents, obviously this film is for adults and not for your kids ...)

It's pretty clear that post-WW II Los Angeles / California became something of a hot bed for the formation of some rather strange (and, often enough, quite dangerous) cults.  The list is not a particularly pretty one:  Charles Manson and the Manson Family, Jim Jones and his Peoples' Temple (which ended-up committing Mass suicide in Guyana, even L.Ron Hubbard and his Church of Scientology.  Fr. Yod's Source Family would certainly fall within this milieu.  Note also that I've reviewed a number of films here -- Martha Marcy May Marlene [2011], Higher Ground [2011], The Master [2012] and even The First Rasta [2010]  -- which deal with cults or otherwise "new(er) religions" / communities.  Together the films can help one better understand both the origins of "cults" and also the origins/dynamics of their excesses. 

And indeed, the current film, The Source Family [2013], follows the trajectory of this group from the arrival of the one who became its founder James Edward Baker to L.A. as a veteran following WW II all the way to his death following an (odd) hang-gliding accident in Hawaii in 1975 as Father Yod / YaHoWha with a cult of followers who thought of him as (a) God.  That's one heck of a trip ... So how did he / his group get to that point?

Well it would seem that James Edward Baker returned from WW II (presumably in the Pacific) interested in martial arts, Eastern philosophy and Eastern (largely vegetarian) diet.  So he studied those subjects in Los Angeles (on the Pacific coast, with as much contact with East Asia as any in the United States).  At some point, he founded said health food restaurant called "The Source" on the Sunset Strip.  The restaurant became popular because it was one of the first of its kind and also perhaps (my conjecture) because it served Eastern (largely vegetarian) food but was run by an (American) Westerner.  So if any patrons had any questions, he was able to quite easily explain (in language that they could readily understand) the various ins-and-outs of Eastern cooking, Martial arts and, as time went on, of Eastern philosophy.  A group started to form around him.  And since he did apparently see himself as a "bridge figure," as he read up on Eastern philosophy, he also tried to read up on Western religious traditions/mysticism, the result being that he became a rather interesting "guru"/"go-to guy" in late-50s / early-60s  Los Angeles.  Then came the mid and late 1960s and "all h.. broke loose.  His restaurant became a "go-to place" of ALL THE HIP AND HAPPENING PEOPLE who both LIVED and simply PASSED THROUGH LOS ANGELES.

Well, he was BOTH generous (both the Hollywood Hills Mansion and later the farm in Hawaii where he and his cult followers lived were bought/supported with his money...) and THE ABOVE KIND OF ADULATION (rock stars, movie producers, all kinds of people were _coming to him_ with questions looking for answers) HAD TO GO TO HIS HEAD.  Hence he started dressing like a guru, took to going by the name Father Yod (and eventually the even more proglematic YaHoWha) and began to systematize "his previous teachings" into increasingly rigid/strange "doctrines."

It always fascinates me how both FOOD and SEX become such big doctrinal issues in religion.  (One would suppose that this is because the two comprise our two most basic instincts -- the drive to eat/survive and the drive to create/reproduce).  Almost every religion has rather complicated yet set rules regarding both diet and sexual relations and Father Yod's group certainly came to have both.  The group was strictly vegetarian and (at first) experimented quite freely with sex.  Later as James Edward Baker / Father Yod became more and more megalomaniacal (in his soon to be YaHoWha stage) HE simply took a fair amount of the women (a fair amount of them MINORS, this when he was in his 50s-60s ... and apparently parents BOTH inside and OUTSIDE the cult LET HIM).

His story is honestly a great testament to why adulation of anybody is NOT GOOD.  We need people not to simply "enable us" but to keep us grounded.

Perhaps the saving grace for James Edward Baker / Father Yod (even though he was a STATUTORY RAPIST having by the end of his life several under-aged wives) before he died in his rather strange hang-gliding accident (he had never hang-glided before but decided to jump off an 1100 foot cliff in a hang-glider for the first time anyway...) was that in those weeks before he died, he apparently came to the conclusion (on his own) that he wasn't God and BY LUCK (or perhaps providence) he died soon afterwards ... leaving his followers with good memories of him, RATHER THEN them ending up in Jail (like many of the followers of Charles Manson) or Dead (like the followers of Jim Jones and later David Karesh). 

In any case, NO ONE except perhaps GOD (God ABOVE/BEYOND US not "here") deserves unreserved adulation ... but what a fascinating / informative story. 
 

<< 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! :-) >>

Much Ado About Nothing [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  RE.com (4 stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (4+ Stars)

IMDb listing
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Much Ado About Nothing [2012] (directed and screenplay by Joss Whedon, based, of course, on William Shakespeare's celebrated play by the same name) is arguably the happiest (err... "merriest" ;-) surprise of this summer.  THIS FILM IS A JOY TO WATCH ;-)

Filmed over two weeks at the Santa Monica, CA home of director/screenwriter Joss Whedon and his wife, using actors/actresses from his various film and TV productions of the past, it is obvious from the get-go that the actors and actresses (and probably the film maker and crew) were having a ball making this film.  Though set in the current day (the male characters being "corporate warriors" relaxing at the home of their Boss rather than Knights relaxing at the home of their Lord) as far as I can tell, the dialogue is taken directly from Shakespeare's play.  Part of the joy of watching this film is seeing the actors/actresses so beautifully "sell the lines."  Yes, they are speaking in Shakespearean English, but "sold their lines" so well that they could have been simply speaking in a somewhat more obscure modern-day dialect.

So what then is the story about?  Well it is about Benedick (played by Alexis Denisof) and Beatrice (played by Amy Acker) both handsome/pretty, popular and witty but both tired/bored with MOTOS and at least at the beginning of the story a "merry war" of words against each other ;-).  Well in this, arguably one of the truly first "romantic comedies," could not stand.  So Benedick's boss Don Pedro (played by Reed Diamond) and friends Leonato (played by Clark Gregg) and Claudio (played by Fran Kranz) along with Beatrice's cousin Hero (played by Jillian Morgese) conspire together to "bring Signior Benedick and the Lady Beatrice into a mountain of affection with each other."  Much, of course, ensues ... ;-)

Among that which ensues is a subplot, which is potentially far less "merry" than the rest of the story, and one which derives from a second understanding of the meaning of the title of Shakespeare's play:  For in Shakespeare's time Much Ado About Nothing could be understood as it is commonly understood today as being necessarily a story that is "light" and "happy" (about "nothing").  However back in his day, title could also be understood as a play on the phrase Much Ado About Noting (that is, about gossip).  In the story, a rather vicious rumor about Beatrice's cousin Hero threatens to turn this otherwise very merry story into something else ... BUT since "All's well that ends well" (another title of one of Shakespeare's comedies) this story too ends well, with a reminder to the audience that "noting" (gossip) often amounts to "nothing" (nonsense...).

Anyway, I found this film to be an absolute delight to watch and would recommend it to anyone from High School age to Seniors (who still hear well enough to be able to enjoy the dialogue).  And at minimum, this film will deserve a "best adapted Screenplay" nomination come Oscar time ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Monsters University [2013]

MPAA (G)  CNS/USCCB (A-I)  RE.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
RE.com (M. Zoller-Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

IMHO, one's opinion of Monsters University [2013] (directed and screenplay/story cowritten by Dan Scanlon along with Robert L. Baird and Daniel Gerson), a "prequel" to Monsters Inc [2001] is going to depend both on (1) how much one loved the first movie and (2) how much one is willing to allow this movie to be different from the first. 

I write this because while many have lamented the PIXAR's "inability" to "capture the magic" of its much beloved previous film, I understand this second film, its relationship to the first and even PIXAR's current competence / legacy differently: To understand/appreciate this film, IMHO, one simply has to accept that it is a different film from the first.  Both as a prequel to the first and because of the nature of the first film (so focused on the absolutely adorable little human toddler who accidently enters into the Monsters' world) I believe that it simply had to be different from the first. 

Consequently, I actually applaud PIXAR's courage in making this second film in the manner that it did and I further applaud its courage in delivering the message that it did.  At it's best PIXAR has been both innovative and courageous inserting themes about loss (Up [2009]), loneliness (WALL-E [2008]) and even the facing of death (Toy Story 3 [2010]) in ostensibly child-oriented films that have left adult viewers both simply in awe and often wiping away tears.  There's a rather blunt/courageous message to Monsters University [2013] that becomes evident by the end that IMHO both needed to be said (even if in a "cartoon fashion" ;-) and makes THIS film worthy to be in the league of the other surprising/challenging PIXAR films listed above. 

But enough of defending the worthiness of Monsters University [2013] to carry the PIXAR imprimatur, what's the film about? ;-)  Well it gives the story of how amiable one-eyed goblin Mike (voiced again by Billy Crystal) and similarly amiable blue-furry Big Foot like monster Sullivan, Sully for short (voiced again by John Goodman) first became friends: they met in college, at ... Monsters U ;-). 

Both had their issues/stories when first met, freshman year:  Mike had always dreamed of going there and was apparently a first generation college student from his family.  Sully, on the other hand, was a "legacy" coming from a long line almost legendary "scarers."  Hence Mike arrived, wide-eyed and enthusiastic, eager to prove himself, while Sully arrived lazy and feeling entitled.  Both were set straight soon enough by the tough Dean Hardscrabble (voiced by Helen Mirren).  Try as he might, Mike simply did not impress her as someone capable of being a "successful scarer," and Sully quickly put himself on academic probation by simply not doing the work.

In peril of being thrown out of Monsters U., the two had a chance to redeem themselves: winning the annual scaring competition organized by Monsters U's fraternity council.  HOWEVER, since both were deemed "losers" by most of the frats -- Mike for being "geeky" and Sully for not applying himself, the two end up in the "loser frat" (the Omelunga Kappas ... that is "the OKays" ;-).  Such "losers" were the members of this frat, that their frat house was actually the house of one of one of its most geety frat members, his mom being the "house mom" ;-).  The cool frat were the ROAR M ROARS and they were more or less expecting to win (and they even offered Sully a chance to join their frat if only after got his act together...).  Much often very funny ensues ...

The surprise is ... the ending.  As I write above, this is what makes the film worthy of PIXAR's label.  And it ought to give both "Dean Hardscrabble" as well a lot of actual university deans as well as parents and their children preparing to go to college in the years to come much to think about.  To say more here, would say too much... ;-)

In any case, folks at PIXAR, once again, good and surprising 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! :-) >>

The Bling Ring [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  RE.com (1 1/2 Stars)  AVclub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
RogerEbert.com (I. Vishnevetsky) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review

The first thing that needs to be said about The Bling Ring [2013] (screenplay written and directed by Sofia Coppola, based on the Vanity Fair article "The Suspect Ware Louboutins" by Nancy Jo Sales) is that it does not paint a pretty picture of contemporary youth and celebrity culture.  This is an appropriately R-rated picture for rampant, almost incessant, drug use (financed here by stolen goods looted from celebrity homes) and a powdered/fake smiling sociopathic morality that really (sincerely here...) doesn't care so long as "the good times roll."  That said, the second thing that should be said about this film is that this is, of course, its point.  For the second time in several months a youth directed film (the other being Spring Breakers [2012]) has come out that is so searing that it should be able to cut through even the deepest of denials / ecstasy-driven hazes screaming (1) to parents/authority figures WAKE-UP, (2) to the culture HAVE WE REALLY COME TO THIS? and (3) to young people themselves FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T DO THIS.

To be sure, there have always been films like this.  In my young adult years there was Less Than Zero [1987].  In my parents' generation there was The Wild One [1953] (which the New York Times reviewer at the time commended for being "a picture of extraordinary candor and courage, a picture that tries to grasp an idea even if it falls short of it").  The difference between those films of yesteryear and the two that came out recently is that the older films could be more easily dismissed.  Less Than Zero [1987] was about "rich kids from Beverly Hills" and The Wild One [1953] was about "bikers" (both a relatively small subsets of society).  In contrast, the main characters of the two more recent films (interestingly in both cases, predominantly young women) are thoroughly "main stream."  The central characters of Spring Breakers [2012] are to have been attending a utterly nondescript state college somewhere in Tennessee.  The main characters of the current film, The Bling Ring [2013], come from an utterly nondescript suburb (nominally Calabasas) of Los Angeles.  And in both cases, the young people play their parents and actually even their religion (significant if passing allusions to which are present, again interestingly enough, in both films) for fools. 

What then to make of a film that dramatizes a real crime spree perpetrated by five real-life suburban L.A. teenagers -- played in the film by Katie Chang, Israel Brousssard, Emma Watson, Claire Julian, Taissa Farmiga --  who were so enamored by the lifestyles of today's young "rich and famous" (Paris Hilton, Orlando Bloom, Megan Fox, Lyndsey Lohan ...) that they figured out a way to steal a bit of it (if for the time that it lasted) for themselves?  Well, at minimum, the film should disturb us:

How is it that the parents of these five teenagers would not have an idea that their kids were doing all of this?  After all at minimum, the crime spree itself required that their teenage kids be "out partying" quite late at night repeatedly over an extended period of months (and one would imagine on relatively odd nights ... unless they always broke into celebrity homes "on weekends").  Then these were teenagers, there's only so much "clubbing" that one could do without valid ids (or jobs for that matter to pay for said "bar hopping" ...).

From a societal point of view, I suppose one could say that some of this would be inevitable.  A celebrity culture requires "fans" to adore the "celebrities."  Inevitably, there are going to be "fans" who will take their "adoration" a few steps further one (or even society) would like.  While Katie Chang's character appeared to be less discerning (stealing from rich/flashy people, period), as a group, these teens were fixated on stealing from celebrities (stealing a $1000 purse from Paris Hilton's belongings seemed to mean more than "simply" stealing a $1000 purse...).  But then, honestly, celebrity culture is largely about achieving such "brand recognition."

Finally, to the young: Even if one doesn't immediately understand theft to be morally wrong -- it is, "Thou shalt not steal" is a pretty unambiguous part of the Ten Commandments, and even "coveting" (desiring other people's spouses / stuff) is ALSO against said Ten Commandments -- then at least self-preservation ought to come into play. Eventually everybody gets caught, and the tragedy for those perpetrating this sin is that if one is "really good" at stealing, all that it means is that one's going to get caught with something far larger (and be punished far more greatly) than if one wasn't particularly good at it and was caught right away stealing something much smaller.  This is a standard explanation that I give to kids confessing stealing the proverbial "pack of gum at Walgreens" - Please DON'T DO IT, because EVERYBODY EVENTUALLY GETS CAUGHT and THE "BETTER" YOU ARE AT DOING THIS, THE MORE LIKELY YOU'RE JUST GOING TO GET CAUGHT STEALING SOMETHING BIGGER AND YOU'LL JUST GET INTO EVEN MORE TROUBLE).  It is a very good thing to have a healthy respect for Evil.  We are NEVER "smart enough" and if we "walk the dark side," WE ALL EVENTUALLY GET CAUGHT.

So great film folks!  I hope your film helps prevent other young people from doing something similarly stupid.  Again folks, EVERYBODY eventually gets caught.


<< 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! :-) >>

World War Z [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Chicago SunTimes (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
Chicago SunTimes (R. Roeper) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

World War Z [2013] (directed by Marc Forster, screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard and Damon Lindelof, screen story by Matthew Michael Carnahan and J. Michael Straczynski, based on the novel by Max Brooks [IMdb]) is a summer blockbuster zombie/horror movie, end of story.  It's ancestors might have been much lower-budget fare, but somewhere in the 1970s-80s Hollywood's larger studios figured out that if they improved the special effects a bit, these films would almost always oodles of money.  More recently, the studios realized that if they tweaked the formula a bit more -- "internationalizing" the carnage, perhaps adding "3D" -- they could make even more.

So folks, if you're expecting "Citizen Zombie" then save your money, there's more intelligent fare out there.  But if you're looking for basically a dumbed down (err ... "more Expressionist") version of Contagion [2011]  (Let's face it, even a world-wide outbreak of a mutated Ebola virus couldn't possibly compete with the "worst case scenario" of a zombie plague that turns previously healthy people into crazed flesh-craving zombies within 10-15 seconds "after first bite" by an infected ex-human/turned ravenous zombie) then this might be the summer diversion for you ;-)

And we get to watch the ever likable Brad Pitt playing Gerry Lane, a vague "U.N. super-hero" (an investigator of some sort who the U.N. "goes to" when there's some crisis somewhere and the world is screaming for answers) frantically flying around the world trying to figure out what's causing this zombie apocalypse, how to bring it under control, and perhaps most amusingly, its "Patient Zero" ;-).

His globe trotting takes him (1) to a rain-drenched airbase (that really could be anywhere, but we're told is S. Korea, check, Asian market...), (2) to Israel which probably to its own surprise has found that the "protective wall" that it built around its country to separate it from those living in the Palestinian territories also "works remarkably well against zombies..." (well, as even the trailer suggests, "only to a point ..." ;-) and (3) to an appropriately looking, appropriately "nestled in the foothills" of some European mountain chain, "W.H.O. facility" (European scientists/bureaucrats always knew where to build their labs ;-) where he can talk to some important-looking people with accents and lab coats about what he's discovered outside.

Yes, as goofy as all this may sound, it really is quite entertaining ;-).  Just think, the same movie that used to be made for $50,000 can now be made for $200,000,000 AND STILL MAKE MONEY and more than those who used to make those $50K productions would have ever imagined ;-)

So what can one say about this film: Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky would probably have hated something as stupid as this.  But Kafka?  My sense is that he'd probably gotten a kick out of it ... ;-). 



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