MPAA (R) ChicagoTribune (3 Stars) RE.com (3 Stars) AVClub (B) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review
Dallas Morning News (B. Minutaglio) 1992 original article
Time Magazine (E. Docktorman) fact-check article
NPR (E. Blair) article
DailyBeast (A. Romano) article
Dallas Buyers' Club [2013] (directed by Jean-Marc Vallée, screenplay by Craig Borten and Melissa Wallack) tells the true story (with _a couple_ of dramatic flourishes) of Ron Woodroof (played in the film by Matthew McConaughey) a rodeo-loving if not (as portrayed in the film) rodeo-riding Texas "red neck" electrician who in 1985 found himself surprised to be HIV positive and told that he was quite close to death with full-blown AIDS, (1) did some quick research, (2) drove himself down to Mexico, (3) bought some then non-FDA approved drugs/supplements there from an American doctor who had lost his license in the States that (4) stabilized his condition. Both needing said unapproved drugs/supplements to keep himself alive and realizing that there were multitudes of others in the States who could benefit from the same drugs/supplements,Woodroof (5) setup a flirting-with-the-edges-of-the-law "Buyers Club" in Dallas in which patrons would pay "membership dues" to simply _belong_ to said club and then be able to receive all these unapproved drugs/supplements in any (reasonable) amount "for free." In this way, Woodroof could argue that he was _not_ selling unapproved and arguably illegal drugs in the States.
It makes for one heck of a story and the film captures well the very real desperation of the early years of the AIDS crisis, when in the face of mountains of HIV infected individuals facing then certain death, generally within 5 years of infection, standard (and time consuming...) FDA clinical testing protocols seemed positively cruel. Indeed, throughout the film Woodroof's foils in the film were both doctors at "Dallas General Hospital," represented by the strict, "by the book" medical researcher Dr. Sevard (played by Denis O'Hare) and the more sympathetic/morally struggling "I understand your suffering, but I'm a doctor dammit, and I'd really, really like to keep my job" Dr. Eve Saks (played by Jennifer Gardner) as well as, of course, law enforcement officials. In dramatic contrast, the film has Woodroof's partner in running the "Dallas Buyers' Club" be a HIV infected transvestite going by the name of Rayon (played by Jared Leto).
This is a very well done and throught/discussion provoking film. The "rodeo" metaphor is excellent and multifaceted. For as "tough guy" / "macho" as rodeos may seem at first glance, there's a lot of color present as well, and even some sadness (sad-faced rodeo clowns...). Finally, rodeo contests often come down to "How long can you stay on the horse?"
Hence, while not exactly for kids, this is A GREAT THOUGHT PROVOKING FILM! Good job folks, good 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! :-) >>
Reviews of current films written by Fr. Dennis Zdenek Kriz, OSM of St. Philip Benizi Parish, Fullerton, CA
Friday, December 6, 2013
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Frozen [2013]
MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-I) ChicagoTribune (3 Stars) RE.com (2 1/2 Stars) AVClub (B) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (K. McFarland) review
Frozen [2013] (screenplay and codirected by Jennifer Lee along with Chris Buck, story by Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee and Shane Morris inspired by the fairy tale "The Snow Queen" by Hans Christian Anderson [IMDb]) is an overwhelming positive positive story about two sisters Elsa (voiced by Idena Menzel) and Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell) growing-up as princesses in a fairy-tale Scandinavian kingdom named Arendelle. Elsa's older and destined to become queen. That destiny/responsibility itself could make her more reserved than her younger and more openly joyful sister. However, Elsa's also born with a gift/curse -- she finds that she can make snow and ice at will.
At first, Elsa finds this strange gift of being able turn things into ice and snow to be a lot of fun. Yet playing one day with her fun-loving younger sister Anna, she gets distracted and accidentally freezes Anna's head. Oh dear, did she accidentally kill her? Well the girls' father, the King (voiced by Maurice LaMarche), takes Anna to some trolls who heal her, which they do, but they also give Elsa and the king a warning: "It's still relatively easy to unfreeze a brain, but it's much harder to thaw a frozen heart."
This warning sets off a more or less inevitable cycle of family dysfunction: (1) the girls' parents become overprotective of their daughters and Elsa in particular is locked-up so that she can't ever use her special ability again, not that she'd want to, because (2) Elsa herself feels enormously guilty for having nearly killed her little sister. Finally, (3) to "protect" Anna from the effects of this terrible accident, their (regal) parents ask the trolls to cast a spell on her so that she has no memory of what happened to her. So Elsa grows up guilty and fearful of her now bottled-up "power," and Anna grows up with no idea at all as to why she and her older sister Elsa are being "locked-up" in the Castle.
Things come to a head when the girls' parents eventually die and Elsa then is to be crowned Queen. She's terrified that she might make an awful mistake that will hurt others, while Anna finally FEELS FREE. And what does Anna do, now that she's finally "free?" She falls in love with the first Prince, Hans (voiced by Santino Fontana), that she sets her eyes on. Well, Elsa, already "with a lot on her mind" gets angry at this. How could her little sister Anna be so irresponsible? After all, they've just met, and ... no longer able to control the bottled-up power within her ... Elsa begins to turn everything around her into ice and snow and running away from her Castle, plunges the whole Kingdom into an Eternal Winter.
Well, needless to say, EVERYBODY is stunned. Nobody's ever seen Elsa (or anyone else) EVER do this. And Anna, who would have / could have actually known something about Elsa's power/gift/gift-now-turned-into-curse has had her memory erased and SO SHE TOO JUST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND.
So Anna then decides (wisely) to put-off her sincerely if very abruptly-announced wedding to Hans and to search-out her now lost and very distraught sister, who's literally put the whole Kingdom "on ice." Much ensues ...
Among that which ensues is that Anna, who, in her memory, has never even stepped out of the Castle, meets in her search for her sistser a fair number of odd if generally helpful characters, including Kristoff (voiced by Jonathan Groff) a villager who used to make his living cutting and storing ice from the winter and selling it in the summer (but who wants ice now when it's always winter?) and his whimsical though still only grunting raindeer named Swen and then the utterly lovable but terribly naive talking snowman named Olaf (voiced by Josh Gad) who trying really, really, really hard to "fit-in" with everybody else hoping for an end to this unending winter, voices his "dreams of summer" as well and NOBODY has the heart to tell him what happens to SNOWMEN come the summer ;-) The trolls also come back into the story and it all just becomes a lovely, lovely tale.
One of the aspects that makes the story so lovely is the reality that Elsa's special gift/curse is actually MOSTLY a lovely one. She can make all kinds of things that one could only imagine out of ice and snow. It's just that she herself has trouble seeing this potential gift as anything but a curse.
This is, of course, a Disney story, so it has to end well. But it really is a lovely, lovely story about growing-up and also coming to see things that may initially seem as curses as gifts.
Good job folks, very good 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (K. McFarland) review
Frozen [2013] (screenplay and codirected by Jennifer Lee along with Chris Buck, story by Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee and Shane Morris inspired by the fairy tale "The Snow Queen" by Hans Christian Anderson [IMDb]) is an overwhelming positive positive story about two sisters Elsa (voiced by Idena Menzel) and Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell) growing-up as princesses in a fairy-tale Scandinavian kingdom named Arendelle. Elsa's older and destined to become queen. That destiny/responsibility itself could make her more reserved than her younger and more openly joyful sister. However, Elsa's also born with a gift/curse -- she finds that she can make snow and ice at will.
At first, Elsa finds this strange gift of being able turn things into ice and snow to be a lot of fun. Yet playing one day with her fun-loving younger sister Anna, she gets distracted and accidentally freezes Anna's head. Oh dear, did she accidentally kill her? Well the girls' father, the King (voiced by Maurice LaMarche), takes Anna to some trolls who heal her, which they do, but they also give Elsa and the king a warning: "It's still relatively easy to unfreeze a brain, but it's much harder to thaw a frozen heart."
This warning sets off a more or less inevitable cycle of family dysfunction: (1) the girls' parents become overprotective of their daughters and Elsa in particular is locked-up so that she can't ever use her special ability again, not that she'd want to, because (2) Elsa herself feels enormously guilty for having nearly killed her little sister. Finally, (3) to "protect" Anna from the effects of this terrible accident, their (regal) parents ask the trolls to cast a spell on her so that she has no memory of what happened to her. So Elsa grows up guilty and fearful of her now bottled-up "power," and Anna grows up with no idea at all as to why she and her older sister Elsa are being "locked-up" in the Castle.
Things come to a head when the girls' parents eventually die and Elsa then is to be crowned Queen. She's terrified that she might make an awful mistake that will hurt others, while Anna finally FEELS FREE. And what does Anna do, now that she's finally "free?" She falls in love with the first Prince, Hans (voiced by Santino Fontana), that she sets her eyes on. Well, Elsa, already "with a lot on her mind" gets angry at this. How could her little sister Anna be so irresponsible? After all, they've just met, and ... no longer able to control the bottled-up power within her ... Elsa begins to turn everything around her into ice and snow and running away from her Castle, plunges the whole Kingdom into an Eternal Winter.
Well, needless to say, EVERYBODY is stunned. Nobody's ever seen Elsa (or anyone else) EVER do this. And Anna, who would have / could have actually known something about Elsa's power/gift/gift-now-turned-into-curse has had her memory erased and SO SHE TOO JUST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND.
So Anna then decides (wisely) to put-off her sincerely if very abruptly-announced wedding to Hans and to search-out her now lost and very distraught sister, who's literally put the whole Kingdom "on ice." Much ensues ...
Among that which ensues is that Anna, who, in her memory, has never even stepped out of the Castle, meets in her search for her sistser a fair number of odd if generally helpful characters, including Kristoff (voiced by Jonathan Groff) a villager who used to make his living cutting and storing ice from the winter and selling it in the summer (but who wants ice now when it's always winter?) and his whimsical though still only grunting raindeer named Swen and then the utterly lovable but terribly naive talking snowman named Olaf (voiced by Josh Gad) who trying really, really, really hard to "fit-in" with everybody else hoping for an end to this unending winter, voices his "dreams of summer" as well and NOBODY has the heart to tell him what happens to SNOWMEN come the summer ;-) The trolls also come back into the story and it all just becomes a lovely, lovely tale.
One of the aspects that makes the story so lovely is the reality that Elsa's special gift/curse is actually MOSTLY a lovely one. She can make all kinds of things that one could only imagine out of ice and snow. It's just that she herself has trouble seeing this potential gift as anything but a curse.
This is, of course, a Disney story, so it has to end well. But it really is a lovely, lovely story about growing-up and also coming to see things that may initially seem as curses as gifts.
Good job folks, very good 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! :-) >>
Monday, December 2, 2013
Nebraska [2013]
MPAA (R) ChicagoTribune (3 Stars) RE.com (3 1/2 Stars) AVClub (C+) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub.com (A.A. Dowd) review
Nebraska [2103] (directed by Alexander Payne, screenplay by Bob Nelson) is the kind of movie that I wouldn't want to recommend to any particular family (because it could be taken the wrong way :-) but one that all/most older families (w. adult kids) ought to see. For "just in time for the holiday season," the film's a "gift" for all those who'd think that their families "have problems" ;-).
Old and long-time problematic guy Woody Grant (played by Bruce Dern), a Korean War vet who never really returned from that War in one piece but rather spent the following, count them, 6 decades mostly "in a bottle," now in his eighties ... receives a piece of mail. What's the piece of mail? Well it's a sweepstakes letter telling him (as these letters ALWAYS DO) that (given nearly impossible conditions ...) he won $1,000,000 (!!). Most of us receiving these obviously borderline fraudulent letters throw them away. But poor Woody, in his 80s, his mind mostly gone due to Alcohol, now mixed no doubt with the onset of one form or another of Dementia/Alzheimers BELIEVES THE LETTER THIS TIME. All he thinks he has to do is go from his home in Billings, Montana to the sweepstakes office in Lincoln, Nebraska, that's heck, only about an hour from his home town where he'd grown up. How hard can it be? FOR A MILLION BUCKS...
'Cept, that ungrateful family of his, wife Kate (played _superbly_ by June Squibb) and two grown sons Ross (played by Bob Odenkirk) and David (played by Will Forte) DON'T WANT TO TAKE HIM THERE. Why? Because, let's recall the reasons: (1) Most obviously, THEY KNOW IT'S A SCAM, and (2) they are all resentful of the guy for having been a terrible (and mostly drunk) husband and father throughout most of their lives. So none of them is in any mood of "enabling him" in this self-evidently FOOL'S ERRAND. So ...
Woody decides to go on his own (walk...) from Billings, Montana to Lincoln, Nebraska, "only" 600 miles (!!) OVER OPEN COUNTRY (not a tree for miles in every conceivable direction) IN THE WINTER IN THE SNOW "to show 'em." Wife Kate and older son Ross decide (initially) to "let him try..." Younger son David, caves in first, and picks him up in his car some miles out and decides, as foolish and stupid as this Quixote-like quest may be, "dad's not gonna be around much longer," so why not ... maybe "on the journey" he'll "learn a thing or two" still about his dad.
And he does as we all do, as we the viewers join the two on this journey. And as we follow the two, we begin to better understand Woody and his family and why they are the way they are. By the time Woody and David make it to Woody and Kate's hometown, we find that the rest of the family's "caved" to Woody's dream quest as well. Much ensues as different characters from Woody and Kate's hometown approach their surprising arrival with even more surprising news, even if we viewers (and most of the townsfolk, if they thought about it at all) realize that the "news" is, well ... NONSENSE.
Here I have to underline Kate's character (played as I've already said superbly by June Squibb). Hers has got to be one of the best drawn characters of the year and certainly one of the best acted: If this film were viewed as a drinking game, and one had to take a drink every time Kate's character said something _nice_ about another person in the story, I do believe one would finish the film completely, utterly _sober_ ;-). For as smiling as she as Squibb plays her "sweet little old lady" role, I don't think there's a single nice thing that her character says about _anybody_ from family, friends to dead relatives in the entire film.
As such, this is why I don't think it'd be particularly wise to recommend the film to any particular family (as they might take it the wrong way), I think almost _every_ family would probably understand. The characters are exaggerated but they also feel real. And by the end of the film, even though it's clear that the family hasn't confronted _any_ of its "demons" ... one ALSO HONESTLY UNDERSTANDS.
This is a great, well written, well shot, low key "character piece" that will put smiles on a lot of faces even as we all hope we're a bit better, and better adjusted, than most of the characters in the film. Still to most of us, the film will probably feel _a lot_ like home ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub.com (A.A. Dowd) review
Nebraska [2103] (directed by Alexander Payne, screenplay by Bob Nelson) is the kind of movie that I wouldn't want to recommend to any particular family (because it could be taken the wrong way :-) but one that all/most older families (w. adult kids) ought to see. For "just in time for the holiday season," the film's a "gift" for all those who'd think that their families "have problems" ;-).
Old and long-time problematic guy Woody Grant (played by Bruce Dern), a Korean War vet who never really returned from that War in one piece but rather spent the following, count them, 6 decades mostly "in a bottle," now in his eighties ... receives a piece of mail. What's the piece of mail? Well it's a sweepstakes letter telling him (as these letters ALWAYS DO) that (given nearly impossible conditions ...) he won $1,000,000 (!!). Most of us receiving these obviously borderline fraudulent letters throw them away. But poor Woody, in his 80s, his mind mostly gone due to Alcohol, now mixed no doubt with the onset of one form or another of Dementia/Alzheimers BELIEVES THE LETTER THIS TIME. All he thinks he has to do is go from his home in Billings, Montana to the sweepstakes office in Lincoln, Nebraska, that's heck, only about an hour from his home town where he'd grown up. How hard can it be? FOR A MILLION BUCKS...
'Cept, that ungrateful family of his, wife Kate (played _superbly_ by June Squibb) and two grown sons Ross (played by Bob Odenkirk) and David (played by Will Forte) DON'T WANT TO TAKE HIM THERE. Why? Because, let's recall the reasons: (1) Most obviously, THEY KNOW IT'S A SCAM, and (2) they are all resentful of the guy for having been a terrible (and mostly drunk) husband and father throughout most of their lives. So none of them is in any mood of "enabling him" in this self-evidently FOOL'S ERRAND. So ...
Woody decides to go on his own (walk...) from Billings, Montana to Lincoln, Nebraska, "only" 600 miles (!!) OVER OPEN COUNTRY (not a tree for miles in every conceivable direction) IN THE WINTER IN THE SNOW "to show 'em." Wife Kate and older son Ross decide (initially) to "let him try..." Younger son David, caves in first, and picks him up in his car some miles out and decides, as foolish and stupid as this Quixote-like quest may be, "dad's not gonna be around much longer," so why not ... maybe "on the journey" he'll "learn a thing or two" still about his dad.
And he does as we all do, as we the viewers join the two on this journey. And as we follow the two, we begin to better understand Woody and his family and why they are the way they are. By the time Woody and David make it to Woody and Kate's hometown, we find that the rest of the family's "caved" to Woody's dream quest as well. Much ensues as different characters from Woody and Kate's hometown approach their surprising arrival with even more surprising news, even if we viewers (and most of the townsfolk, if they thought about it at all) realize that the "news" is, well ... NONSENSE.
Here I have to underline Kate's character (played as I've already said superbly by June Squibb). Hers has got to be one of the best drawn characters of the year and certainly one of the best acted: If this film were viewed as a drinking game, and one had to take a drink every time Kate's character said something _nice_ about another person in the story, I do believe one would finish the film completely, utterly _sober_ ;-). For as smiling as she as Squibb plays her "sweet little old lady" role, I don't think there's a single nice thing that her character says about _anybody_ from family, friends to dead relatives in the entire film.
As such, this is why I don't think it'd be particularly wise to recommend the film to any particular family (as they might take it the wrong way), I think almost _every_ family would probably understand. The characters are exaggerated but they also feel real. And by the end of the film, even though it's clear that the family hasn't confronted _any_ of its "demons" ... one ALSO HONESTLY UNDERSTANDS.
This is a great, well written, well shot, low key "character piece" that will put smiles on a lot of faces even as we all hope we're a bit better, and better adjusted, than most of the characters in the film. Still to most of us, the film will probably feel _a lot_ like home ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
Black Nativity [2013]
MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-II) ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars) RE.com (3 Stars) AVClub (D) Fr. Dennis (4+ Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review
BET articles
Ebony articles
Essence.com articles
TheSource articles
It seems fitting that Black Nativity [2013] (directed and screenplay by Kasi Lemmons, based on the original stage play/musical [Amazon] by Langston Hughes [IMDb]) would come out this year as part of an ever increasingly impressive wave of African American cinema becoming known as the Black Hollywood Renaissance [BBC] [CNN] [Ebony] [HPost]. I write this because Langston Hughes [IMDb]'s original which he characterized as a "Gospel song play" premiered in 1961 and came out of the African American cultural birthing ground that was Harlem at the time.
I've also enjoyed following this African American Hollywood Renaissance in good part because those "who have eyes and ears" (and souls) that are open can see the obvious: that African American film-makers along with the actors/actresses who play in their films are not ashamed of their Christian faith. And it's not a "pie in the sky" spirituality that's present in these films. These films -- I think of films as varied as Tyler Perry's Madea's Big Happy Family [2011], Flight [2012], Tyler Perry's Temptation:Confessions of a Marriage Counselor [2013], Fruitvale Station [2013], 12 Years a Slave [2013], Best Man's Holiday [2013] and the current film Black Nativity [2013] -- often name/confront very real pain, dysfunction and betrayal on all kinds of levels. But they also do so with a confident belief in a God who is _not blind_, who is capable of sorting things out and capable of resolving things with both Justice (toward the injured) and Mercy (toward those who caused injury). In a phrase, contemporary African American cinema is emphatically NOT Godless. And someone like me can not but notice and indeed APPLAUD.
To the film at hand ...
Screenwriter/director Kasi Lemmons creation tells the story of Langston (played by Jacob Latimore), a 15 year old named actually after Langston Hughes the writer of the original stage play. He's been growing up in Baltimore, raised by his mother Naima (played by Jennifer Hudson), alone, and there are really A HUGE NUMBER OF FUNDAMENTAL YET UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN HIS LIFE: Who was his father? Who were his grandparents, ANY OF HIS GRANDPARENTS? He hasn't known any of them.
Now it hasn't been that his mother was evil, we definitely come to see that as the story continues. However, Langston finds himself with a rather evocative name, yet with little understanding of why he had been given it, and no one to explain ANYTHING TO HIM but his ever harried mother in perpetual survival mode.
Things though had come to a breaking point just as the story begins with Naima realizing that she and her son were about to get evicted and thus deciding to send 15-year-old Langston up to New York (Harlem) to spend Christmas (and probably beyond ...) with her parents (his grandparents) WHO HE'S NEVER MET. Why such a drastic move? Apparently at the end of her rope, she tells him: "I'M THINKING ABOUT WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU." She's avoided this moment for 15 years, so it's obvious that this was a crushingly painful crossroads for her to arrive at.
She puts Langston on a bus with her parents' phone number should he miss them when he arrives. Yes, there's some confusion when he does arrive. He doesn't know who he's looking for, they don't know who they are looking for. (I'm simplifying things ... after various things happening they find each other).
The BIG SURPRISE is that Langston's grandparents don't seem particularly "evil" either. Langston's grandfather turns out to be a preacher, the Rev. Cornell Cobbs (played exquisitely by Forest Whitaker). Yes, he's a bit on the stricter side, but he's no monster. Grandma, Aretha Cobbs (played by Angela Bassett) is a sweetheart. WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED? Go see the rest of the film.
This is a great story about family conflict and reconciliation. Yes, as Naima eventually finds her way up to New York as well. And poor Langston who was an utterly lost soul / lost person at the beginning of the story NOT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT HIS PAST and WANDERING ABOUT AIMLESSLY in the present exclaims, "THIS IS MY CHRISTMAS MIRACLE" -- Note that nothing yet was resolved but in the same room (a Church), stood his Mother, his Grandparents and EVEN HIS FATHER ... and SUDDENLY THERE WAS HOPE that it all could come to make sense. And one just wants to cry ...
This is a great story with a universal theme which anyone with a heart could understand.
<< 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! :-) >>
Monday, November 25, 2013
Burning Bush (orig. Hořicí Keř) [HBO-Europe Miniseries 2013]
MPAA (UR would be R) iDnes.cz (8/10) Totalfilm.cz (10/10) Fr. Dennis-Zdeněk (4+ Stars)
IMDb listing
CSFD listing*
FDb.cz listing*
Filmweb.pl listing*
iDnes.cz (M. Spáčilová) review*
Lidovky.cz (M. Černá) fact-check/review*
Prigl.cz review*
Showbiz.cz (M. Kvasnička) review*
Totalfilm.cz review*
Burning Bush (orig. Hořicí Keř) [HBO-Europe Miniseries 2013] [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]* [FW.pl]* (directed by Polish born Agnieszka Holland [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]* [FW.pl]*, screenplay by Štěpán Hulík [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) played recently as part of a "Czech Showcase" at the 25th Polish Film Festival in America held in Chicago, IL between Nov 8-24.
The film tells the story of what many Czechs and Slovaks of the time came to consider the greatest and certainly most poignant act of defiance to the Aug 20-21, 1968 Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia that crushed the movement of liberalization of Communism that had been occurring there known as The Prague Spring.
Inspired perhaps by similar self-immolations by Buddhist monks in Saigon to protest the Vietnam War, on January 16, 1969, Jan Palach [wikip-ENG] [wikip-CZ]* a history student at Charles University in Prague, set himself on fire by the monument to St. Wenceslas (Patron Saint to the Czechs) on Prague's Wenceslas Square to protest the Soviet Invasion/Occupation of his Country. He died 3 days later and his death remained an open wound throughout the whole of the remainder of the Communist Era in Czechoslovakia.
I remember when visiting Prague as a child and as a teenager being taken by relatives by what had been Jan Palach's grave in Prague's Olšany Cemetery (my mother's family had its family grave at Olšany as well). Palach's grave had become a site of veneration / quiet protest. So in the dead of night, the Communists had Palach's body exhumed and cremated and had an old woman with no family buried there in his place. No matter, mounds of candles and floral tributes remained being placed there in memory of Jan Palach until the end of the Communist Era when his cremains were re-interred there. I myself am a witness to those candles and flowers placed there in silent protest during the Communist era.
The miniseries here tells the story of Jan Palach in three parts. The first part begins on the morning of January 16, 1969, showing an anonymous young man carrying a briefcase and a plastic gas-can of liquid over to the side of the rather large statue of / monument to St. Wenceslas on Prague's Wenceslas Square. He set the briefcase and the gas-can down, apparently rubbed some (oil based?) cream on the upper torso of his body, then poured the gasoline from the gas-can on himself, pulled-out a matchbox from his briefcase, struck a match and set himself ablaze.
The film portrayed bystanders as initially not understanding what was going on. Palach had appeared to be simply a young man. Okay he was carrying a gas-can, but he could have been a motorcyclist. Okay he had rubbed some kind of a cream on his chest. Perhaps he was an athlete of some sort. And when he set himself on fire, and yes, began to run about, involuntarily/necessarily in pain (that detail, that he did run around while on fire made sense to me as, knowing the story, I had wondered for a good part of my life what Palach's reaction would have been after he had set himself ablaze) it took a few seconds for bystanders to snap-out of a stunned gaze at this strange sight and respond by trying to put the flames out and call an ambulance for help.
Why did he do it? Well there was a letter in his briefcase and he left another copy of the same letter in is dorm-room. The letter stated (and this I did not know before seeing the film) that he was the first of a group of five or six others who had determined that the situation in the country was so grave that they would start immolating themselves, one every five or six days, until their demands were met. The number one demand was an end to all censorship in the country and _presumably_ the final demand was an end to the Soviet occupation.
This was pretty terrifying stuff. Almost NOBODY believed that a campaign of self-immolations was going to bend the will of the Soviet occupiers, and yet almost all the Czechoslovak authorities in Prague (TO SAY NOTHING OF PARENTS) feared that there could be a lot of dead young people as a result.
What the heck to do? The first part of this miniseries was about the fevered days between Jan Palach's immolation and his death three days later, when all of Czechoslovak society came together -- from the most sympathetic to Palach's act (idealistic/patriotic students) to the Czechoslovak authorities who had visions of mounds of dead young people while the Soviet Army which had by then largely retired to the outskirts of the city coming back into Prague to simply crush everything, to frankly terrified PARENTS across the land -- to invent a "noble lie": Palach from his death bed instructing those who would be considering following him in this path of self-immolation TO NOT DO SO, telling them that from his perspective _now_, LYING IN A BURN WARD WITH LITTLE CHANCE OF RECOVERY and EVEN IF HE DID, WITH LITTLE CHANCE OF EVER LEADING A NORMAL LIFE, this was NOT the path to go.
Interestingly, the Czech newspaper Lidove Noviny (Lidovky) reporting on the historicity of this miniseries* notes that THIS MESSAGE WAS ACTUALLY BROADCAST ON CZECHOSLOVAK TELEVISION at the time, but by Prague Student Union leader (and friend of Palach) Lubomír/Luboš Holeček.* The miniseries had Palach's "message" delivered by a girlfriend/acquaintance of Palach's, in the series named Hana Čížková (and played by Emma Smetana [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*). Why the change? There is a character based in good part on Luboš Holeček in the series named Ondřej Trávníček (played by Vojtěch Kotek [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*). However, while Luboš Holeček* himself died, his wife of that time lives to this day and there were some disagreements between how the series-makers wanted to portray him and his wife of the time wished that he be remembered. So the film-makers chose to invent a character largely based on Holeček* but sufficiently different from him to not cause problems with Holeček's widow.
Much of the first episode focuses on Jan Palach's family about how his brother Jiří (played by Petr Strach [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) and mother Libuše (played by Jaroslava Pokorná [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) found out about Jan's self-immolation. Not altogether surprisingly, he hadn't told them a word of his plans. More painfully, he had left no special/separate note for them.
The first episode ended with Jan Palach's death and funeral, which naturally in the politically explosive climate of Prague at the time, produced a massive if temporary outpouring of grief.
The second episode began some months later with a young copycat Jan Zajíc, a teenager/secondary schooler, immolating himself again by the monument to St Wenceslas on Prague's Wenceslas Square. Zajíc's case was hardly reported and authorities and the state media tried very hard and largely succeeded in separating his case from that of Palach's. In as much as it was mentioned in the Czechoslovak (Communist controlled) Press at all, Zajíc's suicide was simply reported as that of a distraught young teen.
But by this time, Czechoslovakia, still occupied, (Soviet troops, if perhaps somewhat discretely, remained on Czech and Slovak soil until after the fall of the Communist regime in 1989) was now quite well on its way toward post-invasion "Normalization" (what an Orwellian term...). And at a meeting of Communist officials in the provincial town of Ceská Lípa, a certain delegate named Vilém Nový (played by Martin Huba [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) denounced Jan Palach as having been (1) part of a radically right-wing group of extremists, (2) in contact with and influenced by foreign agents and (3) in any case duped into an immolation that was supposed to have been faked (that he was supposed to have set himself on fire using a substance called "cold fire" supposedly used by circus acts and at the last minute _somebody_ had switched the "cold fire" liquid with actual gasoline).
Well, Czechoslovakia nearing the one year anniversary of the Soviet invasion may have been well on its path toward "Normalization" but it was not there yet: Palach's mother and brother DECIDE TO FILE AN ANTI-DEFAMATION SUIT against Vilém Nový. And they come to a lawyer named Dagmar Burešová [wiki-CZ]* (played by Tatiana (Táňa) Pauhofová [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) to represent them.
Now much of the drama of the second part of the miniseries centered on the miniseries' posited initial reluctance of Ms. Burešová J.Dr. [wiki-CZ]* to take-on the case. And one would certainly understand why a Czechoslovak lawyer at the time would have been reluctant to take-on such a case. It was almost certainly going to end in a loss and it opened one up, AND ONE'S FAMILY UP, for all kinds of retribution. Yet, interestingly, that's not how her husband Radim Bureš (played in the film by Jan Budař [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) actually remembers things according to the historicity-checking article by Lidove Noviny (Lidovky). Instead, he remembers his wife defending all kinds of politically persecuted people at the time, including the Palach family. So he doesn't believe that she wavered at all.
Yet one year on after the invasion, Czechoslovak society was being purged of those unwilling to adapt to new realities on the ground (with the Soviet fraternal brothers keeping their troops on Czechoslovak soil and certainly "close enough" to Prague to make sure that "things went their way.")
The second part of the miniseries ends with the aftermath of the street demonstrations marking the one year anniversary of the Soviet Invasion and students as well as various intellectuals/professionals learning the hard way that their participation in such "anti-socialist actions" would hence-forth result in heavy sanction: In the summary expulsion of students from university for participating in demonstrations, and in the termination of employment for those professional who refused loyalty oaths to the post-invasion regime. (Some of the best educated window-washers and street-cleaners in the world in the 1970 and 80s were found in Prague).
Disgusted with the aftermath of the first anniversary street demonstrations, the series has a Prague police officer Mjor Jireš (played by Ivan Trojan [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) putting his revolver into the drawer of his desk at work and in the next scene driving his family cross the border to Austria. Like most Czechs and Slovaks of the time, he had been appalled by the Soviet Invasion of his country, but he was also a policeman. So in the first episode we saw him feverishly working on the Palach case trying to discover if there really was a cell of students like Palach set on immolating themselves for their country - IN ORDER TO DISSUADE THEM FROM DOING SO. And unable to find said group, it is his department that finds at least Palach's acquaitance/girlfriend to put her on camera read the invented message do dissuade would be copycats from doing the same as Palach did. Yet, seeing students now being thrown out of school (their futures distroyed) for simply protesting against the Soviet Invasion (that everybody opposed), he had enough. And like 100,000 Czechs and Slovaks following the invasion, he packed-up his family and said goodbye to the country.
The third part of the miniseries focuses on the preparation for the trial and then the trial itself. And it felt very much like Oliver Stone's JFK [1991]. The "fix" was obviously in, and everybody involved in the prosecution was being harrassed. Lawyer Dagmar Berešová's husband, a doctor, lost his job at a Prague hospital and the only job he could find was at a clinic in the outlying provincial town of Beroun a long drop from working at "Prague General Hosp."
The Palach family, of course, faced worse. Mom, Libuše, found herself in and out of psychiatric institutions (and remember here that these would be are Communist Era mental institutions, not necessarily interested making one better, but more in keeping troublesome people down. Refer to Alois Nebel [2011] to better understand). And Palach's brother Jiří finds himself under increasing pressure by the authorities to "do something" regarding Jan Palach's grave, that is, to move Palach's remains from Prague. And eventually, as I wrote above, Jan Palach's remains were dug up and cremated and a completely unrelated person buried in his place (Again, I myself am a witness to some of this part of the story).
The trial, when it gets to trial of course, ends up a farce. Vilém Nový is vindicated in the ANTI-DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST HIM despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Lawyer Berešová got in her hands both the text of Nový's speech (which then went missing from her office just before trial ...) and then even found A RECORDING OF IT BEING GIVEN at the Česká Lípa gathering. Finally, Comrade Nový's claims in his speech that Palach actually wanted to "fake" his immolation made no sense. Why would one want to do that? What would be the point of _faking_ a self-immolation?
No matter. The only "truth" that counted at the time, was "that which serves the working class ..." (hence that which served the Communist Party, hence ultimately that which served those allied once more with the Soviet Occupiers).
Nový went free and arguably received an apology from the Court for having had _his reputation_ questioned...
Interestingly the Lidove Noviny (Lidovky) fact-checking article notes that the trial was actually even a bigger farce than portayed in the film. This is because the Palachs were not the only ones claiming defamation by Nový. Writer Pavel Kohout and legendary Czech Olympic distance runner Emil Zátopek were involved in the case as well (and if I understand it, were claiming that they were defamed by Vilém Nový as well).
But the series ends with a reminder that no matter what the Communist authorities did, the memory of Jan Palach and his self-immolation in protest to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could not be erased, that it remained seared into the memory of the Czech and Slovak peoples. Indeed, the series noted that demostrations in Czechoslovakia in January, 1989 in commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of Jan Palach's death began a year of ever increasing demonstrations in Prague until the Communist regime fell in November of that year.
The series also noted that after the fall of the Communist regime, Dagmar Burešová J.Dr. [wiki-CZ]* became the country's first post-Communist Minister of Justice.
Great film!
ADDENDUM: Among the Czech language reviews* that I included above is one that comes from a youth oriented website named prigl.cz. It comes from Brno, the Czech Republic's "second city" and one that's become something of a "college town" there in recent years.
The complaint of the site's reviewer was not so much against the mini-series itself but rather that "the current generation appears doomed to see little else than one presentation after another about the awful years under Communism." I include the review* here because (1) Palach himself was a young person, a student when he sacrificed himself in this way for his country, and I do wonder if Palach was a young person today if he'd actually sympathize/agree with prigle.cz's reviewer, and (2) I actually do understand and sympathize with the complaint (to a point).
Indeed, when I do go to film festivals here in Chicago that feature films from the former Communist Bloc, I try very hard to find some truly POST-COMMUNIST films in addition to the historical films. And arguably I prefer the "newer themed films." Indeed, I've told plenty of friends over the years that growing up, "Hitler and Stalin were uninvited guests at pretty much every one of my family's gatherings." Still, history is history and we can't really escape from it. But it's been my hope that we can grow-through the past to create things that are better and new. Heck, I'm a Catholic priest, talk about "rooted in the past." But past need not be everything. One can grow toward a better future without simply taking an axe to what was before.
* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using Google's Chrome Browser.
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CSFD listing*
FDb.cz listing*
Filmweb.pl listing*
iDnes.cz (M. Spáčilová) review*
Lidovky.cz (M. Černá) fact-check/review*
Prigl.cz review*
Showbiz.cz (M. Kvasnička) review*
Totalfilm.cz review*
Burning Bush (orig. Hořicí Keř) [HBO-Europe Miniseries 2013] [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]* [FW.pl]* (directed by Polish born Agnieszka Holland [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]* [FW.pl]*, screenplay by Štěpán Hulík [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) played recently as part of a "Czech Showcase" at the 25th Polish Film Festival in America held in Chicago, IL between Nov 8-24.
The film tells the story of what many Czechs and Slovaks of the time came to consider the greatest and certainly most poignant act of defiance to the Aug 20-21, 1968 Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia that crushed the movement of liberalization of Communism that had been occurring there known as The Prague Spring.
Inspired perhaps by similar self-immolations by Buddhist monks in Saigon to protest the Vietnam War, on January 16, 1969, Jan Palach [wikip-ENG] [wikip-CZ]* a history student at Charles University in Prague, set himself on fire by the monument to St. Wenceslas (Patron Saint to the Czechs) on Prague's Wenceslas Square to protest the Soviet Invasion/Occupation of his Country. He died 3 days later and his death remained an open wound throughout the whole of the remainder of the Communist Era in Czechoslovakia.
I remember when visiting Prague as a child and as a teenager being taken by relatives by what had been Jan Palach's grave in Prague's Olšany Cemetery (my mother's family had its family grave at Olšany as well). Palach's grave had become a site of veneration / quiet protest. So in the dead of night, the Communists had Palach's body exhumed and cremated and had an old woman with no family buried there in his place. No matter, mounds of candles and floral tributes remained being placed there in memory of Jan Palach until the end of the Communist Era when his cremains were re-interred there. I myself am a witness to those candles and flowers placed there in silent protest during the Communist era.
The miniseries here tells the story of Jan Palach in three parts. The first part begins on the morning of January 16, 1969, showing an anonymous young man carrying a briefcase and a plastic gas-can of liquid over to the side of the rather large statue of / monument to St. Wenceslas on Prague's Wenceslas Square. He set the briefcase and the gas-can down, apparently rubbed some (oil based?) cream on the upper torso of his body, then poured the gasoline from the gas-can on himself, pulled-out a matchbox from his briefcase, struck a match and set himself ablaze.
The film portrayed bystanders as initially not understanding what was going on. Palach had appeared to be simply a young man. Okay he was carrying a gas-can, but he could have been a motorcyclist. Okay he had rubbed some kind of a cream on his chest. Perhaps he was an athlete of some sort. And when he set himself on fire, and yes, began to run about, involuntarily/necessarily in pain (that detail, that he did run around while on fire made sense to me as, knowing the story, I had wondered for a good part of my life what Palach's reaction would have been after he had set himself ablaze) it took a few seconds for bystanders to snap-out of a stunned gaze at this strange sight and respond by trying to put the flames out and call an ambulance for help.
Why did he do it? Well there was a letter in his briefcase and he left another copy of the same letter in is dorm-room. The letter stated (and this I did not know before seeing the film) that he was the first of a group of five or six others who had determined that the situation in the country was so grave that they would start immolating themselves, one every five or six days, until their demands were met. The number one demand was an end to all censorship in the country and _presumably_ the final demand was an end to the Soviet occupation.
This was pretty terrifying stuff. Almost NOBODY believed that a campaign of self-immolations was going to bend the will of the Soviet occupiers, and yet almost all the Czechoslovak authorities in Prague (TO SAY NOTHING OF PARENTS) feared that there could be a lot of dead young people as a result.
What the heck to do? The first part of this miniseries was about the fevered days between Jan Palach's immolation and his death three days later, when all of Czechoslovak society came together -- from the most sympathetic to Palach's act (idealistic/patriotic students) to the Czechoslovak authorities who had visions of mounds of dead young people while the Soviet Army which had by then largely retired to the outskirts of the city coming back into Prague to simply crush everything, to frankly terrified PARENTS across the land -- to invent a "noble lie": Palach from his death bed instructing those who would be considering following him in this path of self-immolation TO NOT DO SO, telling them that from his perspective _now_, LYING IN A BURN WARD WITH LITTLE CHANCE OF RECOVERY and EVEN IF HE DID, WITH LITTLE CHANCE OF EVER LEADING A NORMAL LIFE, this was NOT the path to go.
Interestingly, the Czech newspaper Lidove Noviny (Lidovky) reporting on the historicity of this miniseries* notes that THIS MESSAGE WAS ACTUALLY BROADCAST ON CZECHOSLOVAK TELEVISION at the time, but by Prague Student Union leader (and friend of Palach) Lubomír/Luboš Holeček.* The miniseries had Palach's "message" delivered by a girlfriend/acquaintance of Palach's, in the series named Hana Čížková (and played by Emma Smetana [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*). Why the change? There is a character based in good part on Luboš Holeček in the series named Ondřej Trávníček (played by Vojtěch Kotek [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*). However, while Luboš Holeček* himself died, his wife of that time lives to this day and there were some disagreements between how the series-makers wanted to portray him and his wife of the time wished that he be remembered. So the film-makers chose to invent a character largely based on Holeček* but sufficiently different from him to not cause problems with Holeček's widow.
Much of the first episode focuses on Jan Palach's family about how his brother Jiří (played by Petr Strach [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) and mother Libuše (played by Jaroslava Pokorná [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) found out about Jan's self-immolation. Not altogether surprisingly, he hadn't told them a word of his plans. More painfully, he had left no special/separate note for them.
The first episode ended with Jan Palach's death and funeral, which naturally in the politically explosive climate of Prague at the time, produced a massive if temporary outpouring of grief.
The second episode began some months later with a young copycat Jan Zajíc, a teenager/secondary schooler, immolating himself again by the monument to St Wenceslas on Prague's Wenceslas Square. Zajíc's case was hardly reported and authorities and the state media tried very hard and largely succeeded in separating his case from that of Palach's. In as much as it was mentioned in the Czechoslovak (Communist controlled) Press at all, Zajíc's suicide was simply reported as that of a distraught young teen.
But by this time, Czechoslovakia, still occupied, (Soviet troops, if perhaps somewhat discretely, remained on Czech and Slovak soil until after the fall of the Communist regime in 1989) was now quite well on its way toward post-invasion "Normalization" (what an Orwellian term...). And at a meeting of Communist officials in the provincial town of Ceská Lípa, a certain delegate named Vilém Nový (played by Martin Huba [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) denounced Jan Palach as having been (1) part of a radically right-wing group of extremists, (2) in contact with and influenced by foreign agents and (3) in any case duped into an immolation that was supposed to have been faked (that he was supposed to have set himself on fire using a substance called "cold fire" supposedly used by circus acts and at the last minute _somebody_ had switched the "cold fire" liquid with actual gasoline).
Well, Czechoslovakia nearing the one year anniversary of the Soviet invasion may have been well on its path toward "Normalization" but it was not there yet: Palach's mother and brother DECIDE TO FILE AN ANTI-DEFAMATION SUIT against Vilém Nový. And they come to a lawyer named Dagmar Burešová [wiki-CZ]* (played by Tatiana (Táňa) Pauhofová [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) to represent them.
Now much of the drama of the second part of the miniseries centered on the miniseries' posited initial reluctance of Ms. Burešová J.Dr. [wiki-CZ]* to take-on the case. And one would certainly understand why a Czechoslovak lawyer at the time would have been reluctant to take-on such a case. It was almost certainly going to end in a loss and it opened one up, AND ONE'S FAMILY UP, for all kinds of retribution. Yet, interestingly, that's not how her husband Radim Bureš (played in the film by Jan Budař [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) actually remembers things according to the historicity-checking article by Lidove Noviny (Lidovky). Instead, he remembers his wife defending all kinds of politically persecuted people at the time, including the Palach family. So he doesn't believe that she wavered at all.
Yet one year on after the invasion, Czechoslovak society was being purged of those unwilling to adapt to new realities on the ground (with the Soviet fraternal brothers keeping their troops on Czechoslovak soil and certainly "close enough" to Prague to make sure that "things went their way.")
The second part of the miniseries ends with the aftermath of the street demonstrations marking the one year anniversary of the Soviet Invasion and students as well as various intellectuals/professionals learning the hard way that their participation in such "anti-socialist actions" would hence-forth result in heavy sanction: In the summary expulsion of students from university for participating in demonstrations, and in the termination of employment for those professional who refused loyalty oaths to the post-invasion regime. (Some of the best educated window-washers and street-cleaners in the world in the 1970 and 80s were found in Prague).
Disgusted with the aftermath of the first anniversary street demonstrations, the series has a Prague police officer Mjor Jireš (played by Ivan Trojan [IMDb] [CSFD]* [FDb.cz]*) putting his revolver into the drawer of his desk at work and in the next scene driving his family cross the border to Austria. Like most Czechs and Slovaks of the time, he had been appalled by the Soviet Invasion of his country, but he was also a policeman. So in the first episode we saw him feverishly working on the Palach case trying to discover if there really was a cell of students like Palach set on immolating themselves for their country - IN ORDER TO DISSUADE THEM FROM DOING SO. And unable to find said group, it is his department that finds at least Palach's acquaitance/girlfriend to put her on camera read the invented message do dissuade would be copycats from doing the same as Palach did. Yet, seeing students now being thrown out of school (their futures distroyed) for simply protesting against the Soviet Invasion (that everybody opposed), he had enough. And like 100,000 Czechs and Slovaks following the invasion, he packed-up his family and said goodbye to the country.
The third part of the miniseries focuses on the preparation for the trial and then the trial itself. And it felt very much like Oliver Stone's JFK [1991]. The "fix" was obviously in, and everybody involved in the prosecution was being harrassed. Lawyer Dagmar Berešová's husband, a doctor, lost his job at a Prague hospital and the only job he could find was at a clinic in the outlying provincial town of Beroun a long drop from working at "Prague General Hosp."
The Palach family, of course, faced worse. Mom, Libuše, found herself in and out of psychiatric institutions (and remember here that these would be are Communist Era mental institutions, not necessarily interested making one better, but more in keeping troublesome people down. Refer to Alois Nebel [2011] to better understand). And Palach's brother Jiří finds himself under increasing pressure by the authorities to "do something" regarding Jan Palach's grave, that is, to move Palach's remains from Prague. And eventually, as I wrote above, Jan Palach's remains were dug up and cremated and a completely unrelated person buried in his place (Again, I myself am a witness to some of this part of the story).
The trial, when it gets to trial of course, ends up a farce. Vilém Nový is vindicated in the ANTI-DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST HIM despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Lawyer Berešová got in her hands both the text of Nový's speech (which then went missing from her office just before trial ...) and then even found A RECORDING OF IT BEING GIVEN at the Česká Lípa gathering. Finally, Comrade Nový's claims in his speech that Palach actually wanted to "fake" his immolation made no sense. Why would one want to do that? What would be the point of _faking_ a self-immolation?
No matter. The only "truth" that counted at the time, was "that which serves the working class ..." (hence that which served the Communist Party, hence ultimately that which served those allied once more with the Soviet Occupiers).
Nový went free and arguably received an apology from the Court for having had _his reputation_ questioned...
Interestingly the Lidove Noviny (Lidovky) fact-checking article notes that the trial was actually even a bigger farce than portayed in the film. This is because the Palachs were not the only ones claiming defamation by Nový. Writer Pavel Kohout and legendary Czech Olympic distance runner Emil Zátopek were involved in the case as well (and if I understand it, were claiming that they were defamed by Vilém Nový as well).
But the series ends with a reminder that no matter what the Communist authorities did, the memory of Jan Palach and his self-immolation in protest to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia could not be erased, that it remained seared into the memory of the Czech and Slovak peoples. Indeed, the series noted that demostrations in Czechoslovakia in January, 1989 in commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of Jan Palach's death began a year of ever increasing demonstrations in Prague until the Communist regime fell in November of that year.
The series also noted that after the fall of the Communist regime, Dagmar Burešová J.Dr. [wiki-CZ]* became the country's first post-Communist Minister of Justice.
Great film!
ADDENDUM: Among the Czech language reviews* that I included above is one that comes from a youth oriented website named prigl.cz. It comes from Brno, the Czech Republic's "second city" and one that's become something of a "college town" there in recent years.
The complaint of the site's reviewer was not so much against the mini-series itself but rather that "the current generation appears doomed to see little else than one presentation after another about the awful years under Communism." I include the review* here because (1) Palach himself was a young person, a student when he sacrificed himself in this way for his country, and I do wonder if Palach was a young person today if he'd actually sympathize/agree with prigle.cz's reviewer, and (2) I actually do understand and sympathize with the complaint (to a point).
Indeed, when I do go to film festivals here in Chicago that feature films from the former Communist Bloc, I try very hard to find some truly POST-COMMUNIST films in addition to the historical films. And arguably I prefer the "newer themed films." Indeed, I've told plenty of friends over the years that growing up, "Hitler and Stalin were uninvited guests at pretty much every one of my family's gatherings." Still, history is history and we can't really escape from it. But it's been my hope that we can grow-through the past to create things that are better and new. Heck, I'm a Catholic priest, talk about "rooted in the past." But past need not be everything. One can grow toward a better future without simply taking an axe to what was before.
* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using Google's Chrome Browser.
<< 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! :-) >>
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Delivery Man [2013]
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (L) ChicagoTribune (2 Stars) RE.com (1 1/2 Stars) AVClub (C-) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review
Delivery Man [2013] (written and directed by Ken Scott is a near carbon-copy of the French-Canadian original named Starbuck [2012] also directed by and screenplay co-authored by Ken Scott along with Martin Petit).
Now many folks may complain about the decision to make an English language copy of a foreign (if, in the US, still English-subtitled) film. On the other hand, the original was quite, well... "original" ;-) and honestly many Americans would probably not see the French language original because of its subtitles. And despite the film's obviously problematic premise I do believe that it's worth seeing (by adults anyway. PARENTS TAKE NOTE: I honestly don't understand the somewhat laughable PG-13 rating...).
The film is about an amiable if serial loser named David Wosniak (played _superbly_ in the current version by Vince Vaughn) who finds to his initial shock/dismay (really to the initial shock/dismay of EVERYONE AROUND HIM) that he did succeed (and spectacularly so) in ONE THING in life: Ever with debt problems, back in his 20s, he used to try to supplement his income by DONATING SPERM to a sperm bank and ... well ... 20 years later (now) a lawyer comes by to tell him that he had sired 533 children (!!) of which over 140 (again !!) were now suing the clinic for the release of his name ...
Yes, if David Wosniak had been a good Catholic and followed Church teaching on -- oh, let's make a list, shall we: (1) masturbation, (2) selling his ejaculated sperm to a sperm bank for (3) artificial insemination (all of which are considered objectively sinful by Catholic Church teaching) -- this predicament never would have happened.
Indeed, the film provides an EXCELLENT ILLUSTRATION of the kind of problems that ensue when Church Teaching on sexual matters is stupidly/arrogantly dismissed/ignored: There are 533 kids here who don't know their dad, and a lot of them would like to. as one would assume would be their _natural right_ to know.
But the 533, now adult, children do exist and over 140 of them do want to know who their father is. And having learned of this, David Wosniak himself, _naturally_ would like to know something of all those children that he's helped create.
That then is the rest of the movie ... (as it was in the French Canadian original)
And while irritatingly it seems that THE ONLY ONE in the Wosniak family who still wants to pray (at a family dinner...) is the Wosniak family's esteemed father/patriarch, founder of the family's business for which perpetually "loser-son" David works as a humble (and still largely incompetent) delivery man, the film offers actually audiences opportunity to reflect on Church Teaching regarding not only (1) SEXUAL MATTERS (everyone, Catholic or not, would certainly see the situation in which David Wosniak and his 533 progeny find themselves in as problematic, hence BY DEFINITION at least on some level _sinful_), but also (2) LIFE (regardless of how they got here, those 533 people _are now_ here, AND HOW REMARKABLE IS THAT ;-), and ABOVE ALL (3) FORGIVENESS (what an opportunity to reflect on the felix culpa (happy fault) of even Adam and Eve, which we remember during the Easter Vigil Liturgy as "bringing us so great a Redeemer").
Often times contemporary society completely rejects the concept of Sin, but often enough, it also rejects the possibility of Forgiveness (or makes it so hard that it's de facto impossible to achieve). In contrast, the Church recognizes the world for what it is (created by God but finding itself now in a still largely Fallen State) AND yet ALSO PROCLAIMS that FORGIVENESS IS POSSIBLE that, indeed, "there is no offense, however, serious that the Church can not forgive" (CCC #982). Indeed, people sometimes _laugh_ at the ease at which the Catholic Church forgives (Consider the recent film Don Jon [2013] where the lead character's weekly stops at the Confessional make much of the comic fodder for the film). Yet how much more humane is that than living in a society where Sin is first denied and yet when people fall into trouble (as a result of Sin....) the possibility of forgiveness is denied (or de facto denied) as well.
So as in the case of many contemporary comedies ... this film leaves one with much to think 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review
Delivery Man [2013] (written and directed by Ken Scott is a near carbon-copy of the French-Canadian original named Starbuck [2012] also directed by and screenplay co-authored by Ken Scott along with Martin Petit).
Now many folks may complain about the decision to make an English language copy of a foreign (if, in the US, still English-subtitled) film. On the other hand, the original was quite, well... "original" ;-) and honestly many Americans would probably not see the French language original because of its subtitles. And despite the film's obviously problematic premise I do believe that it's worth seeing (by adults anyway. PARENTS TAKE NOTE: I honestly don't understand the somewhat laughable PG-13 rating...).
The film is about an amiable if serial loser named David Wosniak (played _superbly_ in the current version by Vince Vaughn) who finds to his initial shock/dismay (really to the initial shock/dismay of EVERYONE AROUND HIM) that he did succeed (and spectacularly so) in ONE THING in life: Ever with debt problems, back in his 20s, he used to try to supplement his income by DONATING SPERM to a sperm bank and ... well ... 20 years later (now) a lawyer comes by to tell him that he had sired 533 children (!!) of which over 140 (again !!) were now suing the clinic for the release of his name ...
Yes, if David Wosniak had been a good Catholic and followed Church teaching on -- oh, let's make a list, shall we: (1) masturbation, (2) selling his ejaculated sperm to a sperm bank for (3) artificial insemination (all of which are considered objectively sinful by Catholic Church teaching) -- this predicament never would have happened.
Indeed, the film provides an EXCELLENT ILLUSTRATION of the kind of problems that ensue when Church Teaching on sexual matters is stupidly/arrogantly dismissed/ignored: There are 533 kids here who don't know their dad, and a lot of them would like to. as one would assume would be their _natural right_ to know.
But the 533, now adult, children do exist and over 140 of them do want to know who their father is. And having learned of this, David Wosniak himself, _naturally_ would like to know something of all those children that he's helped create.
That then is the rest of the movie ... (as it was in the French Canadian original)
And while irritatingly it seems that THE ONLY ONE in the Wosniak family who still wants to pray (at a family dinner...) is the Wosniak family's esteemed father/patriarch, founder of the family's business for which perpetually "loser-son" David works as a humble (and still largely incompetent) delivery man, the film offers actually audiences opportunity to reflect on Church Teaching regarding not only (1) SEXUAL MATTERS (everyone, Catholic or not, would certainly see the situation in which David Wosniak and his 533 progeny find themselves in as problematic, hence BY DEFINITION at least on some level _sinful_), but also (2) LIFE (regardless of how they got here, those 533 people _are now_ here, AND HOW REMARKABLE IS THAT ;-), and ABOVE ALL (3) FORGIVENESS (what an opportunity to reflect on the felix culpa (happy fault) of even Adam and Eve, which we remember during the Easter Vigil Liturgy as "bringing us so great a Redeemer").
Often times contemporary society completely rejects the concept of Sin, but often enough, it also rejects the possibility of Forgiveness (or makes it so hard that it's de facto impossible to achieve). In contrast, the Church recognizes the world for what it is (created by God but finding itself now in a still largely Fallen State) AND yet ALSO PROCLAIMS that FORGIVENESS IS POSSIBLE that, indeed, "there is no offense, however, serious that the Church can not forgive" (CCC #982). Indeed, people sometimes _laugh_ at the ease at which the Catholic Church forgives (Consider the recent film Don Jon [2013] where the lead character's weekly stops at the Confessional make much of the comic fodder for the film). Yet how much more humane is that than living in a society where Sin is first denied and yet when people fall into trouble (as a result of Sin....) the possibility of forgiveness is denied (or de facto denied) as well.
So as in the case of many contemporary comedies ... this film leaves one with much to think 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! :-) >>
Friday, November 22, 2013
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire [2013]
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) ChicagoTribune (3 Stars) RE.com (3 Stars) AVClub (B) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire [2013] (directed by Francis Lawrence, screenplay Simon Beaufoy and Michael drBruyn based on the novel by Suzanne Collins [IMDb]) is the second cinematic installment of Collins' Hunger Games [Amazon] trilogy. The installment The Hunger Games [2012] was released (and reviewed here) last year.
The Hunger Games [Amazon] trilogy depicts a totalitarian North America of some 100 years in the future, divided into 12 or 13 districts all seething with resentment after a failed revolt 75-years before against a utopian but decadent/distant "Capital" and all united under a nation state called PanAm.
Part of the strategy of "keeping the peace," the Capital organizes an annual "reality show from Hell" called "The Hunger Games" in which two young "tributes," one male, one female, would be selected from each of the Districts to then compete (fight to the death) on an elaborate Survivor-like set (Survivor [IMDb] meets William Golding's Lord of the Flies [Amazon] [IMDb]) for the amusement of the residents of the Capital and the horror of the residents of PanAm's outlying Districts. It seen as an annual exhibition of Power, reminding the residents of the Districts that the Capital can truly do whatever it wants with them -- including having them kill each other in elaborate scenarios for the Capital's amusement.
In the first installment, the series' heroine Katniss Everdeen (played in the series by Jennifer Lawrence) who's good with her hunter's bow, chooses to volunteer to serve as tribute from her home Appalachia-looking District #12 in place of her much younger sister (selected by lot) who would have certainly died in the Games. That in itself came to be seen throughout PanAm as an "unusual act" (of sacrifice, love, ... defiance?).
Then, since the Hunger Games were conceived as being an "interactive exercise" where the well-fed, richer (otherwise bored ...) folks in the Capital were encouraged to "take sides" and "help" their favorites "get an edge" in the Games through the purchase for them of some "odd gifts" (presumably on some "online registry," like some special arrows (especially if they find that their "favorite" is running out of them), perhaps some medicine if their favorite found him/herself wounded, or perhaps some special _poison_ to tip those arrows with ...), the Games' organizers found themselves with something of a problem as these particular Games were coming to an end:
TO EVERYONE'S SURPRISE, Katniss cut such a sympathetic figure to the viewers in the Capital that near the end of the Games when only two constants were left -- her and the other District 12 tribute Peeta (played by Josh Hutchenson) -- the viewers couldn't bear to watch either her being killed of her having to kill Peeta. What to do? Well the organizers of the Games -- with consultation and the permission of PanAm's "president" (probably for life... that's how these things usually go...) Snow (played by Donald Sutherland) -- DECIDED TO LET BOTH OF "THE LOVE BIRDS" LIVE.
That made for "good TV" and "Games' show host" Ceasar Flickerman (played by Stanley Tucci) was certainly pleased with this "memorable outcome," as was Katniss' and Peeta's hard-drinking "coach" Haymitch Abernathy (played by Woody Harrelson) the only other "winner" (survivor) from District 12 in the history of the Games and one who had been convinced that, as in every year past, the only thing that he could possibly hope for was that _one_ of the two contestants he was required to "coach" was going to make it out alive ... and usually BOTH were killed (Wouldn't you drink too if that was the kind of job that you were assigned, year in and year out and there was nothing you could do about it...).
Anyway, both "coach" and "Games MC" were happy but President Snow started to get worried ... After all, part of the purpose of the Hunger Games was to support a sense of hopelessness among the residents of the Districts -- that there was almost no hope of survival, and even if one did "survive" the games (after killing a lot of others), all that happened that like Haymitch Abernathy, one was then tasked for the rest of one's life to "train" others facing a similarly hopeless fate. Yet here, Katniss, despite facing her own certain death, had saved at least two other people -- her younger sister and Peeta -- and EVEN IN THE CAPITAL the viewers found her actions so admirable/sympathetic that they didn't want her to die either. And that was in the Capital ... how were her actions being perceived in the outlying Districts?
So this is where the second installment, Catching Fire [2012] in this series begins. During the course of their "victory tour" (during which Peeta and Katniss are asked to sheepishly pay some homage to the fallen tributes of from the other districts that they would be visiting) EVERYBODY finds that the residents of the other Districts were becoming "more defiant." Mind you, defiance often meant death ... but whether in the African American heavy "Old South" District 11 or heavily forested Pacific Northwest like District 7, as well as elsewhere ... there appeared people willing to die now rather than simply submit to the whims of The Capital. Even Katniss' little sister (played by Willow Shields) tells her that both ma' and her support her and would be willing to die in support of the new Hope that Katniss has seemed to inspire across the land.
What to do? Well, a new character enters the mix, "the Game Designer" Plutarch Heavensbee (played by Phillip Seymor Hoffman), He convinces the President to take advantage of the 75th Anniversary of the Hunger Games to proclaim a "Special Hunger Games" that year that would involve a reunion of all the living winner/survivors of the previous 25 years of the Hunger Games. This would ensure that only one of the "winners" of those previous Hunger Games would survive this new "all star" round ... and thus _reinstate_ the sense of Hopelessness that the Hunger Games were supposed to inspire in the Districts. The President _likes_ the idea.
But it proves a little more "complicated" than that. In the ramp-up to the Games, where the contestants are trotted out in front of the cameras "to create an emotional bond" with the Capital's viewers (who would then "help" them in various ways during the course of the Games) ... the past winners themselves are more defiant and certainly more emotionally manipulative than when they had entered their previous Games as "amateurs" or "rookies." So will even the Capital's people be able to bear watching bloodfest involving more than a few people that they've come to like? And what of the more defiant contestants? How can one force them to continue to "play the game" when they've _all_ already "been there" when it ends, and may not want to "be there" again (on top of a pile of corpses).
So then the rest of the movie follows ... ;-)
Regarding the story telling of the rest of the film ... The film does has a sense of being a "transitional" part of the story. While the first film could stand on its own, this film could not. It depends on what happened in the previous film and on what presumably will happen afterwards. Still, the acting was quite good and, in my opinion, more believable than in the first part. (I had trouble believing the premise of the first part of the film ... Due to this country's religious/historical heritage I found it hard to believe that the residents of the United States would EVER accept the kind of tottalitarian hopelessness portrayed at the beginning of the first film. That's why the second film was far more believable to me ... there was defianc which I'd naturally expect in this country born of both democratic and yes Christian tradition).
Anyway, it all makes for a good story and look forward to Part III (or Part IIIa) nest year ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire [2013] (directed by Francis Lawrence, screenplay Simon Beaufoy and Michael drBruyn based on the novel by Suzanne Collins [IMDb]) is the second cinematic installment of Collins' Hunger Games [Amazon] trilogy. The installment The Hunger Games [2012] was released (and reviewed here) last year.
The Hunger Games [Amazon] trilogy depicts a totalitarian North America of some 100 years in the future, divided into 12 or 13 districts all seething with resentment after a failed revolt 75-years before against a utopian but decadent/distant "Capital" and all united under a nation state called PanAm.
Part of the strategy of "keeping the peace," the Capital organizes an annual "reality show from Hell" called "The Hunger Games" in which two young "tributes," one male, one female, would be selected from each of the Districts to then compete (fight to the death) on an elaborate Survivor-like set (Survivor [IMDb] meets William Golding's Lord of the Flies [Amazon] [IMDb]) for the amusement of the residents of the Capital and the horror of the residents of PanAm's outlying Districts. It seen as an annual exhibition of Power, reminding the residents of the Districts that the Capital can truly do whatever it wants with them -- including having them kill each other in elaborate scenarios for the Capital's amusement.
In the first installment, the series' heroine Katniss Everdeen (played in the series by Jennifer Lawrence) who's good with her hunter's bow, chooses to volunteer to serve as tribute from her home Appalachia-looking District #12 in place of her much younger sister (selected by lot) who would have certainly died in the Games. That in itself came to be seen throughout PanAm as an "unusual act" (of sacrifice, love, ... defiance?).
Then, since the Hunger Games were conceived as being an "interactive exercise" where the well-fed, richer (otherwise bored ...) folks in the Capital were encouraged to "take sides" and "help" their favorites "get an edge" in the Games through the purchase for them of some "odd gifts" (presumably on some "online registry," like some special arrows (especially if they find that their "favorite" is running out of them), perhaps some medicine if their favorite found him/herself wounded, or perhaps some special _poison_ to tip those arrows with ...), the Games' organizers found themselves with something of a problem as these particular Games were coming to an end:
TO EVERYONE'S SURPRISE, Katniss cut such a sympathetic figure to the viewers in the Capital that near the end of the Games when only two constants were left -- her and the other District 12 tribute Peeta (played by Josh Hutchenson) -- the viewers couldn't bear to watch either her being killed of her having to kill Peeta. What to do? Well the organizers of the Games -- with consultation and the permission of PanAm's "president" (probably for life... that's how these things usually go...) Snow (played by Donald Sutherland) -- DECIDED TO LET BOTH OF "THE LOVE BIRDS" LIVE.
That made for "good TV" and "Games' show host" Ceasar Flickerman (played by Stanley Tucci) was certainly pleased with this "memorable outcome," as was Katniss' and Peeta's hard-drinking "coach" Haymitch Abernathy (played by Woody Harrelson) the only other "winner" (survivor) from District 12 in the history of the Games and one who had been convinced that, as in every year past, the only thing that he could possibly hope for was that _one_ of the two contestants he was required to "coach" was going to make it out alive ... and usually BOTH were killed (Wouldn't you drink too if that was the kind of job that you were assigned, year in and year out and there was nothing you could do about it...).
Anyway, both "coach" and "Games MC" were happy but President Snow started to get worried ... After all, part of the purpose of the Hunger Games was to support a sense of hopelessness among the residents of the Districts -- that there was almost no hope of survival, and even if one did "survive" the games (after killing a lot of others), all that happened that like Haymitch Abernathy, one was then tasked for the rest of one's life to "train" others facing a similarly hopeless fate. Yet here, Katniss, despite facing her own certain death, had saved at least two other people -- her younger sister and Peeta -- and EVEN IN THE CAPITAL the viewers found her actions so admirable/sympathetic that they didn't want her to die either. And that was in the Capital ... how were her actions being perceived in the outlying Districts?
So this is where the second installment, Catching Fire [2012] in this series begins. During the course of their "victory tour" (during which Peeta and Katniss are asked to sheepishly pay some homage to the fallen tributes of from the other districts that they would be visiting) EVERYBODY finds that the residents of the other Districts were becoming "more defiant." Mind you, defiance often meant death ... but whether in the African American heavy "Old South" District 11 or heavily forested Pacific Northwest like District 7, as well as elsewhere ... there appeared people willing to die now rather than simply submit to the whims of The Capital. Even Katniss' little sister (played by Willow Shields) tells her that both ma' and her support her and would be willing to die in support of the new Hope that Katniss has seemed to inspire across the land.
What to do? Well, a new character enters the mix, "the Game Designer" Plutarch Heavensbee (played by Phillip Seymor Hoffman), He convinces the President to take advantage of the 75th Anniversary of the Hunger Games to proclaim a "Special Hunger Games" that year that would involve a reunion of all the living winner/survivors of the previous 25 years of the Hunger Games. This would ensure that only one of the "winners" of those previous Hunger Games would survive this new "all star" round ... and thus _reinstate_ the sense of Hopelessness that the Hunger Games were supposed to inspire in the Districts. The President _likes_ the idea.
But it proves a little more "complicated" than that. In the ramp-up to the Games, where the contestants are trotted out in front of the cameras "to create an emotional bond" with the Capital's viewers (who would then "help" them in various ways during the course of the Games) ... the past winners themselves are more defiant and certainly more emotionally manipulative than when they had entered their previous Games as "amateurs" or "rookies." So will even the Capital's people be able to bear watching bloodfest involving more than a few people that they've come to like? And what of the more defiant contestants? How can one force them to continue to "play the game" when they've _all_ already "been there" when it ends, and may not want to "be there" again (on top of a pile of corpses).
So then the rest of the movie follows ... ;-)
Regarding the story telling of the rest of the film ... The film does has a sense of being a "transitional" part of the story. While the first film could stand on its own, this film could not. It depends on what happened in the previous film and on what presumably will happen afterwards. Still, the acting was quite good and, in my opinion, more believable than in the first part. (I had trouble believing the premise of the first part of the film ... Due to this country's religious/historical heritage I found it hard to believe that the residents of the United States would EVER accept the kind of tottalitarian hopelessness portrayed at the beginning of the first film. That's why the second film was far more believable to me ... there was defianc which I'd naturally expect in this country born of both democratic and yes Christian tradition).
Anyway, it all makes for a good story and look forward to Part III (or Part IIIa) nest year ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)