The Secret Life of Walter Mitty [2013]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty [2013], directed by Ben Stiller who also stars in the film's title role, screen story and screenplay by Steve Conrad, based on the short story by James Thurber [IMDb] which had been made previously into a 1947 film by the same name [IMDb] starring Danny Kaye [IMDb] is about a mild-mannered, hen-pecked middle-aged man named Walter Mitty.

In the current version of the film, Walter Mitty (played, as mentioned above, in the current film by Ben Stiller) had been working so very, very quietly for the past 16 years for Life Magazine, buried in its photographic publishing department.  This seemed like a "perfect job" for someone like Walter, who though having had apparently a very normal and even rambunctious childhood (he skateboarded, even sported at "Mohawk haircut" as a tween) had retreated into himself after the sudden death of his father when he was in his late teens/college age.  Instead of going on a summer trip to Europe (his father's last gift to him had even been a "travel diary" for said trip) immediately after his father's death, Walter chose to put his dreams aside, finished school, took a job delivering Papa John's pizzas (to help pay for said school...)  and then took the job in the dark-rooms / photo-archives of Life Magazine (some symbolism, don't ya think ;-)

Well, this "Life-choice" would have worked ... 'cept: (1) his previous dreams would not go away.  In fact, throughout his adult life, he'd periodically "zone-out" entering into a fantasy world where he'd imagine himself doing all kinds of heroic deeds that he was too mild-mannered (in reality terrified) to do in real-Life, and (2) as we all well know, no job is particular secure these days.  Near the beginning of the film, he along with the rest of the staff at Life's New York HQ are informed that the magazine had been bought and was destined to be converted from "Life" to "Life Online" (some other symbolism here as well ...) with a fair amount of employees expected to downsized in the process.

Now does the nice, loveable if ever cautious "squirrel" (think chipmunk, prairie dog or otherwise ground squirrel) like Walter Mitty who's spent his entire adult life buried in the still pre-digital photoarchives of "Life Magazine" stand a chance in face of the downsizer's axe in the person of Ted Hendrick's (played by Adam Scott) brought-in by the new "higher-ups" to determine who "Lives" and who "Dies" in Life's new realities?  Of course not. 

Yet, Walter Mitty does have his friends/allies, including a high-flying photographer named Sean O'Connell (played by Sean Penn) who, though he's rarely actually passed through "Life's HQ" there in New York, instead prefering to "live Life on the edge" and sending in his photo-dispatches from (and picking up his checks at)  random locations around the world, had long expressed his admiration and gratitude for Walter Mitty's ability to convert his photographs into iconic images on Life Magazine's pages.

And so it is, Walter Mitty's dark-room / photoarchival office receives a final role of photos from said high-flying, "Eagle-eyed," legendary photographer Sean O'Connell, who writes insisting that "Frame 25" be the cover of the last print edition of "Life."  'Cept ... "Frame 25" seems to be missing in the role that Walter Mitty's received ... and fearing the loss of his job as a result, he spends the rest of the movie looking for it.

Trying to find legendary "Life" photographer Sean O'Connell in order to try to find out what happened to "Frame 25" on that last roll sends sends mild-mannered "ground squirrel" Walter Mitty _finally_ on the adventure of his Life.

There have been reviewers who've asked why the film "needed" a nearly $100 million budget including location shoots in Greenland, Iceland and the Himalayas?  It's a fair enough question BUT exaggerated perhaps as the current story was, I do see a clear point to it: We do need to live in a way that at least _some_ of our dreams do come true or else those dreams will haunt us and besides _no one_ can assure us that the security that exists for us today will exist tomorrow.  

In this light, I've long thought that the "Burning Bush in the Desert" that Moses finds in Exodus 3 was also Symbolic unfulfilled Dreams/Projects of (in that case, Moses') Youth.  In Moses' youth, he had come to see the injustices that the Egyptians (with whom he had grown up) had inflicted on the Hebrew slaves.  In his youth, he reacted to those injustices rashly and thus had to flee into the Desert as a result.  But calmly, patiently (we DON'T KNOW how long that "bush" was burning out there in the Desert) God called him back "to finish the job."

In any case, dreams can not be left completely unfulfilled ... or else one comes to live, like Walter did for a good part of his life, "buried at work" as if he had already died.

So 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! :-) >>

Saving Mr. Banks [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Saving Mr. Banks [2013] (directed by John Lee Hancock, screenplay by Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith) tells the story of the struggle of legendary Hollywood Studio / Theme Park owner Walt Disney [IMDb-1] [IMDb-2] (played magnificently in the film by Tom Hanks) to attain the rights to make what became the celebrated Disney musical Mary Poppins [1964] from P.L. Travers (again played in the film to Oscar worthy heights by Emma Thompson), the prickly Australian born, since London, England residing author of the original Mary Poppins children's books. 

Clearly, it was not easy for Walt get those rights from Ms. Travers ;-).  And clearly there was a story as to why it was so hard for Ms. Travers to "let go" of this her story.  And as is the case of many children's book authors, the inspiration for their later children's book came from their experiences (and their sufferings) during their own childhoods.

So then this film really tells two stories:

The first was the story of the writer P.L. Travers causing Walt Disney and his crew of very talented writers including Don DaGrady (played in the film by Bradley Whitford), and Robert and Richard Sherman (played by B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) all kinds of problems as they tried to come up with a script that was both marketable and acceptable to her often seemingly incomprehensible demands: NO RED at all (!) in the film, NO facial hair on Mr. Banks, NO pears, NO animation, NO since legendary Dick Van Dyke [IMDb] ... ;-). 

The second was that of the little girl Ginty Goff (played magnificently by Annie Rose Buckley) growing-up in rural Australia, the daughter of Travers Goff (played again magnificently by Colin Farrell), a small town banker _and_ an alcoholic who eventually died of tuberculosis, and her mother Margaret Goff (played by Ruth Wilson) who was beside-herself, not knowing what to do about her on one hand fun-loving, on the other hand ever drinking (and when he got too drunk, making-a-fool-of-himself) husband.  When things got really difficult, that's when Margaret called in Aunt Ellie (played by Rachel Griffith) to come-in as a de-facto nanny ...

Presented here are then the elements of a very nice, if at times very sad, intertwining story reminding us all that when people act strangely, there's often enough a story behind that strangeness.

Not necessarily for really little kids, the film would certainly be a nice one from preteens and teenagers particularly ones with relatives who at times may seem rather odd. 

Good job Disney, 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! :-) >>

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoSuntimes (3 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing

Cape Times (K. Aftab) review  coverage
Johannesburg Mail & Guardian (S. De Waal) review  coverage
The Sowetan (SAPA) review  coverage

The Nairobi Standard  review  coverage
The Jamaica Gleaner  coverage
The Times of India  coverage
The Guardian (U.K.) (H. Barnes) review

CNS/USCCB (J. McCarthy) review
ChicagoSunTimes (R. Roeper) review
RE.com (S. Abrams) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom [2013] (directed by Justin Chadwick, screenplay by William Nicholson, based on South African freedom fighter / South Africa's 1st post-Apartheid President Nelson Mandela's own autobiography by the same name) is one of several momentous biopics released this year.  Others reviewed here include Jobs [2013] and Walesa: Man of Hope [2013].

As I've written in my reviews of the other two biopics, these are films that are often hard to difficult to make honestly.  Often films made about "Great Leaders" become either fawning works of adulation or hatchet jobs depending on persuasions of the film-makers regarding their subjects.  (And if one is honest, reviews of such films depend largely on the persuasions of the reviewers regarding the persons in question as well ;-).  Still, if a "Great Leader" biopic is done right, the viewer is given an insight into _why_ the particular Leader proved "Great"/truly Great.  I don't want to either repeat or add to the reviews that I wrote about the other two "great" / great men about whom significant and often insightful biopics were made this year.  Instead I wish to refer readers to the reviews that I wrote of those two films and continue here with consideration of the current film.

So how does the current biopic on Nelson Mandela (with Idris Elba playing the title role) fare?  Well, as I already noted above and in my previous reviews, a credible "Great Leader" biopic can no longer portray said GL as simply "a living saint."  An added twist to the portrayal of Nelson Mandela here is that the source material is his own autobiography.  So there is a certain (and appropriate) Confessional (as in St. Augustine's Confessions) quality to the presentation of Mandela's life here:

He's portrayed early in life as a womanizer, as being at minimum emotionally abusive to his first wife Evelyn Mase-Mandela (played in the film by Terry Pheto) and in any case an adulterer to her, and finally rather dismissive (at least at this stage of his life) of Christian religion/morality (Note here that in addition to having to deal with the reality that Christian religion was often being used by whites of the time to justify somehow their views of "white superiority" (both tragic and stupid since neither Jesus nor any of his Apostles nor the overwhelming majority of his early disciples were white...) Evelyn herself was apparently a Jehovah's Witness, that is, a member of a Protestant sect that is rarely particularly easy to reason with...). 

We are also presented with Mandela's own reasoning (rather than that of propagandists on either side) of why in the aftermath of the 1960 Sharpesville Massacre, as leader of the African National Congress already for some time, he made the momentous if ever controversial decision to set-aside the ANC's previous non-violent tactics and instead embrace a strategy that included a campaign of sabotage to bring pressure on the South African apartheid-era government to accede to the ANC's consistent demand for a nonracial South Africa.  Eventually, of course, Mandela was captured.  Since he had been leading a campaign that now included violence against the State he was convicted of Treason against said State (he and the other ANC  leaders arrested, of course, rejected the authority of a State that denied full-citizenship to the vast majority of its people...) and sentenced to life imprisonment.  Thus Mandela spent the next 18 years (from 1964 to 1982 at South Africa's notorious Robben Island prison.

The film portrays well the personal sufferings that such a lengthy stay in prison entailed.  During his time on Robben Island, his mother and his oldest son died (the latter in a car accident), and was unable to see his two young daughters whom he had with his second wife, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela (played by Naomie Harris) until they were 16.  His youngest daughter was 3 when he was arrested ... During this time, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, a college educated social worker when they first met, herself was arrested, jailed and radicalized against the Apartheid state.

Finally, viewers are given Nelson Mandela's version of events as to why after his final release in 1990 from South African state custody he and his wife during the whole of his imprisonment parted ways:  Winnie had simply become far more radical in her opposition to the white-dominated Apartheid state than he was.  In a sense, Nelson Mandela was given a "devil's choice" with regard to Winnie (and others like her):  He could have chosen to stand by her (and others) _who had stood by him_ while he was in prison even at the cost of _enormous suffering_ on their part (many were killed, many lost loved ones), or FOR THE SAKE OF THE CAUSE for which ALL OF THEM had suffered (for an end to Apartheid), he could make peace with the regime which had oppressed them all.

Basically Nelson's, Winnie's et al's, dilemma became the classic one of Forgiveness.  How can one forgive those who've TRULY HURT YOU, and NOT JUST YOU but ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE, LOVED ONES, AROUND YOU?  Yet it was clear from the film / Mandela's own autobiography that he came to the conclusion that there was NO OTHER WAY FORWARD OTHER THAN FORGIVENESS. In a televised speech near the end of the film, Nelson Mandela is portrayed as telling his supporters that there was simply no other way forward telling his followers that "We can not win a war, but we CAN win an election."  In a sense, NO ONE WOULD WIN with further conflict, but EVERYONE WOULD win with a just peace.

And so it was.  The Whites proved happy to be able to relinquish power PEACEFULLY after convinced that they were not going to be lynched once they did.  And South Africa, with all its problems since, has lived _happily ever after_ ever since.

I noted that the dilemma faced by the Mandelas and the ANC movement as a whole was the classic one of Forgiveness, because while perhaps initially difficult to grasp, Forgiveness has always been seen in the Christian faith as being for the benefit/well-being of all concerned - as much for the one doing the forgiving as the one being forgiven.  Perhaps the situation in South Africa was so stark that the wisdom of forgiving one's enemies was more clearly seen than in more mundane cases.  Nevertheless, Nelson Mandela was certainly right when he came to the conclusion, perhaps during his time in prison, that it's actually easier to Love than to Hate.  For carrying Hate / Resentment becomes an enormous burden.

As such, of all the recent "Great Leader" films that were made, this one about Nelson Mandela becomes the easiest for us regular folks to apply.  For we all have people that we need to make peace with / forgive.


<< 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! :-) >>

Grudge Match [2013]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (R. Moore) review
RE.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

Grudge Match [2013] (directed by Peter Segal, story by and screenplay cowritten by Tim Kelleher along with Rodney Rothman) is an IMHO surprising crude "boxing movie" that brings together two now older actors (sigh ...), Silvester Stallone and Robert De Niro, who both played iconic roles in "boxing movies" early in their careers -- It's hard to imagine talking about Silvester Stallone without remembering him playing (the fictional Philadelphia, PA boxer) Rocky Balboa in the always crowd-pleasing Rocky movie franchise (extending from 1976 to 2006) and Robert De Niro's portrayal of New York born (from the Bronx) Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull [1980] certainly helped to solidify his place as one of the more formidable "tough guy" Hollywood actors (but also with a range) of his generation.

So the current film's promised match-up between these two iconic Hollywood actors in no less a "boxing movie" promised to put smiles on the faces of generations of us, American moviegoers -- those of us who were barely 13 when the first Rocky [1976] came out, our parents who took us to those early Rocky movies, and our own generation's kids who've probably heard "more than a few words of praise" from us about those movies over the years.  And yet, what was surprising to me was the crudity of the current film, noted also by the CNS/USCCB's (U.S. Catholic Bishops' Media office's) review as well.  Was the crudity necessary?  Maybe it was a concession in part to Robert De Niro's presence (after all, his Jake LaMotta / in Raging Bull [1980] was _no_ sweetheart).  But I'm certain that a better screenplay here could have been written, even one containing most and perhaps even all of the film's plot twists and elements.

So what then was this current film about?  Well Grudge Match [2013], was about two fictional world class boxers from the 1970s both from Pittsburgh, PA, one Henry 'Razor' Sharp (played by Silverster Stallone) and the other Billy 'The Kid' McDonnen (played by Robert De Niro), who at the top of their form had fought two fights against each other, each having won one, and then Henry 'Razor' Sharp walked away from a third "rubber" match that would have decided once and for all who was the better of the two.  Why?  Well that becomes a good part of the rest of the movie though it involves a woman (played by Kim Bassinger) and her now approaching 30 year old son (played by Jon Bernthal) with his own son now (played by Camden Grey).  Since the two boxing rivals were from the same town, one can kinda guess what had happened.  Yet, this still is largely a Rocky-like movie, so filmgoers are asked to just go with the flow.  There's enough fodder here for drama even after one has put the pieces more-or-less together.

Okay, 'Razor' had walked away from his boxing career and subsequently had lost most of his money, but he didn't seem to care, just taking a job as a welder at a Pittsburgh foundry just like his dad.  In the meantime, Billy 'The Kid; McDonnen, continued with his boxing career and eventually retired back to Pittsburgh, buying with his winnings a local car-dealership and (of course) a local sports bar.

Now why, after 30 years, would this boxing match ever take place?  Well Billy 'The Kid' had _always_ been up for that third match as his loss to Henry 'The Razor' had been the only blotch on his career and 'The Razor's' walking away from that third match had denied him the opportunity win-or-lose to set the record straight as to who of the two had been the better boxer.  In contrast, Henry 'The Razor' had left the rink in anger and at the beginning of the story had no interest at all in setting any record straight.  He was done with boxing 30 years ago and didn't see any reason at all to take it up now.

'Cept ... one day, Dante Slate, Jr (played by Kevin Hart) playing the son of a flamboyant, Don King-like 1970s-80s era boxing promoter named Dante Slate, Sr (in the story now deceased) arrives at Henry, the Razor's doorstep with the idea of (at least) creating a video game featuring both Billy 'The Kid' McGunnan and Henry 'Razor' Sharp.  And he asks Razor and Billy the Kid (separately, they still don't talk to each other) to come into a local studio (again separately) and dressed in these stupid sensor-covered suits to go through the motions of punching and jabbing and moving about a "blue-screen" boxing rink, all of which would then help the video-game makers make more realistic avatars of the two.

Well, as the advertising trailer to the film already shows, the two end up at the studio at the same time, and since they hate each other, both dressed in those stupid sensor covered suits really go at each other in the "blue-screen" studio.  Well, most of the young people working at that studio have smartphones ;-) So ... this "epic" if very impromptu fight ends up all over YouTube ;-).  Now an actual rematch between the two fighters becomes inevitable...

Initially, Henry 'The Razor' still didn't want to consent to an actual rematch.  However, it turns out that he had his father/mentor (played magnificently by Alan Arkin) in the hospital needing an operation (remember, the film still has its Rocky-like elements ... ;-).  So he finally consents, and much, much ensues.

Again, I LIKED/LOVED the Rocky movies, and I still kinda like this film.  But I do have to say that this film proved cruder than IMHO it needed to be.  Bottom line, the film-makers probably should have let Stallone have more creative control of this film than perhaps the film-makers let him (Stallone had _written_ that first Rocky [1976] movie and was far more involved in the writing of the other Rocky films than apparently he was here).  Now Robert De Niro was the other big actor here and perhaps it would have been impossible to simply let Stallone the shots.  Still, nobody has done a boxing movie in as family friendly fashion as Stallone.  So it's a shame that the film didn't truly bear his mark here.

For his part, De Niro played recently in another, IMHO far better, "ensemble film" named Last Vegas [2013] with a whole bunch of other "older actors of his generation."  So it's clear that he can do a "light movie" with his acting peers.  So it's just a disappointment that this film, IMHO, didn't end up nearly as good as it could have been. 


<< 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 Wolf of Wall Street [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  ChicagoTribune (2 Stars)  RE.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (A-)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 stars)

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

I do believe that any contemporary moralist thinking about writing about American films ought to take a look at a collection of Martin Scorsese's films.  Let's make a list: Taxi Driver [1976], Raging Bull [1980], The Last Temptation of Christ [1988],  Goodfellas [1990], Casino [1995].  This is _not_ to give Scorsese (or any other film-maker) a free pass, but it can serve to help the moralist film critic focus his/her thoughts and questions.  It's obvious from this above list that Scorsese prefers _edgy_ material (indeed, his choices would fill-out the definition of what is meant by the often lazy if popular term "edgy").

Now choosing "edgy" material is certainly _not_ in itself bad.  It _can_ reflect a concern for those living at the margins (Taxi Driver [1976] or even The Last Temptation of Christ [1988] where Christ in both Nikos Kazantzakis' book and in Scorsese's film is portrayed through the lens of the Hymn of the Suffering Servant of YHWH (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) "He had no stately bearing, no beauty to draw us near, he was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, like one from whom you turn your face, spurned and we held him no esteem" (Isaiah 53:2-3) which actually gets proclaimed annually in the Catholic Church as part of its Good Friday Liturgy).  Then Raging Bull [1980], Goodfellas [1990] and Casino [1995] are about rarified, largely inaccessible subcultures -- the world of boxing and then the mob.   

Recognizing this, one could ask Scorsese about (or question, period) the value of glamorizing the lives of "people on the edge" of psychosis like the protagonists of Taxi Driver [1976] and Raging Bull [1980] or the value of arguably glamorizing crime as in Goodfellas [1990] and Casino [1995] or the value of taking-up an approach to Jesus that was certainly going to confuse (and with proper provocation, enrage) a good number of Christian believers.  Of the list of Scorsese's films that I give above, I do believe that the least justifiable one was probably Goodfellas [1990] because I really don't know what it added to society except "another Godfather-like film" and Francis Ford Copolla already did that.  I do think that Casino [1995] added something new to society/culture/humanity as it provided viewers an absolutely devastating primer on how Las Vegas/the modern gambling industry in the United States works and how there's absolutely _no way_ for someone to go to Las Vegas and actually win.

One then could go through Scorsese's films scene by scene and ask if their often searingly graphic imagery was truly necessary: Did it add something substantial to the story or not?  Could the _same message_ be expressed in a less graphic/shocking/controversial way?  I do think that _most_ of Scorsese's cinematography would actually "pass muster" if put to this test BUT that challenging him (and other film-makers of his vein) to justify his/their use/recourse to graphic imagery would make for better films.  

With all this in mind, let's then turn to the film being considered here The Wolf of Wall Street [2013] (directed, of course, by Martin Scorsese, screenplay by Terence Winter, based on the "tell all" semi-autobiographical book by Jordan Belfort).

In the spirit of Raging Bull [1980], Goodfellas [1990] and Casino [1995], this film, The Wolf of Wall Street [2013], considers the rarified world (and excesses) of stock-trading, certainly a timely subject since in the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis perhaps 80-90% of the Americans, if given a chance, would probably want to lynch the stock brokers who work on Wall Street, even as, let's be honest, most would envy their life-styles.  Scorsese then plays on this mix of fascination, envy and rage.  And certainly, Leonardo DiCaprio playing the lead role of Jordan Belfort (again, the film's based on Belfort's own "tell all" semi-autographical book) plays his role of a rags-to-riches-to-a-hole (but still with something of a heart) persona to the nines.

I saw this film at a later-night showing filled with young people the vast majority of whom were of the same blue-collar/city-worker socioeconomic class as my parish and watching their reactions to the movie was as fascinating as the movie itself: the simultaneous rage at and admiration of Belfort's lifestyle was palpable.

Afterall, Belfort's shown at the beginning of the film starting as a neophyte stock broker just out of college working for some big Wall Street firm and actually after only a few months on the job, he loses it in the "Black Monday" crash of the late 1980s.  However, learning something from his mentor at that firm (a bit role actually though played magnificently by Matthew McConaughey) about never letting the person that one's selling to say "no," and encouraged then by his first wife "from the old neighborhood sweetheart" Teresa (played by Cristin Milioti) Belfort takes a job in Queens at a "penny stock" firm and never looks back.

Now sure "penny stocks" are nonsense but then he's already learned that many/most of the non-blue chip stocks sold on Wall Street are utterly unpredictable (basically nonsensical) as well.  Soon he begins his own "penny stock" selling business, hiring "the best" salespeople that he knew from his old neighborhood -- Nicky Koskoff aka 'Rugrat' (played by P.J. Byrne), Robbie Feinberg aka 'Pinhead' (played by Brian Sacca), Alden Kupferberg aka 'Sea Otter' (played by Henry Zebrowski), Chester Ming (played by Kenneth Choi) -- most having previously distinguished themselves in mostly "selling weed."  Well, he teaches them how to sell stocks over the phone and the business just goes through the roof.  Along the line he picks up Donnie Azoff (played by Jonah Hill) who was simply stunned that someone, _anyone_ from his neighborhood could possibly be making as much money as Belfort was making.

As business continues to boom, Belfort's first wife eventually challenges him to start selling something other than just "penny stocks" to "suckers" from back-grounds such as theirs.  SO ... he changes the mix ... Since he had been an actual licensed stock-broker, he begins to sell (and soon has his whole company sell) actual "Blue Chips" _along_ with the penny-stocks, but now targeting rich people.  With a now trained (and still hungry) sales-force AGAIN business just rises to a whole new level, to the point that he could move his business to Manhattan and become a still "newcomer" but "basically legit" stock-brokerage firm.  With this, they catch the attention of the venerable Forbes Magazine.  They write a hatchet job about his firm and its debauched greedy lifestyle/culture -- Each week would end with a weekly act of debauchery (hookers, drugs, dwarf tossing, one Friday, they paid one of their secretaries 10-grand to just have her head shaved in front of everybody).  No matter.  Now Belfort has college grads pounding on his door wanting to "get in." 

Now this kind of "we can do anything" arrogance, of course, carries with it inevitable problems.  Every last one of them become drug addicts, Belfort dumps his first wife who arguably helped him get where he was for an (also) clawing-climbing Brooklyn model named Naomi (played by Margot Robbie).  And finally, their loudness brings in the Feds lead by (also) Brooklyn residing F.B.I. agent Patrick Denhem (played magnificently by Kyle Chandler).  Initially, Belfort thinks that he could just buy him off, inviting him to his GIGANTIC YACHT which he brags to Agent Denhem would be "fit for a Bond villain."  But Denhem, even if coming from a similar part of NYC as Belfort did, is not interested.

The rest of the movie then ensues.

Okay, like most of Scorsese's films, this one is heavy on the graphic imagery ... the hookers (dressed and undressed), the drugs, even talk (at least) of dwarf tossing.  Was it all necessary to tell the story?  Great question.  CERTAINLY the film DESERVES (IN SPADES) its R-rating.  But I find it hard to imagine a PG-version of this film that would carry the same impact:  Belfort is shown in Scorsese's film as someone that many of us (at least in part) would want to be -- confident, successful, rich, lucky, indeed, almost-Godlike -- but he's also portrayed as a jerk (a real "a-hole") as someone who clearly dumped his first wife, "trading up" for a model, someone who came to believe that he could simply buy anything, and someone who came to believe that he could defy the laws of both medical science (with his increasingly insane drug abuse) and physics (he orders the captain of his "yacht fit for a Bond villain" to travel into a storm that nearly kills them all).  And while he did have good qualities too (he showed an obvious loyalty to those who he hired into his firm) he also is portrayed as showing no sense of mercy/responsibility toward the people (often of his original social class) that he swindled to get rich.  All this is portrayed quite clearly in the film.  So it's hard to believe that ANYONE leaving the film would think that Jordon Belfort was a good guy or that he did not pay dearly for his excesses -- and not merely by jail time (which he did end up serving) but also through obvious and painful costs to his personal/family relations.

Anyway, while I would not recommend this film to kids (the film deserves its R-rating), I do believe that the film is ultimately a morality tale: Would you really want to end-up like this guy?  Sure he was rich (for a time) but look at the cost as well.


<< 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 ;-) >>

Her [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  ChicagoTribune (4 Stars)  RE.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (A)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Wired (A. Watercutter) review
Popular Science (E. Sofge) review 

Her [2013] (written and directed by Spike Jonze) is certainly one of the most original American movies of the year.  Set in the "near future" along the lines of other recent "light scifi-ish" films like Robot & Frank [2012] and Safety Not Guaranteed [2012], the current film is about late 20/early 30-something Theodore (played by Joaquin Phoenix) living in Los Angeles of say 20-30 years in the future and working in a nice, actually quite spacious cubicle on an orangey/salmon-colored office floor with lots of realistic looking fake-wood (you know ... pulp and glue with a nice fake wood-grained plastic adhesive finish) furnishings for a firm called "beautifulhandwrittenletters.com" which specializes in ghost-writing love-letters and other tributes for people too busy to write them themselves.

Apparently customers would send the firm 4 pictures and a few short notes to help the ghost-writer out.  Then the ghostwriter (and Theodore appeared to be quite good at this) would compose a really good/heartfelt love-letter or tribute printed on made-to-order stationary and in truly remarkable adjustable/personalized fonts, so that the letters/tributes look so eerily "real" indeed so hyper-"real" that receiver could believe that they were written by the customers themselves, perhaps _better_ than the customers themselves.  Wow, what a stunning image of the current/internet age! ;-)

Yet this film is not intended to portray a dystopian world, just one which is (at least in some elements) even "more like our own" than than "our own" is today. 

Now in a hyper-perfect world, do human beings/human relations stand a chance?  Of course not.  Indeed, we find that Theodore, who writes fake love-letters and tributes for a living, is in the midst of finalizing a divorce with his ex (played by Rooney Mara).  We learn that the two had been sweethearts since childhood.  So she would have known him (and on multiple levels) better than just about anyone else.  And indeed he might have acquired some of his "praising skills" from his relationship with her, as we hear him recounting to someone that Catherine had grown-up in a household where "nothing was ever good enough," and their relationship, in good part, involved him lifting her up from her feelings of worthlessness.  Well he succeeded ... and it would seem ... that now she outgrew him ;-).

After a disastrous blind date (played by Olivia Wilde) setup by mutual friends including another longtime/since childhood friend named Amy (played by Amy Adams) who as a video-game developer/struggling documentary film-maker, like Theodore has been living and working at the boundary between reality/hyper-reality (Amy becomes more important as the story goes on...), and after some (PARENTS take note ...) flat-out "phone sex" with someone/some disembodied voice going by the avatar/call-sign/stage name of "Sexy Kitten" (voiced by Kristen Wiig), Theodore decides to try something both "more conventional" and more compelling ... an iPhone-like device with "an intuitive / artificially intelligent operating system" (basically a virtual personal assistant like Apple computer's already existing Siri only several generations more developed).  After "configuring" the operating system based on a couple of  "eHarmony.com" like questions, voila "Samantha" (voiced by Scarlett Johannson) introduces herself to Theodore.

The rest of the film becomes an exploration of whether a relationship between Samantha/"Samantha" and Theodore could work and really something even more profound: When does "Samantha," a created/programmed entity created to serve the User and/or its Creator (think Google Aps, the NSA, Apple...) become Samantha, a truly autonomous/free-thinking/creatively intelligent, if "virtual" (existing only on some computer / the Internet) being?

And the story is a heck of a ride.  Initially, "Samantha" feels herself insecure/jealous/at somewhat of a disadvantage to Theodore because she doesn't have a body.  Indeed, "she" kinda obsesses about it.  As the film goes on, however, she becomes more and more comfortable with herself, and, again, ... arguably "outgrows Theodore" ;-).

Interestingly, the only one in the film who understands any of what Theodore goes through in the story is (the human) Amy, who as a "video-game developer" seems most to be living most closely in Theodore's half-real, half virtual/hyper-real world.  A great, great and very creative film!

Now having given the film the effusive praise above, let me note now that there are aspects to this film that (certainly at first look) seem positively juvenile / sophomoric, earning it an R-rating not necessarily for its "elevated story-telling/wisdom" but rather for its "adults behaving badly" portions.

The writer/director Spike Jonze would probably defend the film's fleeting yet "out of the blue" utterly gratuitous nudity, references to internet porn, and _various_ depictions "simulated" sex (by phone, by voice, even by "surrogate"...) as helping to make the film "real."  However, I do think (and I'm a Catholic priest after all...) that these scenes _may_ cheapen the story overall, as sex here is reduced to being simply a "means of validation" and little more (not exactly the kind of message one would probably want to give a 14 year old ...).

Indeed, amusingly after obsessing for a good part of a movie about "not having a body" (which would probably be even worse than obsessing over not having a super-attractive body...) and hence not being able to have sex, "Samantha"/Samantha eventually "grows-up" and realizes that okay, she didn't didn't have a body, BUT ... wow was she capable of doing a heck of a lot of things that humans could never do! (And interestingly after "growing up" ... she dumps Theodore again, just like his ex-wife ;-).  There could actually be a lesson there for all kinds of human beings obsessed/depressed about their lack of or declining physical attractiveness: Sex is not all ... ;-)

Finally, in my capacity as a Catholic Priest, as I was watching this film, I found myself reflecting on our own human nature.  For whether created or evolved (or created via evolution...) we do really appear to be Free.  In contrast, though appearing to be free as well, I would think that the most unrealistic aspect of this film was "Samantha"/Samantha's supposed "freedom."  For after years of understanding that every single word that I type on my Facebook page, or on my yahoo / gmail account is "mined" for commercial value (and now former NSA contractor Edward Snowden reminds us that pretty much every single word is mined by our and probably a whole lot of other nations' spy agencies) it just seems utterly unrealistic to me to imagine an entity as sophisticated as "Samantha"/Samantha without her being, at least in part, an advertising platform for a particular brand of potato chips, or perfume, or hotel chain or whatever.  And YET, we ourselves do not appear to have been Created that way.  How remarkable!  In traditional Catholic theology, we're told that we were Created out of Divine Love / Pleasure ... that God simply wanted to make us out of sheer joy ... and to share in his joy.  Again, how Wonderful ;-)

Anyway, this certainly is one of the most original/creative/thought-provoking movies of the year (!) even as its R-rating is largely (and stupidly) deserved.


 << 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 Oscar Pickers (U.S. Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences) - Mostly old, mostly male, definitely mostly white

Those who've been regular followers of my blog will know of my concern for diversity in the movie business.  I've written about this in my annual reviews of the U.S. Academy Awards programs.  I've noted the surprisingly largely unchallenged racism present in many contemporary Hollywood films (New Year's Eve [2011], Casa de Mi Padre [2012] and most recently Anchorman 2 [2013]. Okay none of these films are/were exactly "Oscar material" but one is surprised that they were made at all and then largely left largely unchallenged by movie critics) and the often stunning racism present in contemporary American children's films (the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series, Hoodwinked Too [2011], and most recently Despicable Me II [2013]).  And it is not by accident that I've given a great deal of space on my blog to reviews to both independent and foreign films especially those playing at various generally well organized film festivals here in Chicago.

In this regard, I'd like to call attention to a remarkable article by John Horn and Doug Smith that appeared recently in the Los Angeles Times (12/21/2013) and was reprinted Chicago Tribune (12/24/2013), both papers are owned by the Tribune Company, entitled Efforts to Diversify Oscar Voters in Slow Motion (the Chicago Tribune title), this following a 2012 L.A. Times study (graphics, full article), referred to in the article which found most of the Academy's voters "old" (54% over 60), mostly male (77%) and overwhelmingly white (94%).

So if one wonders why, after all is said and done, the voting of the Academy is always quite conservative [2011, 2012, 2013] this gives a pretty good explanation as to why, and why Hollywood in general often seems to have trouble seeing any color other than white (except when it is in need of villains ...).


<< 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 ;-) >>