The Great Beauty (orig. La Grande Bellezza) [2013]

MPAA (UR would be R)  CNS/USCCB ()  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmTV.it listing*

La Repubblica (N. Aspesi) review* 

Avvenire (A. D'Avenia) review*

CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. Abrams) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review

The Great Beauty (orig. La Grande Bellezza) [2013] [IMDb] [FT.it]* (directed and screenplay cowrtten by Paolo Sorrentino [IMDb] [FT.it]* along with Umberto Contrarello [IMDb] [FT.it]*) is a critically acclaimed Italian film and making the five finalists for the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film this year (2014).

Made in a grand style that immediately reminds the viewer of the great Federico Felini's [IMDb] [FT.it]* films especially La Dulce Vita [1960], the film's about "celebrity," specifically about a particular (fictional) "celebrity" named Giuseppe (Jep) Gambardella (played with magnificent utterly unflappable gentile "worldliness" by Toni Servillo [IMDb] [FT.it]*).  The reason for his celebrity?  He wrote _a single book_ some 30-40 years before that was a smash, and he's been hanging out at parties, INDEED PRESIDING OVER THEM (or EVEN MORE CORRECTLY GIVING THEM THEIR "IMPRIMATUR") EVER SINCE.

In a key voice-over as his character in a still almost impeccable white-to-beige suit strolls along the bank of the Tiber early one morning (joggers running by BEGINNING THEIR DAY while HIS IS ONLY NOW GENTLY COMING TO AN END) he serenely explains to viewers: "I always wanted to be a mondano (lit. 'a man of the world', IMHO more clearly translated here as 'celebrity'), indeed the KING of the mondanos, ONE who could bring down a party with a single (dismissive/disapproving) glance."  And indeed, ever white/beige suited with martini in hand, he's reigned over Rome's celebrity party scene with the "soft power" gentile despotism of a ("thumbs up / thumbs down") glance that would make both Nero and the Borgias proud ;-).

Indeed, as I watched this film, I was saying to myself THIS IS ROME.  This is what it has been since the time of the Emperors, through the time of those randy (and if also artistically productive) Renaissance Popes through to today.   

As in any great Fellini inspired film, there are some really great, well-drawn/well-acted characters.

There's Jep's friend from childhood probably more productive than Jep ever was, even though NEVER nearly as successful in either work or as we find out ... in love.  His wife Elisa (di Santis) had recently died, and he confesses to Jep: "I can't believe it.  Going through her things, I found her (locked) diary.  Since she's passed now,  I jimmied it open.  You know in 35 years of marriage, she wrote TWO LINES about ME -- that I'm a 'good provider.'  And ... HALF THE DIARY'S ABOUT YOU."  Jep, kinda surprised and yet certainly kinda flattered, replies trying to be comforting to his LIFE-LONG FRIEND, "Well as a writer (mind you Jeb, famous as he was, had ACTUALLY ONLY WRITTEN/PUBLISHED ONE BOOK IN HIS ENTIRE "CAREER" ...) I  can assure you that once one starts writing, what one puts down on paper is really, above all, fantasy.  So what she wrote in her (private) diary doesn't really have much to do with reality" (and yet, we know, of course, THAT IT DOES ... Jeb's kinda right. People do write all sorts of things in a diary that they'd NEVER want/expect to be read "outside," BUT that diary almost certainly reflected the private truths of her life, no matter what her outward, public actions of her life may have said otherwise).  So WHY would the wife of Jeb's best friend from youth spend "1/2 her diary" writing about Jeb?  Of course there's a story to that ... BUT since this IS an elegant Italian film, the story's actually far more subtle (and arguably poignant) than one could initially (with "eyes rolling") believe ...

Then there's another long-time  friend of Jep who he seemed to meet in the writing/artistic circles when he first came out to Rome who has an interesting problem.  Presumably in his early 70s, he's still taking care of his very well kept, still on an allowance, 50 year old (!) daughter Ramona (IMHO played magnificently by Sabrina Ferilli [IMDb] [FT.it]*  Note here that I have something of a soft-spot for Sabrina Ferilli as she was the (voluptuous)/glamorous not-quite Sophia Loren [IMDb] [FT.it]*-like actress (but honestly oh, so close...;-) in Italy during my seminary days back in the mid 1990s) who he laments is trying, at 50 (!), to "breaking into" the "showgirl" business as a "sophisticated stripper."  Now SHE sounds like Jep's kind of woman ;-) and so the two have something of a fling during the middle portion of the film.  And Ramona (as well as Sabrina Ferilli [IMDb] [FT.it]* playing her) certainly shows (quite discretely filmed actually) what _really good_ (and _really expensive_) skin care can achieve these days ;-).

Then, what's a really good Federico Fellini style film without presence of the Church?  It's represented in this film (about the celebrity life of Rome) by two REALLY WELL DRAWN/ACTED (though, of course, exaggerated) characters.

The first is the ever "in his uniform" (black-cassock/pectoral cross/red-hat) "celebrity cardinal" named Cardinale Belluci (played magnificently and ever with a smile by Roberto Herlizka [IMDb] [FT.it]*) who's also a jovial fixture in Rome's celebrity circuit having made it "in" through apparently writing a series of "cooking books" (though I smile, I also wince as the Cardinal's "cooking book schtick" is not  altogether "a planet away..." from "a priest writing a (hopefully somewhat insightful) BLOG ABOUT MOVIES" ;-) ;-)).  Both smiling, both holding martinis, it's clear that "writer Jep" and "the cooking cardinal" don't much like each other ;-). 

And then there is AN ANCIENT (104 year old) Mother Teresa-like Missionary Nun already dubbed "Santa" (played fantastically and largely in pantomime as, for goodness' sake, she's supposed to be 104 years old, by Giusi Merli [IMDb] [FT.it]*) who's arrived in Rome after DECADES of MISSIONARY WORK / RUNNING ORPHANAGES IN AFRICA on PILGRIMAGE to climb ON HER HANDS AND KNEES the "Scala Sancta (Holy Steps)."

Now Scala Sancta (Holy Steps) is an actual and IMHO quite poignant shrine (that I've visited / seen with my own eyes) located just outside the Lateran Basilica in Rome  By ancient tradition, the "Scala Sancta" is said to be the stone staircase in Pontius Pilate's Praetorium in Jerusalem on which Jesus would have walked on Good Friday during his trial by Pontius Pilate after his arrest.  Of all the relics that Emperor Constantine's mother Saint Helen brought back from Jerusalem and the Holy Land, I've always thought that THIS ONE (a fairly large, 30-40 step stone staircase) was among those most authentic.  (It would be too big for the Romans to completely destroy during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and it'd be again TOO BIG to bother "faking" for Saint Helen afterwards (after all, she had it packed-up and shipped from Jerusalem to Rome in 326 AD).

So at 104, after many decades "in the field," Sour Santa comes to Rome on pilgrimage to climb the steps of the Scala Sancta on her hands and knees.  Well, when she comes to Rome, OLD as she is, she does come as "something of a celebrity" AND "the celebrity circle" of Rome (both INSIDE and OUTSIDE of the Church ...) certainly want to welcome her.  So the Church organizes solemn audiences and the "mondani" parties.  And though she is 104, she's there (or at least wheeled/delivered there ...) for all these "festivities."

NOW IT TURNS OUT, that Suor Santa "knows" good ole Jep.  Why?  Well SHE READ HIS (ONE) BOOK "back in the day" 35 some years ago (when she was last in Rome).  SO he's actually ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE SHE ACTUALLY HAS SOMETHING TO SAY TO.

What does she say?  She asks him: "Why didn't you ever write another book?" ;-) ;-).  Telling him that she liked the first one ;-).

Still holding his martini, still kinda smiling, but certainly a little shaken, Jep answers, "Dear Sister, I guess it had something to do with _climbing another set of stairs_."

The last sequence of the film, which follows shortly, juxtaposes the 104 year old nun making her way on her hands and knees up the Scala Sancta with "the stairs" that Jep was talking about.

Now what was that "other staircase" that Jeb refers to?  Well, as I've already noted above, this is ultimately an _elegant_ (and as it comes to its end approaching _poignant_) Italian film.  Hence, it's not necessarily what you'd expect.  Even if "writer / mondano Jep" spent much of his life living an UTTERLY SUPERFICIAL LIFE it does seem that (as it has across the whole arc of the story) there's "more to his story" just that.

It may all add-up to a rather extravagant (and perhaps still "rather lame...") apology for superficiality but nevertheless IT IS A VERY, VERY WELL MADE ONE ;-).  And it _leaves one_ with "a fair amount" to think about.  Great film!


* 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! :-) >>

Gloria [2013]

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

IMDb listing
CineChile.cl listing*

ChicagoTribune (B. Sharkey) review
RE.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review

Gloria [2013] [IMDb] [CCh.cl]* (directed and screenplay cowritten by Sebastián Lelio [Wkp-EN] [Wkp-ES]* [IMDb] [CCh.cl]* along with Gonzalo Maza [IMDb] [CCh.cl]*) is a remarkable film that I would recommend TO ADULTS belonging to various groups and for various reasons.  The film's R rating FOR THEME and then for occasional, if very honestly portrayed middle-aged / beyond middle-aged sexuality is definitely appropriate.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, I would recommend the film to MIDDLE-AGED HISPANICS.  Many, many of you will see yourselves and/or your friends in this film.

NEXT, I would recommend this film to all ADULTS "of a certain age" everywhere, perhaps especially from the United States and/or parts of Western Europe.   This is because the film comes from Santiago, Chile (South America) and yet many American and even Western European viewers will probably find 50 something year old Gloria (played magnificently by Paulina Garcia [IMDb] [CCh.cl]*) both IMMEDIATELY RELATABLE  and (PERHAPS) UTTERLY SURPRISING:

She and all her family and friends are (obviously...) CHILEAN, living educated middle-to-professional class existences in Chile, generally "happy as pie," though at least one or two of Gloria's friends make passing reference to the dark days of dictatorship, in Chile's case, that of the Pinochet years.  In Spain where a cousin of mine married a Spaniard and has lived there happily ever since, the reference would have been to Franco.  In the Czech Republic where my family is originally from the references would have been to the Communist Era.  In Belfast, Ireland where I've met people again basically "just like Gloria" back in the 1990s (and hence their 'dark days' were not yet over) the reference would have been to 'the Troubles.'  Thanks to the Servites, I've also gotten a chance to meet a fair number of young people attending our parishes in Sao Paulo, Brazil and Mexico City, Mexico who come from families and and living lives very much similar to those portrayed in this film.   Finally, having seen (and reviewed here) over the past years, some excellent recent films coming from Russia, Egypt and Iran (Elena (orig. Елена) [2011], Scheherazade Tell Me a Story (aka Women of Cairo) [2009] and A Separation [2011] / Meeting Leila (orig. Ashnaee ba Leila) [2011], I have no doubt that similar circles of "Gloria and her friends/relatives" live there and lament these days of Putin, the apparent slide back to military dictatorship in Egypt, and the excessive indeed pervasive "paternalism" of the Islamic regime in Iran.  I would add this film to the others and remind readers here that one of the great joys of "going to the movies" (and especially to periodic film festivals or to see foreign films) is that for the price of admission (and a few hours of time spent) one CAN TRAVEL ALL OVER THE WORLD and find that there are a lot people AGAIN FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD who are actually "just like us" (or close enough so that it doesn't make all that much difference anymore ;-).

FINALLY, I would recommend the film to the introspective, metaphysical lot because how the world relates to Gloria in good part is how WE often relate to others and even to God.

To the film then ... We meet Gloria (played by Paulina Garcia [IMDb] [CCh.cl]*), early 50 something, divorced now for some 12-13 years, at a Santiago "singles gathering."  She's "spruced up" on the off-chance that she may actually meet somebody.  But she's been there before, knows already that she's probably _not_ going to meet anyone who catches her eye.  "So why do you go?" asks one of the men, her age, again someone who's both been 'around the block a few times,' and, as a result, like Gloria, already a 'bit worn by the years.'   "To dance." she replies.  "Alone?" "Yes, at times."  He asks her to dance.  She accepts.  To neither one's surprise, no real sparks are ignited between them.

BUT ... Out there on the dance floor, THIS TIME, she does catch the eye of ANOTHER SOMEWHAT OLDER (so that would make him in his early 60s) and somewhat distinguished gentleman who Gloria/we come to know is named Rodolfo (played by Sergio Hernández [IMDb] [CCh.cl]*) and even if in a regular sports coat and tie (like the other men at the soiree) still looks somewhat more "distinguished" than the rest because he was a former naval officer (That he was in the Chilean Navy rather than Army proves rather important in a later scene when questioned lightly but pointedly by one of Gloria's friends at a different soiree because of the politics/history of the Pinochet years.  MY GUESS is that the Navy wasn't as directly involved in the repression during those years as the Army ...).  Anyway, both come to strike each other as interesting and thus after some flirtation, and some dancing ... they end up (PARENTS TAKE NOTE ... this is an R rated movie) spending the night together.

Now much could be said at this point about that.  The first thing that one could say about the love-making scene and others that do follow is that these scenes feel ABSOLUTELY "REAL."  This is a 50+ year old woman and a 60+ year old man, who we learn sometime later had "lost a lot of weight" in the last year-and-a-half after having undertaken gastrointestinal surgery.  So their love-making is not exactly of the "stud athlete" / "supermodel" quality.  It's very, very honest, with all kinds of lumps where there wouldn't have been lumps when they were younger.

The next question that one could ask: Well, regardless of them being 50 or 60 years old, what are they having sex for outside of marriage?  Well probably _in some part_ "for pleasure," but my guess is that it would be for more than just that.  My guess is that it'd be primarily for the same reason that MOST PEOPLE would enter into a sexual relationship before marriage (or in the aftermath of a failed marriage before getting married again) that is, for validation (that there is someone or more problematically that there are _someones_ who find them exciting/attractive enough to go to bed with).

Now is that what the Church teaches that sex ought to be about?  Of course not.  Especially when one starts to talk of multiple partners, one does ever increase the chance that _normally_ children would be created (and be largely unwanted) by such sexual activity.  So yes, sleeping with someone outside of marriage (EVEN AMONG "old/middle aged people") is a SIN.  That said, it's also _generally_ about _more_ than just "getting high."  That doesn't "not make it a sin."  But it should make it more understandable than dismissing such behavior as being simply "hedonistic" or even outright evil. 

And it's absolutely clear that Gloria _is searching_.  Beyond entering into this complicated on again, off again relationship with Rodolfo (who we find has some issues in his former family), she tries bungi-jumping, yoga (her 20-something daughter is a yoga instructor), "laugh therapy" and even truly "getting high" (when some marijuana actually ends up (mistakenly) on her doorstep.

Now I would suspect that a fair number of the readers of my blog would find much of her behavior described above problematic to sinful/offensive.  But what's fascinating is that we're really given a "God's Eye" view of her life.  THE PEOPLE IN HER LIFE (or who should be in her life) GENERALLY DON'T SEE HER DOING ANY OF THIS because THEY GENERALLY DON'T SEE HER AT ALL.  She lives alone.  The drugs that show up on her doorstep belong actually to the guy who lives the floor above her, who she _never sees_ (but hears a lot, because he does a lot of screaming).  Gloria's kids including her yoga instructor daughter and (some kind of) engineer son, are "nice enough people" but THEY JUST SEE HER AS _OLD_ (as one WITHOUT a LIFE OF CONSEQUENCE).

So HONESTLY, the ONLY LIFE OF MEANING that Gloria has ... is with this on-again, off-again Rodolfo, the circle of friends that she occasionally meets with AND _POSSIBLY_ WITH GOD, who LIKE US VIEWERS, would/could be watching her life and PERHAPS be INTERESTED in her BUT ALSO LIKE US _unable_ to do more (unable to give her encouragement, give her a hug, etc).  

Now we can't do more because we're watching her very human, very sympathetic life played out on a screen.  But God wouldn't be able to enter into her life for a different reason ... she doesn't seem to talk to God.  She lives her life perhaps sympathetically but ... as if God does not exist.

Interestingly enough, Gloria's children live very much the same way in relationship to her ... as if she doesn't really exist either.  And yet she does ...

Interesting huh? ;-)

In any case, this is a quite lovely and interesting movie about a 50+ year old woman who most people would probably not even notice if we met her on the street one day.


* 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! :-) >>

The Lego Movie [2014]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-I)  ChicagoTribune (4 Stars)  RE.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (K. McFarland) review

The Lego Movie [2014] (screenplay and directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, story by Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller) is probably one of the most surprising and original (largely) children's oriented animated movies made by Hollywood in a long, long time, this even as one could be tempted to dismiss it out of hand as a gigantic full-length feature advertisement for Lego-products.

Yet, if the film is to be understood/dismissed as an "ad," it'd be a strange one because the film's epic battle is precisely about what one would imagine has been the central (and never really resolved) "dilemma" faced by Lego's marketing gurus: Are Legos to be understood as fundamentally "block sets for kids" out of which said kids would be free to build just about _anything_ (even often "stupid things" that would only make sense to them) OR precisely because Legos could be used to BUILD ANYTHING should Lego design and market "building sets" for (older) enthusiasts out of which they could build truly marvelously complicated projects ranging from temples to skyscrapers to starships to tropical islands with volcanoes to bats, dragons and dolphins to formula one race cars, to WHATEVER Lego's designers would be asked (by their marketing people) to design?   In other words, who actually gets to be creative?  Kids (little people) or "Lego Corp" itself?                   

The story's central protagonist is Emmet Brickowski (voiced by Chris Pratt) who's a "regular yellow skinned" Lego figure (a construction worker) living in a city built entirely out of Legos called "Bricksburg."  And he's basically happy.  He has a home, he has a job, he's learned to fit in.  He watches "Bricksburg's favorite television program" called "Where are my pants?" (about a similarly yellow skinned lego figure, who, for some reason had been designed without pants... and who spends the show asking repeatedly, but with apparently sufficiently varied tonal variations to "keep things interesting" the obvious: "Where're my pants?" to viewers' everlasting amusement).  Emmet even enjoys going to "an over-priced" Lego Starbuck-style coffee shop and smiles as he pays $37 for a cup of Lego coffee).   Indeed, he HAPPILY sings Bricksville's cotton-candy-like national anthem: "Everything is AWESOME" (Honestly folks, when you hear this jingle, you won't be able to get it out of your heads ... it's like "lyrical heroin" ;-).

But Emmet's not bad, evil or stupid.  He's basically like a kid, joyfully embracing the happy (if perhaps limited by his experience) wonders around him.

Yet all's _not_ AWESOME in "Bricksburg" ... Even as Emmett lives in a happy seemingly limitless wonderland (if built out of some very basic and hence very limited "building blocks") there's "a force" afoot that would like to FREEZE things in place so that they would forever remain the way they are.

The prophet Vitruvius (voiced by Morgan Freeman) rails against this tide of conformity spreading across the land personified by President, er Lord Business (voied by Will Farrell) prophesying that out of the "yellow complected" residents of Bricksburg rise "a Special" who will find the "Piece of Resistance" that will bring an end to this scurge that freezes things in its tracks.

Well, completely by accident Emmet runs into this potent "Piece of Resistance" that oddly "sticks to him" henceforth.

Now all kinds of far more interesting, original and potent denizens of "Bricksburg" -- from the hip Wildstyle (voiced by Elizabeth Banks) whose yellow-skinned lego-character wears a plastic multicolored wig, to Legoland superheroes like Lego-Batman (Wildstyle's cool if somewhat arrogant "boyfriend" voiced by Will Arnett), Lego-Wonderwoman (voiced by Cobie Smulders), Lego-Han Solo (voiced by Keith Furguson) and Lego-Superman (voiced by Channing Tatum) to even Lego-Shaq (voiced by former NBA star Shaquille O'Neill) to even a super-cute Lego-unikitty (a kitten with a unicorn horn voiced Alison Brie) -- scratch their heads, wondering what's so "special" about Emmett Brickowski who seems SO AVERAGE and his IDEAS SO BORING.

Yet, Emmett does prove to be "special" by being so UTTERLY "UNDER THE RADAR" that Lord Business, his chief of security Lego-Cop (voiced by Liam Neeson) and their army of Lego-Drones COMPLETELY IGNORE HIM and his only (and arguably REALLY STUPID) "invention": a LEGO-"double decker couch" ("Really?  What's the point?  And who gets to sit on top and who on the bottom?" asks the far cooler but kind of an a-hole Lego-Batman).  BUT SAID DOUBLE DECKER COUCH "SAVES" THEM ALL because while these characters sit on that "stupid double decker couch," ALL THE LEGO-FIENDS SEEM TO IGNORE THEM. 

And thus, after many "out of the box" adventures, the "really average / quite boring" yet "special" precisely because he's so seemingly "average" Emmett is able to _save_ his world.  And that "piece of resistance" that he just randomly ran into, and since simply "stuck to him," proves key.

The final third of the film morphs arguably into an interesting metaphysical conflict: After all, Emmett (and the rest of his Lego-companions) ARE ALL MADE OF OUT LEGOS.  So who's actually animating all those Legos? ;-).  Well we find out.  And we come to understand a little more about the "central conflict" of the story, and why some of the Lego-characters in the story seemed really "kinda limited/boring" (and yet surprisingly creative in their own way) while there seems to be ONE character who seemed to want to FREEZE EVERYTHING (PERFECTLY) IN PLACE. 

 It's all surprisingly BRILLIANT, THOUGHT-PROVOKING and IMHO, REALLY, REALLY FUNNY :-). Over the years, there haven't been many films that I'd want to see (MANY TIMES?) OVER AGAIN.  This is honestly one of them.  It's SURPRISINGLY ... "AWESOME" ;-) ;-)


<< 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 Monuments Men [2014]

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

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

The Monuments Men [2014] (starring, directed and screenplay cowritten by George Clooney along with Grant Heslov, based on the book by Robert M. Edsel [IMDb] and Bret Witter [IMDb]) is a reasonably well made, _intentionally lighter_ than it could have been, film about a group of people (largely "egg-headed" architects / art historians) who most would not necessarily immediately consider "heroes" who did, in fact, do much to _save the world_ as we know it during World War II.

And my guess is that EVERYONE associated with this film understood how tough the calls being made were: Landing on the beaches of Normandy ONE MONTH AFTER THE INVASION... (some beach obstacles still present both as a reminder to the arriving soldiers back then and for viewers here for cinematic effect), Col. Frank Stokes (played by George Clooney) has a tough time convincing a(n actually) lower-ranking field commander of the validity of his "Monuments Men's" mission.  The captain tells the colonel: "Look, you're telling me to save a (1000 year old) church (in the approaching town).  But if the Nazis decide to use its bell tower (as a sniper's nest), we're going to blow it up.  Understand?"  We all do ...

BUT as Frank Stokes explained to President Roosevelt in the months before this field encounter in Normandy: "Mr President, (God willing) in the coming months our troops are going to be liberating Florence, Italy and Paris, France, and who's going to assure the world that when we do, Michaelangelo's David is still going to be standing and Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is still going to be smiling?"  And _most of us_ can understand the stakes involved here as well... WHAT AN ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUS WAR WW II WAS ...

And so it was, despite being a unit of OLD, mostly OUT-OF-SHAPE, "EGG HEADS" (played among others by Bill Murray and John Goodman at their character actor best) with FDR's reluctant and Churchill's presumed blessings, this multinational unit of architects / art historians was sent out to Europe to try to bring some semblance of order and decency to a "gun fight in a china shop."

AND IT WASN'T EASY.  The Nazis were first out to plunder occupied Europe and then out LARGELY "to burn it all" (while squirreling away bits and pieces of Art for themselves and to help finance their escapes).  And the Soviets marching on Nazi Germany from the East had their own agenda: Having lost 20+ million people in this conflict, they felt that they had the "moral right" to simply CART AWAY EVERYTHING THAT THEY COULD as "Reparations."  Finally, AND IMHO MOST INTERESTINGLY, THE FRENCH, weren't necessarily all that trustful of the Americans / Brits either.  Parisian curator Claire Simone (played by Cate Blanchett) initially did not trust American James Granger (played by Matt Damon) who prior to being recruited for this unit had worked as a curator for New York's own Metropolitan Museum of Art: "Oh, you're here SIMPLY to 'save our art' and NOT to take it back to YOUR 'MET'" she said in a disbelieving French puff. 

AND yet the crime, indeed CRIMES, was/were SO LARGE. 

This film will frustrate purists, who'd perhaps wish that the film was _more eggheady_ (that is MORE like a documentary).  But there's the book for that.  Instead, George Clooney, et al, seemed _to choose_ to make a _lighter film_ that acknowledged that on a superficial level most viewers really "wouldn't care" about the sacrifices made by this unit -- and two of its members, Brit Donald Jeffries (played by Hugh Bonneville) and Frenchman Jean Claude Clermont (played by Jean Dujardin), did DIE in the war -- BUT ON THE OTHER HAND MOST VIEWERS WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE THE LOSS TO THE WORLD IF THE ONLY "Mona Lisa" image that we would have today would be the caricature drawn of it by SIMPSONS' creator Matt Groenig.  IT IS GOOD THAT THE REAL THING STILL EXISTS.  And this film celebrates the folks -- of the Bridge on the River Kwai [1957] / "Greatest Generation" -- who helped keep it so.


<< 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! :-) >>

Labor Day [2013]

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

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

Labor Day [2013] (screenplay and directed by Jason Reitman, based on the novel by Joyce Maynard [IMDb]) is a lazy / sappy, "don't really try this at home" romance for (my guess is) 30-something and above women.  Throughout the film, I kept thinking of The Bridges of Madison County [1995] another lazy / sappy romance directed at (again my guess ...) the same basic target audience.

That said, those who've read my blog would know that I don't necessarily find "sap" to be a bad thing (in a movie anyway ...).  But picking up a wounded, indeed, still bleeding, escaped convict (even if played in appropriately studly / sweat-covered muscle, yet also circumspect / gentleman-like fashion by Josh Brolin) on a lazy late summer afternoon somewhere in the New Hampshire countryside is almost certainly not a particularly wise thing to do. 

But then, this is a story (and stories do often have a "wouldn't it be nice..." quality to them).  So what the heck ...

Henry (voiced as an adult by Tobie Maguire, played as a 12-year old by Gattlin Griffith) recounts the story of how one lazy Labor Day weekend (just before school is supposed to start again), he and his worn-down by life, basket-case mom, Adele (played actually IMHO remarkably well by Kate Winslet) encountered said escaped convict named Frank (played again in appropriately studly yet circumspect fashion by Josh Brolin) in a super-market in their small New Hampshire hometown.

Now why was Henry's mom, Adele, a basket case?  Well she was left a number of years back by her somewhat a-holish husband / Henry's dad, Gerald (played by Clarke Gregg) for his (as they always are) younger, also divorced with her own son, 1980s-era big haired/big-glassed secretary who wasn't necessarily outright "evil" but didn't mind that (after her own home/marriage was smashed) was able to "win" (by smashing the home/marriage of Adele).  Ah, the "games" of the early decades of "no fault divorce ..." back here in the States.

Of course, the situation was actually a bit more complicated than that, as we learn later in the story.  Adele had already become worn-down by life and a basket-case BEFORE Gerald left her.  And Gerald (as well as his big-glassed/big-haired second wife) weren't completely a-holes either.

Nevertheless, we learn that Adele's life had really been quite awful until this encounter with the still bleeding, wounded, escaped convict, in the random supermarket somewhere in their small town in rural New Hampshire.  And so ... "what's she got to lose?"  (AGAIN, PLEASE FOLKS, DON'T DO THIS IN REAL LIFE...)

It turns out (in the story) that 'scaped-con Frank "wasn't that bad of a guy."  He too "had a story."  And for the sake of the film ... it's probably worth buying this (BUT AGAIN, PLEASE DON'T DO THIS AT HOME ... AT LEAST NOT UNTIL HE'S "DONE HIS TIME"...).

Anyway, much eminently circumspect (mostly off-screen) but "sweaty muscled" romance ensues...

Again, this is a LAZY, "WOULDN'T IT BE NICE" ROMANCE ...

Would it be a "good idea" to take home a still bleeding escaped convict with your 12 year old kid?  Most would PROBABLY say "no."  BUT THEN THIS IS A MOVIE. 

And what approaching middle-aged woman, worn down by life, feeling worthless and abandoned, would not want to hear a buff, sweaty t-shirted man, who hasn't been with a woman for a LONG, LONG TIME tell her: "I'd gladly serve another 20 years for 3 more days with you?" (Oh, Iah dew declare, let mah heart stop palpahtaytin dear Sir ... ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

2 Autumns 3 Winters (orig. 2 Automnes 3 Hivers) [2013]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb listing
Allociné.fr listing*

LeParisien (H. Lizé) review*
Critikat (C. Graminiès) review*
Libération (J. Gester) review*
LaCroix (S. Betbeder) review*

2 Autumns 3 Winters (orig. 2 Automnes 3 Hivers) [2013] [IMDb] [AC.Fr]* (written and directed by  Sébastien Betbeder [IMDb] [AC.Fr]*) is a very uncomplicated French "indie" comedy that played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago.  The film's about four very, very average young Parisians, made in the style of "reality TV."  Hence we get to hear and see the film's very, very average main protagonists -- Arman (played by Vincent Macaigne [IMDb] [AC.Fr]*), Amélie (played by Maud Wyler [IMDb] [AC.Fr]*), Benjamin (played by Bastien Bouillon [IMDb] [AC.Fr]*) and Katia (played by Audrey Bastien [IMDb] [AC.Fr]*)-- sharing (often in interview format, after the fact...) with excruciating seriousness their exact thoughts and feelings (as they remember them) at various "key" points in this very, very, very mundane story.

IMHO it works, it's funny and serves to prove that "an unexamined life" need not be an altogether bad thing ;-).

My favorite character in the film is Benjamin's "New Agey" sister Lucie (played by Pauline Etienne [IMDb] [AC.Fr]*) who's so into herself that she won't even pick-up the (cell)phone to call her brother.  Instead, she tries to communicate with him "telepathically."  So every so often, she's pictured fading into (and out of ...)  Benjamin's consciousness (the connection's _rarely_ particularly good...) with a message that's generally _not_ particularly important ;-).

Probably the most irritating plot point in the film (though it _could_ actually be intentional) is that Amélie at one point shares with viewers (but not with Arman ...) that she's pregnant (with his child) and after not altogether a great deal of reflection (but that which she does, she shares with the viewers...) goes and gets an abortion. 

When Arman eventually finds out (from Amélie, though after the fact...), despite his being quite aware that he's not exactly a "genetic masterpiece," he appears quite hurt.  So the two "break-up."

One wonders then ... will there be a sequel? ;-)


* 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! :-) >>

A Touch of Sin (orig. Tian zhu ding) [2013]

MPAA (UR would be R)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (A-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
AsianWiki listing

NPR (M. Jenkins) review
CCTV (Zh. Rui) article

ChinaFile (Asia Society) extensive video discussion / program w. director

ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (M. McCreadie) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

A Touch of Sin (orig. Tian zhu ding) [2013] (written and directed by Zhangke Jia [IMDb] one of China's best known contemporary film-makers) is provocative and often quite violent film that if not for it having been made in China by a Chinese film-maker (basically ignoring that country's censors) and serving-up a absolutely scathing indictment of corruption and money-worshipping excess among many of that country's petty elites today, many American and Western viewers would, with eyes-rolling, dismiss the film as a Charles Bronson [IMDb] / Death Wish [IMDb] style "revenge flick."

It's of course more complicated than that.  The makers of the various American 70s+ era vigilante justice films (think of not just the Charles Bronson" [IMDb] / Death Wish [IMDb] films but also those featuring Clint Eastwood [IMDb] as "Dirty Harry" [IMDb] to say nothing of most of Quentin Tarantino's [IMDb] early films) would all say that they were heavily influenced by the Bruce Lee [IMDb] and other "martial arts films" coming out of Hong Kong at the time.  Those stories, in turn, didn't come out of nowhere.  Instead, they come out of a surprisingly long (Dynasty-to-Dynasty...) Chinese storytelling tradition of wuxia (martial arts) and youxia ("wandering force") heroes who rise-up "out of the masses" to challenge wicked overlords and restore justice to the land.  

So film-maker Zhangke Jia [IMDb] strung together four vignettes based on actual events widely reported-on and commented-on by users of China's "Weibo" (Twitter-like) social networking site in which wuxia or youxia like heroes "rose up" out of Chinese society TODAY to challenge local injustices that "cried out to heaven."

These included the story of a former miner named Dahai (played by Wu Jiang) who went on a killing spree in a sleepy provincial town after being humiliated for complaining after the town's mayor sold-off the town's publicly owned mine to a private firm and then the mayor used the public moneys gained from the sale to buy himself and his wife a private jet (so that they could more easily travel to Hong Kong and other wealthier parts out "south east.")

The second vignette told the story of a young man Zhao San (played by Boaquiang Wang) returning on his motorbike to his hometown somewhere presumably near the recently built Three Gorges Dam for the occasion of his mother's 70th birthday.  After the party, his mother reprimands him as he's supposedly traveling about, working "odd jobs" and to send money "back home" (to her).  But he's not exactly sending back a "steady income."  Well there's a reason for that ... he's not holding back on her, but ...

Another vignette involved a young woman named Xiao Yu (played in the film by the director's own wife Tao Zhao) who while herself a flawed person (introduced to viewers as the girlfriend of a traveling businessman and one who worked as a receptionist at a seamy hotel "sauna" rest-stop in another provincial town between two major cities, one inland and the other along China's thriving south-east coast) found herself bullied two extortionists who wanted to "buy her."  "Gentlemen, proceed indoors, we're a sauna, you can have ANY WOMAN you want here, but I'm just a receptionist."  But they wanted HER.  One of them took out a big wad of bills AND BEGAN HITTING HER WITH IT saying that he could "buy anything" and that he wanted to BUY HER.  Well, good old Xiao pulled a knife out of her handbag, the same knife that her businessman lover couldn't take on the train with him when he went off on his way that afternoon and ...

The final vignette involves a young, good-looking man named Xiao Hui (played by Lanshan Luo) who lives and works in the glamorous "south east" of China, BUT ... he finds himself better-looking than competent.  In his struggle to find a job that he's both GOOD AT and PROUD OF, he becomes friends with a young similarly attractive _buddhist_ prostitute.  Yup, she plays the games (dressing-up at times as a tight plunging-necklined, micro-mini skirted, stiletto heeled jack-booted "Red Guard" for visiting Hong Kong/Singaporey businessmen) and partly enjoys them (she's got a pink-"skinned" iPad).  But she also does truly "random acts of kindness" (saves gold fish ...).  Why?  She tells Xiao Hui, "I have to do a lot of good deeds to stand a chance in my next life ..."  Xiao Hui helps her "liberate" said gold fish from the hotel / night-club where they work, but it all seems hopeless to him ...

So this then is the image of China that Zhangke Jia [IMDb] presents in his film, one that is both NEW and OH SO CORRUPT in the TIMELESS, OLD-FASHIONED WAY.  And interestingly enough he suggests that ALL THE SAGES from YES EVEN MARY AND JESUS, to the BUDDHA, to the CHINESE SAGES OF OLD, to MAO ZEDONG (there are pointed references to ALL OF THEM) would be APPALLED by the money-worshiping SOUL-LESSNESS of much of CHINA TODAY.

But then, should one be surprised?  It's all, like it's always been: "touched by Sin ..." An interesting, thought-provoking if often quite violent film ...


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