Closed Circuit [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Closed Circuit [2013] (directed by John Crowley, screenplay by Steven Knight) is a somewhat predictable film about the current Anglo-American status of things in the war on terror.  That is, though set in the U.K., the story could have easily been set in the United States as well.

In the opening sequence of the film, a truck bomb explodes in an open air produce market in London.  The attack is chronicled by at least a dozen security cams but there appeared nothing that security forces could have done to prevent it.

The rest of the film is about the lead-up to the trial of the attack's supposed ring-leader, a Turkish immigrant named Faroukh Erdogan (played by Denis Moschitto) arrested a few days after the attack at his home in London.  Faroukh had moved back to London three years previous after having been "away" (where? well... somewhere...) several years previous, and when he had returned he had frequented various (radical) mosques in the London area.  We're also told that he was turned-in by a source that the authorities would not like to disclose.  So, and this is the film ... Faroukh was going to be tried under a famously problematic post-9/11 (or in the U.K. post 7/7) legal regime.

What kind of legal regime?  Well, at least part of his trial was going to be held in secret to protect the authorities' "sources and methods."  Neither the defendant nor his primary defense attorney (played in the film by Eric Bana) were going to be allowed to see the secret evidence against the defendant tying him to the bombing.   Instead, A SEPARATE attorney (played in the film by Rebecca Hall) with appropriate clearance was going to see (and argue in parallel if secret proceedings) this secret evidence.  Thus the open trial would quite literally be "for show."  The real action was going to be held in secret, though FOR SOME REASON there remained the belief on the part of the society/legal system that the "open trial" would somehow reach the same conclusions as the secret one (despite not ever seeing and challenging/vetting secret evidence against the defendant). 

Such a story basically writes itself:  For I am positive that any group of 3-4 twenty-year olds given a description of the legal regime in which such a trial would proceed could come up with truly innumerable ways that such a trial would end in disaster (at minimum for the defendant and quite possibly for society as well).

Indeed, I remember well when this kind of legal regime was being imposed in the U.S. in the years after 9/11.  I remember wondering: Wait a minute, one (I/we) could be simply abducted from the streets (err ... "arrested") by shadowy, black-garbed / black-masked security personnel, held indefinitely in some "undisclosed location" (secret prison) somewhere, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced and even shot all on basis of evidence that one (I/we) would never be allowed to see and without the authorities never needing to acknowledge that they even had one (me/us) in custody ALL TO PROTECT "SOURCES AND METHODS."
 
And to be honest, while the (never acknowledged but no doubt stroke induced) half-smiling G.W. Bush-era V.P. Dick Cheney is long gone, none of this has really gone away under the better smiling / more photogenic Obama Administration. 

Anyway, this film plays out one of really countless possible "nightmare scenarios" that could occur when a court system / security apparatus isn't required to be openly accountable to the citizenry, and we do live in a time when we are asked to simply trust the powers that be.

Is this a great film?  To be honest, not particularly, but it reminds us (again) of the times in which we live.


<< 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! :-) >>

Austenland [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  RE.com (2 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (D)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Austenland [2013] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Jerusha Hess along with Shannon Hale [IMDb] on whose novel the film was based) is probably not for everybody (and apparently not for a lot of critics ;-).

However, the concept is IMHO really quite good (dare one say "brilliant" ... ;-) and the more one thinks about it, the more I believe that even the most ardent "rolling their eyes" initial skeptics would have to concede that the story-tellers/film-makers here were onto something (Twilight Saga's Stephenie Meyer was a producer).   And if you've ever been obsessed by a particular author or a particular era, or have known someone who was, then this film could really be for you ;-)

The story revolves around Jane Hayes (played by Keri Russell) a late 20s/early 30 something woman from New York today who's been a life-long Jane Austen fanatic.  She's memorized the first three chapters of Pride and Prejudice since first reading it in high school.  She carries an I <3 Darcy handbag.  There's a I <3 Darcy banner in her cubicle at work.  She drinks from an I <3 Darcy coffee cup.  Her bedroom in her apartment looks like it could have come from a "Regency Era" doll-house.  She has figurines of Jane Austen characters scattered all over her house and in her cubicle at work.  She has a life-sized cut-out poster of Colin Firth playing Mr. Darcy in her living room.  Finally, she's been dumped by boyfriends because when she's brought them-up to her apartment and put-on a dvd of a Jane Austen story, she's really wanted to watch the film ("Wait, wait, you're gonna miss the best part..." ;-)

So it becomes inevitable that someone like Jane would catch wind of a England based resort called "Austenland" that promises patrons an "authentic immersive experience" into the "Regency Era" of Jane Austen's novels and against her best friend's advice Jane drops the better portion of her life-savings (at her age, probably a few grand) to have the Jane Austen experience of her dreams.  Still thinking that Jane's making a terrible mistake, her best friend nevertheless buys her a nice Austen-era country dress with matching hat and wishing her well drops Jane off in said attire, Jane looking like Jane Austen's Emma, at JFK airport for her flight "over the pond..." 

Things take a turn when she arrives at London's Heathrow Airport the next day.  While waiting to be picked-up by Austenland's "shuttle,"  Jane runs into another American who's going to Austenland as well.  A rather curvy late-30s/40-ish woman (played by Jennifer Coolidge) who one gets the sense probably never actually cracked-open a Jane Austen novel though she's probably read a fair number of Harlequin Romance knock-offs, she comes if not dressed yet for the part then with at least a plausibly Austenish sounding name calling herself Miss Elizabeth Charming.  And even if somewhat/largely clueless, she seems quite sincere/sweet and ... apparently she also comes loaded.

That the simple, sincere if largely clueless 40ish Elizabeth Charming is rich, while the far better versed, indeed über-versed Jane, is not becomes IMMEDIATELY IMPORTANT when the two arrive at the gate of Austenland's Estate: The wealthy Elizabeth Charming is led into her posh Regency Era quarters filled with all the amenities and all kinds of dresses of the time (the dresses often challenging for her to fit into, but available to her).  In contrast, Jane who may have dropped her life's-savings to go on this experience, nevertheless didn't exactly impress Mrs Wattlesbrook (played by Jane Seymour) running the experence as "hardly belonging to landed gentry" ;-).  Thus Jane, given the last name "Erstwhile" for the experience is rather unceremoniously given a rather spartan room in the "Servants' Quarters." Mrs Wattlesbrook then introduces Jane to the others in the experience as an "orphaned, poor relation" who the Wattlesbrooks had nevertheless "taken in, out of the goodness of our hearts." ;-) WELCOME FOLKS TO THE CLASS DISTINCTIONS OF JANE AUSTEN'S TIME ;-)

However, "poor relation" though she may be, JANE IS STILL ALLOWED TO BE "A RELATION."  Thus she's able, in fact, to be with BOTH "the servants" notably with a dashing "gardener" / "stable hand" named "Martin" (played by Bret McKenzie) whose last name, true to the custom of the time, apparently would not have been of any consequence to anyone, AND WITH THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF THE OWNERS OF THE MANOR ESTATE, "the Wattlesbrooks." 

And actually it's Mrs Wattlesbrook (played again wonderfully by Jane Seymour) who really runs the show.  Mr Wattlesbrook (played by Rupert Vansittart) is shown mostly drunk, quite literally farting around in the background most of the time.  He only comes to fore once when in a somewhat drunken stupor he lunges at "poor relation" Jane apparently to try to sexually assault her after he spots her coming back from stable hand Martin's hovel one evening.  Again, welcome to some of the dirt / hypocrisy of the "Regency Age" ... ;-).

The other characters (played by actors for the experience) are a hoot.  There's the pipe smoking, brandy drinking mustached "Colonel Andrews" (played by James Callis) who's visiting the Wattlesbrooks after spending "some years" out "in the Punjab."  There's "Lady Emilia Hartwright" (played by Georgia King) who apparently loved the experience so much the previous year that she's back for more.  There's the dashing (and generally shirtless) "Captain George East" (played by Ricky Whittle) who comes in "from the West Indies" midway through the experience with grand tales of fighting off pirates and Napoleon's warships to the distraction of both "Miss Charming" and "Miss Lady Hartwright."  And then there is the rather stiff "Mr. Henry Nobley' (played by J.J. Feild) introduced as Mrs. Wattlesbrook's nephew, spending time at the estate that summer after some unfortunate (and initially unclear) "recent experience with unrequited love." 


Okay folks ... what a setup to a story! ;-)  Much ensues ... and amusingly true to the film's often quite honest and "deconstructive" take on Jane Austen's era ... much of it has to do with KNITTING ;-) ... Why KNITTING?  Well ... what did young women from wealthier families living in the English countryside do in the 1820s?  THEY READ TO EACH OTHER BOOKS, THEY PLAYED CARDS, THEY PLAYED CROQUET, THEY SIGHED ... and THEY KNITTED ;-) ;-) ... while their MEN "HUNTED", drank brandy, smoked cigars and did other "manly things" of the time ;-)

What follows is just a great film.  Yes, there are a lot of romantic twists and turns.  Yes, there's "a Ball" near the end.  Yes, it doesn't "just end at the Ball" ... But yes it has to end well.  As a light, romantic film, one really couldn't ask for much more.

Stylistically, I would add that the film owes much to Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette [2006], blending the period clothes/sets with a contemporary soundtrack and perhaps to Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris [2011] (which too was about "going back to another time" in that case Paris of the 1920s).  Then Jane is definitely a young contemporary heroine (Stefanie Meyers' imprimatur is clearly felt).  Mrs Wattlesbrook may run the estate at Austenland but this is definitely modern 28 year-old Jane's story ...

All in all, the film's not going to be for everybody ... but for those who'd enjoy "time traveling" in this way, the film's a blast ;-).


<< 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 World's End [2013]

MPAA (R)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars) RE.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (A-)  Fr. Dennis (4+ Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

The World's End [2013] (directed and cowritten by Edgar Wright along with Simon Pegg) is certainly one of the most creative and I would say ONE OF THE BEST (Anglo-American) films of this year.  Since the Oscars offer now up to 10 spots for BEST PICTURE, if there's any justice at all, this film ought to get a nomination in that category as well as a nod for BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY.  In a fairly dismal year in at least Hollywood movies, I honestly found the film a veritable BREATH OF FRESH AIR ;-).

So what's the film about? ;-).  It's about Gary King (played by Simon Pegg) reminiscing today about how 20 years past on the night of their (high school) graduation he and his 4 best friends set-off on an epic "bar crawl" of 12 pubs in their hometown of Newton Haven somewhere in the rolling countryside of "small town England."  Recalling the night to his AA group ... ;-) ... he noted that one of his companions dropped out at 4 pubs, another at 6 and none of them were able to get past 9 ... that they never made it to the last pub, at the edge of town, named "The World's End."  Rolling their eyes (no doubt frustrated that Gary didn't seem to "get it" as to what the AA group was about ;-) some of the other members of the AA group nevertheless concede that his had been an "epic" quest. 

And so Gary King (or "King Gary" as he had been known when he had been "at the top of the world" in high school) leaves his London-based AA meeting with the goal of recreating and FINISHING this "epic journey" with his old high school buddies.  The problem is, of course, that ALL FOUR OF HIS HIGH SCHOOL BUDDIES have since established themselves and have gone on with their lives.  NONE of them recall their "high school days" as fondly as Gary and indeed, it would seem that ALL OF THEM have for one reason or another dumped Gary as a friend years ago as well ;-(.  What to do? 

With an enthusiasm akin to Jake and Elmwood Blues from The Blues Brothers [1980], Gary cajols, guilts and to one, his former best friend, Andy Knightley (played by Nick Frost), he flat-out lies (telling Andy that his mother had died and that she always loved him as the best of all his friends ...) to get them together to do this thing. 

So they all meet at a London Tube station at the edge of town on a Friday night.  Gary, of course, is late ... ;-) ... None the other four is surprised ... ;-).  But when he does show-up, they are ALL astounded to see him arrive with his old legendary car.  "Is THAT the Beast?" one asks.  Gary proudly replies: "Well, except for the brakes, the suspension, the carburetor, transmission, the whole engine really, upholstering on a couple of the seats, and a fender or two, YES IT IS!"  The four, ALL a "few pounds worse for their wear" get in ... and they are off!

Soon they approach their home town of Newton Haven, which NONE of them had gone back to in years, in good part because it was, well, except for those 12 pubs ... BORING.  How boring?  Well, it's claim to fame appears to have been that it was "the site of the first round-about in England" (those horrible traffic circles that exist all over England/Ireland and are supposedly "safer" than traffic lights).  So ... quaint as the town may have been (or may be ...), this was a town that was ... quite boring.

No matter.  The five check into a bed and breakfast somewhere at the edge of town and are soon off to their first pub.  To Gary's disappointment, the pub, though with its old name-plate hanging outside, inside LOOKS NOTHING LIKE the pub of old.  Instead, it looks just like any pub that one could expect to see anywhere in London or any other big English city.  And instead of serving anything "local," the employee at the tap just tells Gary that "they serve beer."  As disappointed as Gary may have been, one of the four accompanying him shrugs without much surprise saying: "Just another example of the 'Starbuckization' of the world..."

No matter (again ;-).  The next pub's gonna be better, 'cept ... ;-) ... the next pub, except for the sign outside, INSIDE LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE FIRST ONE.  Depressed after their pint (they are at 2 now ...), they head to the third pub.

Now the third pub starts to look a little bit different (maybe 'cause they've had a few pints ..).  But here first Gary and then the rest start to notice THAT THE PEOPLE of their old home town, WHICH ALL OF THEM HAD LEFT YEARS AGO, seemed "odd."  How odd?  Well ... that's the rest of the film ;-).

The rest of the film requires a certain flexibility of the audience that a lot of people may not have.  This is because the film does make a leap into "science fiction land" (I'm not going to say more ;-).  But for those who can make the leap (or prove at least willing to try ...) THE FILM OFFERS ENORMOUS REWARDS.  This is because this "stupid little film" about a drunk and arguably "loser" trying to "relive his past" becomes surprisingly profound:  What exactly makes us human?  And is anyone really a "loser" so long as one remains free?  Yes free to make mistakes, free to pay for them, but still free.

Honestly, I am in awe of this film.  As silly / stupid as it seems at first, it really packs a punch ;-).

So a final question: Do the five make it to "The World's End"?  ... Go see the movie, I'm not gonna say :-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Mortal Instruments: City of Bones [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChiTribune (2 Stars)  RE.com (1 Star)  AVClub (C)  Lost'nReviews (3.5/5)   WeLiveFilm (7.5/10)  Fr. Dennis (1 Star)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (Roger Moore) review
RogerEbert.com (Simon Abrams) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review
LostinReviews (Sarah Ksiazek) review
WeLiveFilm (Nuffin Muffin) review
DigitalJournal (Sarah Gopaul) review

About an hour into Mortal Instruments: City of Bones [2013] (directed by Harald Zwart, screenplay by Jessica Postigo based on the novel by Cassandra Clare [IMDb]) I realized something fairly important, IMHO, in appreciating this film -- I'm not a 12 year old girl ;-).  HOWEVER, in my line of work, I do know a fair number of 12 year olds, including a number who had been quite excited that their mother was going to take them to see it.  So ... since all three of the girls that I knew had gone to the film with one of their moms were altar servers, I decided to ask them what they thought of the film ;-).  And their opinions then inform a good part of this review.

Ah, to be a 12 year-old again ;-).  One thing to understand immediately here is that most 12 year olds don't go "to the show" often.  So from the get-go, it's a fairly big deal.  Then it was an even bigger deal for the three girls because the movie promised to be about MAGIC and OTHER MYSTERIOUS THINGS (again, folks put yourselves in the mindset of a 12 year old) AND THE HERO PROMISED TO BE A TEENAGE GIRL NOT MUCH OLDER THAN THEY ARE AND THEN SOMEONE WHO WAS KINDA LIKE THEM.  Like Bella in Stephenie Meyer's Twilight Saga [1] [2], the heroine here, named Clary (played by Lily Collins) was really a "regular girl," not a basket case but not particularly "popular." So she was "relateable."  Comparing Clary to Bella, the three girls actually preferred Clary because they felt that Bella may have been too much of a depressed "drama queen" or basket-case especially at the beginning of that series.  And Merida from Brave [2012], didn't feel like an appropriate person to compare Clary with because, well, Merida was a "cartoon" and Clary was "real."  So the three girls really liked Clary the best. 


Then the three twelve-year-olds that I talked to liked the "drama" and even understood the "love triangle" in the story between Clary, her best friend Simon (played by Robert Sheehan) who they characterized as a really nice guy (and liked/felt sorry for) and then the 'dreamier' Jace (played by Jamie Campbell Bower) who comes into Clary's life after he notices that she seems to see the same "demons" as he does.  In the story, "mundanes" (humans) generally don't see "demons," but "Shadow Hunters" (half-angels, half-humans) do.  Jace was a  "Shadow Hunter" and discovers that Clary who previously could not see demons, apparently was seeing them now as clearly as he was.  Thus Jace recognizes that Clary must be a "Shadow Hunter" as well.

Those who remember Stephenie Meyer's Twilight Saga [1] [2] would probably be able to quickly catch the similarities between MI's Simon and Twilight's Jacob and MI's Jase and Twilight's Edward.  However, there prove to be substantial differences as well.  For one, Twilight's Jacob was a Werewolf, Simon was a Mundane (Human).  Another was that both Clary and Jace were "Shadow Hunters" (mixed race Angels/Humans) while Twilight's Bella was initially a very "mundane" human and Edward was, of course, a Vampire.

Indeed Cassandra Clare does brew a good stew that blends a lot of contemporary cultural motiffs into her tale: There are quite literally "Angels and Demons" present (a nod to Dan Brown).  There's a "chalice" that came into the story during "Crusader times." This cup/chalice wouldn't seem to be the Holy Grail (a Cup associated with Christ) as traditionally understood  but there obvious similarities.  Further, in something that could become a mild "spoiler alert," as per Dan Brown's Da Vinci code, there becomes something of an ambiguity as to what potential "Vessel" is actually important -- the "cup" that Clary's mom apparently hid in some way, or ... (I'll let you complete the sentence yourselves ;-).  Then the film, set in New York (instead of London) is set around an "Institute" that only non-mundanes (non-humans) can see, the "Institute" playing a role similar to Hogwarts Academy of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter [1] [2] series.  Then there's still a battle between Werewolves and Vampires (as per the Twilight Saga and perhaps even the Underworld franchise).  The dress of the "Shadow Hunters" appears to be a further and honestly IMHO not altogether age appropriate further tribute to the Underworld franchise as well as Sucker Punch [2011] (interestingly enough both Clary and Simon don't particularly like the dress of the punk-looking half-angel/half-mundane "Shadow Hunters" look with Clary asking one of the other Shadow Hunters why she was being asked to "dress like a hooker" to fit in with them (Good question actually, and a lot of Parents would probably want to know...).  Finally, in one of the more problematic plot twists in this, still the first episode, (SPOILER ALERT but IMHO IMPORTANT FOR PARENTS TO KNOW...), it turns out that Clary and Jace (half-angel/half human that they are ...) COULD BE BROTHER AND SISTER (shades of George Lucas' Star Wars saga...).

This last plot-twist (again SPOILER ALERT but IMHO IMPORTANT FOR PARENTS TO KNOW) was clearly "a bit too much" for the 12 year olds that I interviewed to handle.  Honestly, none of them really knew what to do with it.  They all found it "gross" and hoped that Jase / Clary really weren't "brother and sister" because "if they were, then there'd be no love triangle" as one of the 12 year olds put it ... hoping that the story would again follow more closely the tensions of the Twilight Saga.

Admitting then that there are elements (and even a lot of them) that clearly "worked" for the three 12 year olds that I interviewed for this review and that they really did enjoy the film, I DO FEEL IT'S MY DUTY HERE as a Catholic priest / reviewer to point out some significant problems that Parents ought to take into account when deciding whether or not to take their girls to THIS FILM:

(1) The dress of the "Shadow Hunters" really is punkish/slutty and so forth.

(2) Further, the "Shadow Hunters" as depicted in the film are covered almost head to toe with tattoos.  That in itself would cause concerns to many parents.  True, "body art" has become more and more popular in recent decades.  However, given the PERMANENCE of tattoos and THEN THE PERMANENCE OF BOTCHED TATTOOS, INAPPROPRIATE TATTOOS, STUPID TATTOOS, TATTOOS THAT "SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME ..." I honestly don't think it a particularly WISE idea to propagandize TWELVE YEAR OLDS about the "coolness" of tattoos when a 12 year old wouldn't have anything approaching a concept of PERMANENCE/ETERNITY, etc.  Tattoos are NOT "stickers" that "wash away..." TATTOOS STAY... TILL DEATH DO YOU PART.  (Note that I'm not totally against tattoos and have over the years defended late teenagers and young adults to their parents when the parents got upset over their young adult getting a tattoo. But tattoos are not to be taken lightly. THEY STAY).

(3) However, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Mortal Instruments' use of Tattoos are the depictions of Clary burning TATTOOS (in the film they are called "Runes") INTO HER OWN SKIN for "magical purposes."  IN MY PASTORAL WORK, I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH TEENAGERS WITH "CUTTING" PROBLEMS.  And ANY PARENT who's had to deal with a young girl with "cutting problems" would probably become IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED WITH THIS ASPECT OF THE FILM.

(4) Yes, that two of the main characters Clary and Jace find out AFTER THEY HAD PASSIONATELY KISSED that they MAY be brother and sister is something that MANY/MOST TWEENS would not have ANY IDEA of what to do with.  And it's SIMPLY NOT RIGHT to THROW THIS AT TWEENS (and THEIR PARENTS) without WARNING.

So even though I honestly sympathize and HOPEFULLY EMPATHIZE with the three 12 year olds who went to see this film with one of their mothers, and the mother herself who was trying to be a good relateable mom as well, I really do think that the story ultimately betrayed its viewers.  And it's a shame because there was a lot of potential in the story.  And I also wish to say that I kinda feel sorry for the author of the original story because she really did come-up with a brew that could have been interesting.  Still I don't think it's useful to make a film that depicts arguably "good uses for 'cutting,'" or even that it offers a "tweenage exploration of incest."  Most like the 12 year olds I talked to for this review, would find that "gross" and needlessly confusing.


<< 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 Canyons [2013]

MPAA (NR would be R / NC-17)  Film.com (5.3/10)  ChicagoTribune (2 Stars)  RE.com (1 Star)  AVClub (C)   Fr. Dennis (3 Stars w. Expl)

IMDb listing
Film.com (M. Patches) review
NPR (I. Buckwalder) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

The Canyons [2013] (directed by Paul Schrader, screenplay by Bret Easton Ellis) is an intentionally edgy unrated (would be R less probably NC-17 rated but Parents do take note.) offering that a number of critics (see above) really didn't know what to do with (Others some young, others venerable/respected "stepped up" and IMHO understood).  The film played recently at Facets Multimedia in Chicago.

So why the hoopla or confusion?  Well, among the film's headliners is a porn star, who goes by the name James Deen, who has some 1000 credits to his name, most unrepeatable on most film blogs (including, honestly mine ;-), and another is Lyndsay Lohan whose in-and-out of rehab / in-and-out of jail life has been catnip for the tabloids for years.   And yet the casting results in a remarkable even searingly honest "hardboiled film" IMHO completely in the "film noir" tradition about Hollywood's "fallenness" / "brokenness" TODAY (an era awash in Porn, often enough produced "in the Valley" just to Hollywood's north and west). 

So the film begins with two young couples having "cocktails and dinner" at some presumptuous, though not overly so (still B-league) restaurant probably "in the (San Fernando) Valley."  Why characterize the establishment as "B-league"?  Because none of the four drinking their drinks, eating their food, not even rich kid (25 or so, living off of his multimillionaire dad's trust fund) Christian (played by above mentioned James Deen) is anywhere near "A-team."  But they can hope, and, especially Christian, they can "pretend ..."

The above-mentioned pretentious Christian, who lives alone with his current girl friend Tera (played by above mentioned Lyndsay Lohan) in a fabulous Pacific Ocean facing mansion (with both a drop-dead awesome view and a large luxurious pool) in the mountains outside of Malibu given/left to him by his super-rich father, "dabbles" in producing movies.  They're not exactly serious movies, mostly mad-slasher/horror films.  But then, he doesn't have to be serious ...

The other couple seated with Christian and Tera at their raised table (they're all sitting on bar-stools) at the somewhat pretentious but still B-league restaurant "in the Valley" are Christian's sweet (and largely clueless) administrative assistant Gina (played by Amanda Brooks) and her boyfriend Ryan (played by Nolan Funk) a young hunkish struggling actor that Gina and we soon find out Tera had convinced Christian to cast as a lead in an upcoming horror/slasher film slated to be shot some weeks hence out in Mexico. 

Now why would Ryan and Tera know each other?  Well, they were boy-friend/girl-friend when they first arrived in L.A. some three years past.  (They met actually in L.A.).  At the time, both were struggling and at some point Tera dumped him for more verdant pastures.  Not necessarily evil, she tells Ryan when they meet again sometime after that dinner that nice guy though he is (and creep though Christian is...), that she's simply not going to back to eating "ramen noodles" forever. (She's a gold-digger, but then ... put that way, one does sorta understand, especially when one thinks of a 20-something year old who believes she "has options"). 

For his part, Ryan's found his 3 years in Los Angeles something of a nightmare.  Perhaps a good actor, perhaps not, he was certainly a looker and he's found himself repeatedly forced to "put-out" in homosexual trysts with superiors (producers, potential producers, club owners, etc).  And one gets the sense that he'd probably prefer to be straight.  After all, at the start of the film, he's with one girlfriend Gina, we soon find out that he had another girlfriend, Tera, some years back.  There's even a third young woman who enters the mix named Cynthia (played by Tanille Houston).  Yet, when he needs a job, he's asked/coerced repeatedly to "put-out" for powerful men. 

The story plays out from there.  It's somewhat predictable.  But then what hard-boiled "b-film," "Film Noir" films are not "somewhat predictable"?  Yes, given both the casting and point of the film, there is also a fair amount of nudity present (but definitely not overwhelming).  Is that nudity strictly necessary?  No.  Similarly sultry films have been made without it.  Yet, neither is the nudity simply gratuitous.  The scenes where it is present do make sense.  Finally, strip away the nudity, is there still a story?  Definitely.  So this film is an intelligent piece of work.  (And I would add that both Lyndsay Lohan's and even James Deen's acting was quite good.  I'm not sure if this film was particularly healthy for Lyndsay Lohan to have made.  However, throughout the film there's a courage/honesty that needs to be acknowledged). 

In a good "Noir" film, there's generally some "unspeakable secret" on which the disorder present in the story hinges.  The obvious secret "revealed" in this film is that (b-league) Hollywood films often depend on the caprices of "psycho rich kids with money" like Christian.   But perhaps the more interesting and arguably even more subversive "secret" is that the reason why Hollywood has become so "gay friendly" over the years is that a fair portion of its male actors, whether initially straight or not, have had to follow Ryan's rather humiliating trajectory to "make it in the business," that is, that the "casting couch" is for everybody these days.

That may be disturbing.  But then, disturbing/inconvenient truths are what good "Film Noir" is generally about ...


<< 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! :-) >> 

Lee Daniels' The Butler [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review

Lee Daniels' The Butler [2013] (directed by Lee Daniels, screenplay by Danny Strong) is a historical drama about the 1950s-1980s Civil Rights Era in the United States inspired by the real life of Eugene Allen an African American butler who served eight presidents in the White House from Harry S. Truman to Ronald Reagan and who was the subject of an article by Washington Post journalist Wil Haygood [IMDb] in the heady days immediately following the election of Barrack Obama as the first African American president of the United States.

I do characterize the film as a historical drama, IMHO far more like Doctor Zhivago [1965] / A Man for All Seasons [1966] than Forrest Gump [1995] to which the film has been at times been somewhat unfortunately compared, because while on one hand it is clear Lee Daniels' The Butler [2013] was inspired by Wil Haygood [IMDb] article and subsequent book about Eugene Allen even the name of the central character in the film was changed from Eugene Allen to Cecil Gaines (played as an 8 year old by Michael Rainey Jr, as a 15 year old by Aml Ameen and as an adult by Forest Whitaker).  Further, entire characters in the film, like Cecil's and his wife Gloria's (played by Oprah Winfrey) eldest son Louis (played by David Oyelowo), were largely invented for the purposes of the story.

On the other hand, I do believe that the story is legit as a serious historical drama, with a clear historical sweep and a serious message.  No one would seriously dismiss Doctor Zhivago [1965] as a work of serious historical drama even if there was no "historical Dr. Zhivago" (or "Strelnikov," "Komarovsky", "Lara", "Tonya" and so forth ...).  Further, the character of Cecil's fictionalized, largely invented eldest-son Lewis serves a similar story-telling purpose as Saint Thomas Moore's fictionalized, largely invented "son in law" in A Man for All Seasons [1966].   In both films, these characters provide a contrast to the path chosen by their respective story's central character.  In any case, the current film is intended to be a more serious one than the effervescent "life is a box of chocolates" Forrest Gump [1995].  Lee Daniels' The Butler [2013] is a film about the struggle against heavy odds of an entire people personified in the life/family of Cecil Gaines.

Thus the film begins with Cecil as an 8 year old, living on a cotton plantation in the Macon County, Georgia in the Jim Crow South (the actual Eugene Allen grew-up in Southern Virginia ... still in the Jim Crow South, but not Macon County, GA).  After Cecil's father was shot and his mother raped by the privileged, white A-hole son of the plantation owner, the white Matron of the plantation (played by Vanessa Redgrave) takes the 8-year old orphaned Cecil "into the house" and promises to train him as a "House N...".  This is how Cecil gets his initial training and it serves him after he flees from the plantation at 15 and makes his way all the way up to Washington D.C. at the edge of the Old South as an adult ... Working as a waiter at a Washington D.C. establishment in the early 1950s, he gets noticed by someone working on the staff at the White House and gets offered a job among the largely (arguably all black) serving staff there.

Working then at the White House from the time of Dwight D. Eisenhower [IMDb] played in the film by Robin Williams) through the administrations of John F. Kennedy [IMDb] (played by James Mardsen), Lyndon Johnson [IMDb] (played by Liev Schreiber), Richard Nixon [IMDb] (played by John Cusack) to that of Ronald Reagan [IMDb] (played by Alan Rickman), Cecil is shown quietly doing his job of serving as part of the White House staff, even as momentous events often directly touching African American civil rights take place around him, like the implementation of the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court Decision during the Eisenhower Administration, the beginnings of the Sit-ins and Freedom Rides of the Civil Rights Movement during the Kennedy Administration and continuing during the Johnson Administration (While Cecil quietly does his job as a servant at the White House, his son Louis is portrayed as participating in many of these protests) to the brief Black Panther Era (following the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr [IMDb] (played in the film by Nelsan Ellis) and Robert F. Kennedy [IMDb]) during the Nixon Administration, to the protests in the U.S. against Apartheid in South Africa during the Reagan Administration to finally the election of President Obama.

Across this 50 year sweep of history, the film devotes about 1/2 its time portraying Cecil quietly at work at the White House and 1/2 the time portraying him at home dealing with various often timely/poignant "family issues" in his own house.

All in all, the film makes for a nice well structured story.  This film isn't a biopic.  However it makes for a quite good to excellent (mainstream) Zhivago-esque historical drama.  
 

<< 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! :-) >>

Jobs [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChiTribune (2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (K. Ryan) review

To be honest, I'm generally wary of "Great Leader" films:  

On one hand they can be absurdly adulatory ("The Great Leader/Innovator is/was just Godlike in his Awesomeness.")  The "arrival scenes" of (1) HITLER IN NUREMBERG in  Leni Riefenstahl's [IMDb] infamous Nazi-Era "documentary" Triumph of the Will [1935] and of (2) STALIN IN BERLIN in Mikheil Chiaureli's [IMDb] infamous (and utterly fictionalized) Stalin-era propaganda film The Fall of Berlin [1950] (Stalin played by the poor sop Mikheil Gelovani [IMDb], talk about having an awful gig ...) truly set the bar for what is horribly possible.

On the other hand these films can be hatchet jobs ("The Great Leader/Innovator is/was actually a Real Dick...") made by people who obviously hated said "Great Leader"/"Innovator" for any number of reasons or agendas.  Here one thinks of the recent film Hyde Park on Hudson [2011] reducing the venerable FDR (The New Deal / leading the US in World War II) to a pervert or even The Social Network [2010] which presented Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as a creep who arguably created Facebook to cyber-stalk a (fictionalized or even invented) ex-girlfriend.  

Finally, there's the third way, admitting: "Okay, the Great Leader/Innovator may have been a Dick but look at what he/she also accomplished..."

I'd put the current film Jobs [2013] (directed by Joshua Michael Stern, screenplay by Matt Whiteley) about Apple Computers co-founder Steve Jobs (IMHO played admirably in the current film by Ashton Kutcher) in the third category as Jobs both in the film (and apparently in real life) was BOTH a "Great Visionary" and often "a Dick." 

Job's dickishness was repeatedly presented during the course of the film from (1) breaking-up with his live-in girl friend when she got pregnant and REFUSING FOR YEARS to acknowledge that her child Lisa WAS HIS even as he actually named an Apple computer project ("Lisa") that he was working-on at the very same time after her, to (2) his cutting-out of three buddies who he had quickly hired to help solder 500 "Apple 1" circuit boards for him and fellow Apple Computers co-founder Steve Wozniak (played again admirably in the film by Josh Gad) as they, still working out of Steve Jobs' dad's garage, struggled to complete their very first order (to a SF Bay electronics hobby shop) back in 1977.  At the time of Apple Computer's IPO, Jobs declared that he could have hired "any three electricians with a soldering iron" to help solder those first 500 circuit boards.  That may be true, but most of us would still be appalled as those three  were his friends at the time and without them he and Wozniak never would have gotten that first order done in time (and perhaps there never would have been an Apple Computers afterwards).

Yet the film, which focused on Steve Jobs' / Apple Computer's (now Apple, Inc) pre-iPod years, did show Job's arguably rare capacity to integrate technology, aesthetics and business acumen.   He was portrayed as someone who was someone who not only understood technology (if not as well as perhaps Steve Wozniak) but also understood that this technology had to "look good" / "look cool" for it to get out of the hands of the "geeks" and into those of regular / other creative people.  Finally, he was portrayed as one who could defend himself in the sphere of business.  Yes, he was forced out by the business folks at Apple Computers for some years following the below expectations launch of the Macintosh.  However, after a number of years in exile (during which he founded a moderately successful software firm named NEXT) he did make his way back to Apple and turned it in the arguably "post PC" direction that it finds itself today.  Again, Jobs appeared (both in the movie and in real life) as interested in "more" than "just computers."  As important to him appeared to be aesthetics: how the computers/technology products looked and what one could do with them.

Still his focus on aesthetics was portrayed in the film (IMHO accurately) as also a drawback: A cool-looking and very capable gizmo is almost always going to cost more than a more "boxy" less capable one.  The result has been what pretty much all of us know: Apple products are ALWAYS expensive, enough to put themselves out of reach of most potential buyers.  Still Jobs appears to have been most interested in "setting the bar" or at least "setting the trend."

The viewer of the film is ultimately left to decide whether Jobs was (1) a genius, or (2) a flawed genius (that he was often a jerk when dealing with others, and that he always kept Apple products too expensive for most people to buy).

However what frustrates me the most about the film is that it leads viewers to choose only between those two options.  I would suggest that with the exception of his rather interesting preoccupation with aesthetics (IMHO something rather rare in the world of techies) that Jobs may not have been "a genius" at all.

Perhaps Jobs'/Wozniak's creation of "the first PC" (the Apple II) was a stroke of genius even though almost immediately afterwards arrived the rival Commodore 64 (which as always with Apple's innovative products, was soon beating Apple in sales. Why? Surprise, the Commodore was cheaper).  A similar thing could be said of the iPod.  Was it a stroke of genius or was it basically historical inevitability?  If Jobs/Apple had not come up with it, would someone else have?  And given how fast cheaper (and often more capable) knock-offs of Apple products have been brought to market, one could argue that if Jobs/Apple had not come-up with these products then perhaps any of hundreds of other engineering shops, big and small, would have come-up with them anyway.

BUT ;-) ... Jobs/Apple WERE the FIRST to come-up with the Personal Computer, FIRST to come-up with a commonly available MP3 player, FIRST to attach a cell-phone to the MP3 player and FIRST to make the "smart phone" into a Tablet.  That's a lot of FIRSTS ;-)

So perhaps Jobs really was a genius (and not just lucky/ruthless) after all ;-).  All in all, this is a good film and IMHO a better one than most of the critics would give it credit for.  Still I do think that Jobs was often a jerk ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>