The Theory of Everything [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  

The Theory of Everything [2014] (directed by James Marsh, screenplay by Anthony McCarten based on the memoirs of Jane Wilde-Hawking) is by most critical accounts (see above) a rather sanitized portrayal, IMHO honestly probably appropriately even necessarily, of the 25 year marriage of world famous theoretical physicist Steven Hawking (played in the film by Eddie Redmayne), debilitated for most of that time with advanced ALS (Lou Gherig's Disease), and his first wife Jane Wilde-Hawking (played in the movie Felicity Jones).

I write that the portrayal was "appropriately even necessarily sanitized" because there are plenty of hints in the film to those who have eyes, ears and brains (to say nothing of hearts) suggesting that the Hawkings' situation was NOT an easy one.  And yet, most, including emphatically myself (!), would probably agree that the story (and even specifically OF THEIR MARRIAGE) deserved to be told.

Why?  Well, let's begin by noting that Steven Hawking is probably the single most famous / historically significant disabled/physically challenged person in our time or perhaps in all time.  79-80 years ago, eugenicists across the "civilized world" (including certainly at Hawking's own Cambridge University) would have advocated EUTHANIZING severely challenged people like him.  And the Nazis GASSED the severely disabled.  Yet there are few doubts in anybody's minds THAT THE WORLD IS A BETTER MORE ENLIGHTENED PLACE FOR HAVING STEVEN HAWKING LIVING AMONG US DESPITE HIS ENORMOUS PHYSICAL SUFFERING AND LIMITATIONS.

Then despite his great intellectual gifts as well as his great physical suffering, Hawking is _also_ portrayed in the film, at times, as being somewhat of an ingrate / jerk.

For one, interestingly, throughout the film, he's portrayed as a rather aggressive atheist.  In his case, to be honest, I could actually go either way on this: On one hand, one could definitely feel angry (at God) for having one found oneself suffering from such an awful disease.  On the other hand, in my own work/ministry (as a Catholic Priest) I do have to say that EVERYONE WHO I'VE EVER KNOWN (there have been several) who's come down with ALS really did die in the 2-3-4 year window that was given Hawking when he was first diagnosed BACK IN 1963 (OVER FIFTY YEARS AGO).  That would seem to be something to be grateful for... to have _so spectacularly_ beaten the odds.  HOWEVER, back to the first hand, it's been one heck of a difficult life FOR THOSE FIFTY YEARS as well... So faith can be something of "a wash" in these situations even if I still do think that it's be EASIER to live with such difficulties believing that God is still somehow present to us / at our sides through it all.  (Interestingly also, Jane, first his girlfriend and then his wife is portrayed as being both an intellectual herself (she also got a PhD, in Romance languages) AND a believing and except for a couple of years in the middle there, A PRACTICING ANGLICAN).  Anyway, despite his suffering, I do honestly think that on balance Hawking did come across as something of an ingrate toward God because UNLIKE so many other people who have come down with AND DIED RATHER QUICKLY OF HIS ILLNESS, he's been able to live for 50 years further AND EVEN HAVE THREE KIDS WITH JANE.  Really, it's remarkable ... and yet ... also ... so painful.

Second, putting aside God, arguably what broke-up his and Jane's marriage was the entrance of his nurse Elaine Mason (played by Maxine Peake) into the picture.  She became his day-to-day caregiver after many years of illness (after he already even lost his normal speech).  Yet, this was ALSO after he had become a world famous physicist (for his contribution to the theory of the Big Bang).  One does wonder if Hawking would have been "a catch" if he was simply a random ALS sufferer with no fame to his name. AND YET ... Diana DID TAKE CARE OF HIM, and DID HAVE MORE ENERGY WITH REGARDS TO THIS THAN JANE (worn down by 2 1/2 DECADES of taking care of him...).  Still, the film made it quite clear that it was Steven who "walked out" of the marriage and not Jane (even if there was "an Anglican choir director/widower" (played by Charlie Cox) and Jane's future second husband ALSO hovering in the background).

So this is the story about a "mess", about a _very challenging marriage_, yes somewhat sanitized here, and yet still honest enough (no need to get into "Jerry Springer" territory...).

Yes, after 25 years, their marriage did collapse.  They both remarried, she, obviously, in the (Anglican) Church once more.  But honestly, what a story!  And it does appear that this story, written up in Jane's second memoir _was a collaboration with Steve_.

So good job folks, good job!  And honestly, as Pope Francis has already said famously in another context, in this most difficult case here, "Who can judge?" except ... perhaps God ;-) ... who'd of course love them both, _as us all_ ;-).

So IMHO in the final analysis, this is an excellent and _very human_ / thought provoking film about someone who can teach us more (and perhaps even through some of his own mistakes) than just about the stars.


<< 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! :-) >>

Stones for the Rampart (orig. Kamienie na szaniec) [2014]

MPAA (UR would be R)   WP.pl (8/10)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmWeb.pl listing*

Film.onet.pl (M. Steciak) review*
Histmag.org (A. Łysakowska) review*
Kultura.newsweek.pl (M. Wachnicki) review*
WP.pl (J. Dudkiewicz) review*
Wyborza.pl (T. Sobolewski) review*

Stones for the Rampart (orig. Kamienie na szaniec) [2014] [IMDb] [FW.pl]* (directed by Robert Gliński [IMDb] [FW.pl]*, screenplay by Dominik W. Rettinger [IMDb] [FW.pl]* and Wojciech Pałys [IMDb] [FW.pl]* based on the Polish war-time novel [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* [WCat-Eng ed.] [GR-Pol. Ed] [WCat-Pol Ed.] by Polish scout leader [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* and during WW II Polish resistance leader Aleksander Kamiński [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]*) is a very tough and, at times, honestly (though INTENTIONALLY) painful-to-watch film about a group of Polish boy scouts, hence TEENAGERS, who participated in the "Szare Szeregi" (lit. Grey Ranks) [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* "youth arm" of the Polish Home Army (partisan) resistance [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* to Nazi occupation.

The film played recently at the 26th Annual (2014) Polish Film Festival in America held here in Chicago.

The bravery of these Polish teens (and their families) is undeniable and puts to shame various Hollywood highly fictionalized "Y/A" depictions of "youth defending their homeland" (one thinks not only of the, in comparison, utterly ridiculous Red Dawn [1984] [2012] films, but even the better but still necessarily invented Hunger Games [2012] [2013] [2014] [2015] series of current popularity).  

Still, Gliński's [IMDb] [FW.pl]* film did cause something of a stir in Poland, because unlike Kamiński's [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* original novel, which written and published UNDERGROUND during the War was INTENDED TO BE PATRIOTIC AND ENCOURAGE POLES, YOUNG AND OLD, TO KEEP-UP THE RESISTANCE TO THE HATED / VICIOUS NAZI OCCUPIERS, the current film CAN NOT BUT RAISE QUESTIONS, among them, the most key: WAS IT WORTH IT?  (Honestly, it is worth here to read through some of the POLISH reviews of this film LISTED ABOVE -- If one reads these reviews using the Chrome browser, one can get a pretty good English translation of them by simply clicking the appropriate button).

I write this because THE CAUSE WAS UNDOUBTEDLY JUST, and these YOUNG SCOUTS (and their families) were UNDOUBTABLY BRAVE ... BUT THE COST ... WAS SO, SO HIGH.

To the film ...

After setting-up the story, introducing the group of scouts in a random Polish city during the Nazi occupation, the film centers on a particular action that this scout unit undergoes:  One of the unit's leaders, Rudy (played by Tomasz Ziętek [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) is captured by the Nazi authorities and held, and more to the point TORTURED, at the local Gestapo headquarters.  What to do?

The Scouts, led by Rudy's BEST FRIEND Tadeusz nicknamed "Zośka" (played magnificently by Marcel Sabat [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) WANT TO RESCUE HIM.  Insane?  NOT REALLY.  No they weren't planning to simply storm the police station BUT they had the place staked out.  They even had people, neighbors, WORKING in that police station -- Who was typing out all the police reports coming out of that place?  CERTAINLY NOT GERMANS ... but rather POLISH SECRETARIES (where did they live?  IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.  Hence they'd be FRIENDS / NEIGHBORS of the Scouts and even of Rudy's own family).  So the plan was to AMBUSH the truck that would EVENTUALLY take Rudy off to some Concentration Camp.

BUT ... TO DO SO would require "Home Army" permission.  After all, these young Scouts are constantly reminded by "the higher ups" that they "can't just do whatever they wanted."  They are supposed to be PART OF AN ARMY.

AND THERE WERE SELF-EVIDENT RISKS.  SO they HAD TO WAIT.  But "DAMN IT, HOW LONG?"  Until (local Underground, deep-cover hidden) Major Jan Kiwerski (played by Andrzej Chyra [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) gets permission from even "Higher Up."  WHY?  Well, ANY SUCH OPERATION WAS INEVITABLY GOING TO RESULT IN NAZI COUNTER-ACTIONS and EVEN REPRISALS.  A unit sets out to "save one person" and the Nazis go berserk and the Home Army ends up LOSING the ENTIRE ORGANIZATION in that part of Poland.  SO ... the "higher ups" really needed to think this thing through.  PLUS, the "mission" was being "planned by mere kids" here ...

ON THE OTHER HAND, this film portrayed REMARKABLY WELL, the "UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL" NATURE of a partisan resistance: 

While "waiting for the go-ahead," Zośka has to deal with Rudy's family.  They live a few houses "down the street."  Then there's Rudy's girlfriend Hala (played magnificently by Sandra Staniszewska [IMDb] [FW.pl]*).  At one point, she comes to Zośka's family's apartment WITH A REVOLVER threatening to go down to the Gestapo HQ herself, and shoot her way in.  "Sure I'll almost certainly be killed, but AT LEAST I WILL HAVE DONE SOMETHING.  HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF, WITH YOUR BEST FRIEND OVER THERE, BEING TORTURED AND ALL YOU'RE DOING STANDING AROUND WAITING HERE?  WAITING FOR WHAT?  UNTIL HE DIES?"  (Honestly, PERHAPS that was EXACTLY what the Home Army higher ups were waiting for ... because this situation COULDN'T POSSIBLY END WELL ...).

Anyway, word does come that Rudy is going to be moved.  The Scout detachment gets the go-ahead to launch the ambush from "the higher ups."  ... Do they succeed in freeing him?  (MILD SPOILER ALERT) They do.  

But does it matter?  Of course not.  Why?  (I'm not going to tell you ... but think of the time, think of the nature of the Nazi occupation of the Slavic lands, and come to your own conclusion).  

BUT HONESTLY, IF YOU WERE THERE WHAT WOULD YOU DO?  OR PERHAPS WHAT WOULD YOU _HOPE TO DO_?

This is often simultaneously a ghastly and a great film, IMHO near perfectly capturing the central dilemma of the Polish Resistance of the time.  What the heck to do when no matter what one did, the consequences would be all but unbearable.

Sigh ... what a film and what a story.


* Reasonably good (sense) translations of non-English webpages can be found by viewing them through 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! :-) >>

One Way Ticket to the Moon (orig. Bilet na Księżyc) [2013]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Filmweb.pl listing*

Dziennik.pl [P. Czerkawski] review*
Film.onet.pl (D. Romanowska) review*
Film.org.pl (K. Połaski) review*
Film.wp.pl (K. Kasperska) review*
KulisyKultury.pl (K. Łukaszewicz) review*

Hollywood Reporter [N. Young] review

It's 1969 and the "Summer of Love" in One Way Ticket to the Moon (orig. Bilet na Księżyc) [2013] [IMDb] [FW.pl]* (written and directed by Jacek Bromski [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) in this often hilarious and inevitably poignant/sad take on Poland's "Summer of '69," seeking to apply a couple of America's counter-cultural classics, Hair [wikip-1968-stagemusical] [wikip-1979 film] [IMDb] and Easy Rider [1969] [IMDb], to Polish Communist-era realities of the time. (The film played recently at the 26th Annual (2014) Polish Film Festival in America held here in Chicago).

And indeed much is "going on."  The Communist Regime has the whole, then NOTORIOUSLY DULL GRAY COUNTRY all decked out in the ALMOST IMPOSSIBLY CHEERFUL "RED AND WHITE" of Poland's national colors, earnestly trying to "generate excitement" about celebrating the upcoming "25th Anniversary of the Founding of the Polish People's Republic," even as every one of its news items on State (Controlled) radio seems to undermine the earnest, studied, faux/forced optimistic Party Line: Early in the film, we hear "State Radio" LEADING its "morning news" with an item announcing that the "Minister of Agriculture" had visited a "cord factory" and "proudly proclaimed" that "there will certainly be enough rope to bind this year's harvest."   Ring the bells folks!  The Party assures us that at least this _ridiculously_ basic need is something that we don't have to worry about (or should we actually?  Why would something so absurdly basic be mentioned on the news at all...?)

Indeed, the Regime faces a real challenge in 'generating excitement' about "25 years of drabness and disappointment" -- Everyone in the story is painfully aware of Poland's painfully embarrassing bad economic story.   "Okay, we lag behind the East Germans, that's 'no surprise,' but why is it that even the Czechoslovaks and the Hungarians are beating our ...?" asks one of character.  Another responds, "Well you know, we Poles have become a nation of schemers.  An East German foreman tells one of his East German workers to come over and tighten a screw.  And he does, come over, and ... tightens the screw.  A Polish foreman tells one of his Polish workers to come over and tighten a screw.  And he comes over and spends a half an hour looking-over the screw, from all angles, scheming to find a way to appear to tighten it without actually doing so.  So EVERYTHING takes a long time, and ... at the end of the day, NOTHING gets done anyway."  (Readers note simply here that this Communist Era Polish reputation for "scheming" was HONESTLY, AN ARTIFACT OF THAT UNNATURAL TIME.  Poland was NOT free but rather a captive "satellite" of the Soviet Union.  In contrast, outside of Poland, both here in the United States and across all of Western Europe, Poles have had a near UNIVERSAL REPUTATION of both HARD WORK and PRIDE IN THAT WORK.  It's honestly hard to imagine the Catholic Church in the United States without the legacy of the extreme generosity of both Polish labor and Polish money, often contributed first by _dirt poor_ immigrants and later by their descendants).

But beyond that, the Regime's Party spin doctors have another problem on their hands:  The whole world, including Poland, seems to be focused on the seminal event about to occur ... America's soon to be launched Apollo 11 and its promised landing on the moon.  The Regime is stuck trying to explain(away) why it's the Americans who are going to be walking on the moon first, and not the Regime's Soviet Communist "big brothers."  Play on that summer's primary focus -- the Apollo ii moon landing -- inspires, of course, this film's title.

But all these "grand" concerns aside -- the upcoming celebration of  Communist Poland's "25 years of mediocrity and failure" or the Apollo moon landings -- 1969 was the summer in which the film's central protagonist Adam Sikora (played by Filip Pławiak [IMDb] [FW.pl]*), having graduated that spring from high school, was ... drafted into the military.

And so the film begins with Adam, having finished his early morning milk deliveries rushing off to the local draft board, where, in its "infinite wisdom" it assigns him, who's lived all his life in a little hamlet in the mountains of the southeastern Poland ... TO THE NAVY and to report "two weeks hence" to a Polish naval base in the northwestern (Baltic Coast) corner of the country.

How long's the assignment? ... three years.  Well that's gonna ... SUCK, given that he has his first, sort-of, girlfriend, Danusia (played with perfectly-calibrated 15-to-16-year-old earnestness by Kaja Walden [IMBb] [FW.pl]*) in his home village, in said SOUTH EASTERN CORNER OF THE COUNTRY.  So he goes over to the shop where she's working that summer to break the news.  He then asks her: "Will you wait for me?"  In perfectly calibrated SHOCK of a 15-to-16-year-old BEING ASKED THIS QUESTION FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, she answers: "NO!"  Crestfallen, 18-year-old Adam asks "Why?"  "I'm 15-going-on-16 years old, I can't even imagine THREE YEARS FROM NOW." And so it is, shell-shocked Adam realizes that he's probably being dumped for the very first time...

Adam's lack-of-experience / naivete comes to concern his older, thinking of himself as "more worldly" brother Antoni (played again wonderfully by Mateusz Kościukiewicz [IMDb] [FW.pl]*), 22 or 23, who had just finished his three year term of service in the Polish Navy (Apparently, in its infinite wisdom, the Polish People's Army had determined that the nation's "best mariners" come from the mountains of the South Eastern part of the country ;-).  So Antoni decides to accompany his younger brother to his induction in the Polish Navy, hoping to "impart his wisdom" (all the "wisdom" of a 22 or 23 year old...) on his younger brother along the way.

Thus begins an "epic" Easy Rider [1969] [IMDb]-like "road trip" from the mountains of Southeastern Poland to the Poland's Northwestern Baltic coast ... 'CEPT ... THIS IS POLAND OF 1969: Neither Antoni nor Adam have "motor-bikes" to say nothing of a car.  This "road trip" was going to take place "the Soviet-era Socialist way" ... by train, bus and occasionally hitchhiking a ride from a farmer pulling a hay-covered cart with a tractor ;-)

But let's also admit here that no matter where one is, WHEN ONE IS YOUNG, ANY TRIP LIKE THIS ... is going to be EPIC (!)  And so it is ... ;-)

The people that the two meet along the way (and their conversations with them) in this meandering trip that actually takes them longer than Apollo 11's trip to the moon (though in fairness, they did make stops along the way) are ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS.  These include: (1) their encounter/conversation with two young girls their age (coming home from a 3 month training course in "food service") that they meet on the train to Krakow; (2) a barbeque with an "old" (again 22-24 years old ...) "former Navy buddy" of Antoni's now living in the (still) southern mining town of Katowice; and (3) a priceless conversation with a thoroughly corrupt "little man" of a conductor on a "night train" to the coast (this last encounter being certainly a play-on, indeed a "send-up of" the famous Communist-era film Night Train (orig. Pociąg) [1959] that played recently again in the United States as part of the American director Martin Scrocese's Masterpieces of Polish Cinema: [MSP Website] [Culture.pl] series).

The "little man" pettily corrupt conductor tells Antoni who to talk-to / look-up to get themselves "set-up" (with both a hotel and some Communist Era hookers) when they "get to the coast."  (Again folks, think Easy Rider [1969] [IMDb]).

And let's admit it, what kind of "wisdom" would a 22-year-old "older brother" have to impart on his "more naive" younger brother, other than, well, trying to "get him laid..."?  After an aborted "first attempt," Adam, on his own, manages "to score" with an amiable, a few years older, Polish exotic dancer named Halina/Roxana (played by Anna Przybylska [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) IN A SCENE THAT HONESTLY IS VERY, VERY FUNNY: There's Adam, losing his virginity, even as we hear Neil Armstrong on the TV, stepping down from his craft and announcing TO THE WHOLE WORLD: "One small step for (a) man ...." ;-)

Yet if all this SEEMS INCREDIBLY STUPID, ADOLESCENT, SOPHOMORIC, indeed HAIR [wikip-1968-stagemusical] [wikip-1979 film] [IMDb]-like in nature, JUST LIKE IN THE SUDDEN CLOSING SEQUENCE of the FILM VERSION OF HAIR [1979], the current film TAKES A SUDDEN and far more serious turn:

Adam's lying there in Halina's bed, basking in the "momentous glory" of "having gone where..." even as Neil Armstrong was first stepping onto the moon, when a drunk local police officer comes "visiting upon" Halina as well.

Adam steps-up to defend Halina's honor, and since the police officer was piss-drunk, even disarms him.  The drunk local police officer lifts up his hands, and even laughs: "Okay boy, easy, even keep the gun...  But know that tomorrow, I'm coming back for you WITH THE WHOLE LOCAL POLICE FORCE and you're a dead man."

Again, if up to this point the movie, LIKE most of the 1960s era HAIR [wikip-1968-stagemusical] [wikip-1979 film] [IMDb] was above all, just a STUPID SOPHOMORIC ROMP, SUDDENLY ADAM really _has to_ "grow up."   Indeed, he has to flee.  BUT TO WHERE???  HOW???

He does find a solution, the closing credits suggest that the story presented was actually based on a true one. Well, yes, and no.  There were Cold War cases in which Poles (as well as other Central/East Europeans from the Soviet Satellite countries) took similarly drastic measures to get across to the West.  However, the closing credits identifies Adam Sikora as the Polish born father of the German footballer "on the national team" Feliks (or Felix) Sikora.  And this is, as far as I can see, (Google, Wikipedia), this is not true.  But then let's also remember that Milos Forman's film version of Hair [wikip-1968-stagemusical] [wikip-1979 film] [IMDb] ended in a super poignant if grossly manipulative fiction as well.

What then to make of the film?  I did like it.

I had contact with and indeed visited my relatives in Communist era Czechoslovakia throughout the 1970s and 80s.  The first time I heard Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon was on my oldest cousin's stereo in Prague.  He had found a way to buy the record, black iconic "prism cover" and all, on his own over there.  On the flip-side my parents, sister and I, enjoyed the summer of the "Prague Spring" (1968) largely on the beach in Union Pier outside of Chicago largely listening to lovely Czech language covers of the Beatles, Mamas and Papas, etc.  The film version of Milan Kindera's Unbearable Lightness of Being [1988] features (a little anachronistically) Marta Kubišová's Czech language cover of Hey Jude.

So to those who would complain that this film "can not possibly portray a realistic vision of Poland in 1969," having pictures of bell-bottom jeans wearing (admittedly Czech) cousins of mine from the same time, I beg to disagree. 

Then those who'd on the other hand argue that the film unfairly lampoons Communist Era news programming, my sister, various American born cousins of mine and I (all still Czech speaking) can "rolls our eyes" almost completely around in our eye-sockets thanks to the UNBELIEVABLE STUPIDITY OF WHAT PASSED AS NEWS REPORTING COMMUNIST LANDS DURING THAT ERA.   The segment in this film about the "Agricultural Minister visiting the cord factory" (mentioned above) is ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS.  'Cause that's EXACTLY (!) how it was.

I do wish that the director did not play with the truth as much as he did at the end of the film.  But even attempts like Adam's to get across to the West were part of the historical record of the time.  There were desperate people who did have to flee places like Poland during that era.  And how could one do that, again FROM POLAND, when one was SURROUNDED by "Fraternal Brother" States?

Anyway, this film is NEITHER Citizen Kane [1941] nor Ashes and Diamonds [1958].   But it does kinda play like a Polish Easy Rider [1969] or [Hair [1979].

And so in that sense, it did a "pretty good job!"  So "rock on" director Jacek Bromski [IMDb] [FW.pl], "rock on" ;-)


* Reasonably good (sense) translations of non-English webpages can be found by viewing them through 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! :-) >>

Jack Strong [2014]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Filmweb.pl listing*
KinoTeatr.ru listing*

Film.onet.pl (D. Romanowska) review*
Film.org.pl (K. Połaski) review*
Newsweek.pl (H. Orzechowski) review*
Polityka.pl (Z. Pietrasik) review*
Polska Times (K. Dobroszek) review*

 
Jack Strong [2014] [IMDb] [FW.pl]* [FT.ru]* (screenplay and directed by Władysław Pasikowski [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) tells the TRUE STORY of  Ryszard Kukliński [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]*(played in the film by Marcin Dorociński [IMDb] [FW.pl]* ) who, working as a trusted aide for the Polish Army General Staff, became perhaps the single most important spy for NATO during the Cold War.  Passing secrets to the CIA between 1972 and 1981, Kukliński, under the code name "Jack Strong" (hence the film's name) became so important an asset that U.S. Carter Administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (played in the film by Krzysztof Pieczyński [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) came to call him "The First Polish Officer in NATO" ;-).  The film played recently at the 26th Annual (2014) Polish Film Festival in America held here in Chicago.

So how did an officer, obviously trusted within the Polish and by extension even by the Warsaw Pact (read Soviet) military establishment (1) come to be so trusted by the said military establishment? and then (2) how did he come to be so disenchanted with said military establishment that he chose to spy (and so effectively) for "the other side"?

Well, regarding the first question, the film makes prominent note of two assignments Kukliński had early in his CV: (1) He served as a (Polish) military attache in Vietnam where, with apparently some frequency, he encountered (and back then, still competed with) the American CIA, and (2) HE APPARENTLY HELPED PLAN THE WARSAW PACT INVASION OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA IN 1968 (something that is rather difficult for my Czech-descended ears to hear.  I was a 4 year old (though already born/living in Chicago) when the Soviets/Warsaw Pact invaded Czechoslovakia.  But I remember the news of the invasion _all too well_ ... as it happened on my mother's birthday ... One does not easily forget the faces of one's parents as they realized on that day that they were probably never going to be "going home.")

So then, what made him "change sides?"  Apparently, fear (and fascinatingly, not just by him, but apparently also by a significant number of the other members of the Polish General Staff) that then existent Soviet-Chinese tensions were leading the Soviet Union to plan a preemptive invasion of Western Europe, which would almost certainly result in the "Hiroshima-ization" of Poland.

So how to make contact with the West.  Well apparently Kukliński was _something of a yachtsman_, and so he and _another member_ of the Polish General Staff _sailed a yacht_ from Szczecin to a random port / hamlet on the West German coast from where he sent letters to several U.S. diplomatic missions in Germany requesting contact be made with him back in Poland.  The letters were received and contact was duly established with him at a decided-upon location (by a random "country bus-stop" somewhere outside of Warsaw).

The initial meeting included some missteps on the part of both parties:   Though they had agreed that the CIA officers meeting him would be "identifiable" because one of them "would be holding a newspaper," Kukliński noted to them that (having some experience with encountering American spies like them during his time in Vietnam) that they were so obvious that he could identify them 50-100 meters away ;-).  But the two CIA officials soon dressed him down as well: When Kukliński began his conversation with them by suggesting that he was "part of a group" of a fair number of officers at the Polish General Staff, who had been wanting to make contact with them, the CIA officials' quick response was: "We're NOT interested in making contact with a (presumably amorphous) 'group of officers.'  We're ONLY interested in making contact WITH YOU (who we see here in front of us, and who we expect will then be working with us and be then at least partly accountable to us)."  However, when the conversation eventually/inevitably turned to some sort of "compensation" for his services, the CIA officials were impressed Kukliński told them that he wanted _nothing_ from them, no money for him, NOTHING, zero, nada.  He was not motivated in this way ...

Thus began a fascinating 10 year relationship between him and the CIA (his principal "handler" played by Patrick Wilson [IMDb] [FW.pl]*).  Among the most significant documents that he passed to his handlers were _the exact locations_ of all three of the Warsaw Pact's principal command bunkers in case of war (one outside of Moscow, one in Poland and one in Bulgaria) so that NATO could destroy them "within minutes" of the beginning of hostilities between the Warsaw Pact and NATO.  (Interestingly, the only way that this information could have a deterrent effect to Moscow / Warsaw Pact would be if the Moscow / the Warsaw Pact came to know _that NATO knew_ the locations of these bunkers... ;-).  Then during the Solidarity Era [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]*, he was able to _regularly leak_ various Soviet / Warsaw Pact plans of invasion of Poland should Moscow have chosen to "go it alone" rather than have "Poland itself" "take care matters at hand."

Obviously, this caused enormous frustration to the Soviet military command personified in the film by General Victor Kulikov (played in the film by Oleg Maslennikov [IMDb] [FW.pl]*[KT.ru]*) who was in fact the Commander in Chief of the Warsaw Pact  from 1977-1989.  Kulikov came to know that there was a spy within the general staffs of the Warsaw Pact, and eventually that the spy was _probably_ Polish.  But who?  (Interestingly, the film portrays Poland's General Staff as having, certainly, its "internationalist"/Communist loyalists to the mission of the Warsaw Pact, BUT BY AND LARGE, the Polish General Staff was _not_ particularly cooperative in helping the Soviets figure-out who was the spy in their midst.  On the other side of the coin,  Kukliński quickly settled into the truth that he couldn't trust anybody on the Polish General Staff either.  He was truly on his own.

Perhaps the poignant part of the story was the portrayal of Kukliński's "loneliness" in his own family.  His wife Hanna (played by Maja Ostaszewska [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) came to be convinced that he was cheating on her, while his sons (played by Józef Pawłowski [IMDb] [FW.pl]* and Piotr Nerlewski [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) , particularly during the Solidarity Era [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* spent much of their young adulthood largely dismissing him as a "collaborator" with the nation's hated enemy (the Soviet Union).

Of course, the Soviets and the Communist loyalists within the Polish General Staff were not stupid.  So it would seem, that it would be inevitable that they would close the ring on the "American Spy" in their midst.  Do they?  Well, that's the rest of the movie ;-)

This is one heck of a Cold War story, and except for some inevitable conflations / dramatic flourishes IT IS TRUE.  So it's one heck of a film!  Good job folks!  Good job!


* Reasonably good (sense) translations of non-English webpages can be found by viewing them through 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! :-) >>

Intersteller [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller-Seitz) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  

Intersteller [2014] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Christopher Nolan along with his brother Jonathan Nolan) is an IMMENSE and quite PRETENTIOUS Hollywood sci-fi blockbuster wannabe of a film apparently made in good part using "retro... and LARGE" 2001: A Space Oddysey [1968] evoking 70 mm film and then using as manipulative (that is, often, POUNDING) a soundtrack as I've witnessed in recent memory to try to "make points" that otherwise apparently would be in danger of being "missed" otherwise.

So other than that what'd ya think of the film? ;-)

Honestly, while 2001: A Space Oddysey [1968] had its "Dawning of the (New) Age of Aquarius" pretensions at least they weren't as narcissistic as those in the current film.  At the end of 2001: A Space Oddysey [1968] it was suggested that as a species (perhaps guided by a mysterious advanced intelligence) we were entering into a "new stage" of Evolution.  In the case of the current film, that "guiding advanced intelligence" was (something of a spoiler alert) US or "super-evolved" 5 dimensional versions of ourselves.  That is WE BECOME OUR OWN GODS.

Wow, I can imagine the Simpsons' Homer saying, "Wow! Pass the popcorn Marge ..."  We are our own Gods??  Even as the film also portrays us, both individually and as a species, as ... a-holes (or in more conventional speak ... more or less obvious sinners).

After all, the film begins sometime in the middle of the 21st century with the world having been largely destroyed by war.  Previous human obsession with technology and scientific advancement having been blamed for said war, the surviving society's preoccupations were with the more mundane tasks of farming and "repopulating" a world heavily damaged by that previous conflict.

Yet, how does one feed even those people who survived, if the climate's changed and farming's become dependent on only a few surviving seed crops, any / all of which could be wiped-out by the next "potato-famine-like" blight?

So apparently a small group of "former NASA scientists and engineers" taking refuge in a former Cold War era missile silo somewhere in, take one's pick, Kansas, Nebraska, perhaps the Dakotas, devise "a plan" to Save Humanity (as a species) ... They're going to look for some place FAR AWAY in some other star system where humanity can be "reseeded" and "grow" anew.

"How the heck could one go there?"  Asks Cooper (played by Matthew McConaughy) a former American test pilot, now, wings-clipped, Midwestern farmer.

"Through a wormhole ... that we've discovered by Saturn," the father and daughter team of former NASA scientist Prof. Brand (played by Michael Caine) and astrophysicist daughter Emilia (played by Anne Hatheway) explain.  That wormhole first appeared just as the conflict on earth seemed to condemn our planet.  "It's as if some higher intelligence has been looking out for us and has offered us this path for us," continues Emilia.  

We're told that in the previous few decades several (largely secret) one manned "Lazarus" missions were sent through the wormhole to its other side, and three of the worlds at which they arrived seemed potentially habitable.  The plan was now to send a new craft, piloted by, you guessed it Cooper, to make a final determination which of the three worlds would be best for humanity to "seed."

"But even if we got to there, and made this determination, how would the rest of humanity follow?"

This is probably one of the more conventionally morally questionable parts of the film.  There's a Plan A and a Plan B (and honestly, neither is particularly good).

Plan A is that under Prof. Brand's leadership, a spaceship capable of carrying 5,000 people will fly through the same wormhole to the new world to be seeded (The rest of humanity?  Well, they'd be SOL...).  Plan A would require a knowledge of gravitational (wormhole creating) propulsion that even in the mid-21st century humanity still did not have.  But Prof. Brand was confident that under his leadership, it would be developed in the (few) decades required for Cooper, et al's mission to complete.  

There was also Plan B ... Cooper's own craft would carry 5,000 fertilized human embryos (and at least one woman ... who turns out to be Prof. Brand's daughter milia).  Emilia would presumably bring to term a number of these embryos, and the rest of the crew would help raise them, and between the "new generation" and the rest of the "stockpiled embryos" they would slowly bring into the new world enough people, with enough genetic-diversity, to repopulate it.

Cooper signs onto the project but ... He has two children Tom (played as a teen by Timothée Chalamet and later as a man by Casey Affleck) and Murph (played as a girl by Mackenzie Foy later as a woman by Jessica Chastain) who're not excited that dad's gonna be away possibly for decades on a spaceflight that doesn't seem to them like a particularly good idea.  Neither is Cooper's father-in-law (played by John Lithgow) who since Cooper's wife had already died (in the war? or periodic famines since?) was going to have to raise Tom and Murph for him.  BUT "THE SPECIES' SURVIVAL" depended on it ...

SO ... soon Cooper and a crew of three others, including Dr. Emilia are launched-out of the silo on a spaceship still made out of "spare parts" from the time of "the war."  After they rendezvous with another larger orbiting craft, presumably assembled again out of past spare parts, they're off to Saturn.  THAT'S ALREADY A TWO YEAR JOURNEY (which they apparently largely sleep/hibernate through).  Once they get to Saturn, they're able to check their telecommunications with home ... and pass then (quite rapidly actually) through the "worm hole" to another part of the universe ... near to where the three previously scouted worlds exist.

Once they get to the other side of the wormhole, however, the movie really begins.: Yes, there are three worlds to scout on that "other side."  However, they are all kind of far apart, and they have limited fuel.   The "closest" potential world, and perhaps the most promising, is ALSO ORBITING A BLACK-HOLE.  Now besides making travel to there dangerous -- being sucked into a black hole would presumably mean death -- this world was orbiting the black hole with such a speed that time would "begin to change" there.  More to the point, an hour on that world would be experienced as 7 years oudside of it.  YET, that planet SEEMED TO HAVE THE BEST READINGS (lots and lots of water...)

Okay, they go down in a scout craft to that world, and find it ... covered by an not altogether deep ocean.  However, we soon find out why "the ocean" seemed "so shallow":  The tidal forces on this world were SO GREAT that the planet was apparently being traversed, arguably ORBITED by ENORMOUS TIDAL WAVES.  One of them soon hits the craft and though they somehow survive, they're stuck now on the planet "for a few hours" ... but that comes out to be TWENTY THREE YEARS when they get back to their mother craft.

In those twenty three years, of course, much happened "back on earth" ... Grampa died, and both of Cooper's children were now adults, Tom married with children, both quite angry that they haven't heard anything of their dad FOR TWENTY THREE YEARS (was he dead?  They'd almost like to assume so, but they were being assured that he may not be ...

The misadventure on the first planet leads the crew to now have to decide well about what to do with regards to visiting the remaining two worlds, and the question becomes, in any case, "How to return home?"

The film's "resolution" of this question (of how to return home) becomes the most irritating aspect of the film for me.  We're told that a "guiding intelligence" has seemed to help both humanity (and even the crew on this mission).   But what is that "guiding intelligence"?  Some sort of super-advanced civilization?  DARE ONE SAY ... GOD??  (SPOILER ALERT, though I've already mentioned it above) IT'S APPARENTLY US, OR AT LEAST A "SUPER-EVOLVED" (to 5 dimensions) version of US.  

We've somehow made ourselves ... God, even if, through the whole of the film, both individually, and as a species, we've kinda remained a-holes (more or less obvious, egotistical, self-serving sinners ...). 

Sigh, Hollywood obsession with "stardom" taken to its logical extreme?  Yuck.  And thus only a 1/2 a star (for the kinda cool tidal waves... and otherwise supposedly "not green-screened" "other worlds").


<< 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! :-) >>

Big Hero 6 [2014]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  

Big Hero 6 [2014] (directed by Don Hall and Chris Williams, screenplay by Robert L. Baird, Daniel Gerson and Jordon Roberts, story by Don Hall and Jordon Roberts, based on the comic by Duncan Rouleau and Steven T. Seagal) is a "Disney family"-produced "family friendly" animated "superhero" concoction of The Incredibles [2004] vein that, while "light", even "airy" (like the story's most memorable protagonist) will probably please.  (Note that Disney Corp. now owns Pixar, Marvel Comics and has had a collaborative relationship with the famed animation Studio Ghibli overseas in Japan.  The legacies of all three of these entities figure prominently in the film). 

What then to make of an aggressively "crowd pleasing" unabashedly "marshmellow" of a film almost certainly created as much by Disney Corp's marketing people as by its animators?   To some extent, I shake my head in disbelief, but then have to say that, borrowing from Disney World's legendary comercial tag-line, this film's creators did create "The happiest (Pixarish) partly sad (Marvellish) superhero movie on earth" ;-)   And IMHO, even as I continue to shake my head, though smiling from ear-to-ear as I do so, SOMEONE LIKE ME REALLY HAS TO APPLAUD THIS.

And I write this because considering so much of the hate-inculcating (White, preferably English-accented characters Good, All others generally Bad) messaging present in so many of the children's oriented animated released by American studios in recent years [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], this is the fluffiest, happiest alternative to this quite nasty phenomenon that I've seen since starting my blog four years ago.

For the film, set in a futuristic seaside "San Fran-(T)okyo" complete with a Golden Gate bridge with Asian pagoda-like flourishes, is about a 13-year-old "wiz-kid" named Hiro (voiced by Ryan Potter) who despite obviously being brilliant (he's already completed high school) would prefer to use his technical skills designing robots for "bot fighting" (taking place in some seedy corners of a futuristic looking San Francisco Chinatown).  His older brother Tadashi (voiced by Daniel Henney) convinces him to at least come to his "nerd school" (called the San Fran Institute of Technology) where Hiro gets to meet Tadashi's on-the-surface "nerdy" but actually quite "way cool" lab-mates.

Tadashi's lab-mates are a quite happily (and having previously "been there," - I was a PhD-student in Chemistry prior to entering the seminary - IMHO quite realistically) portrayed emphatically _multiracial_ bunch of fellow engineering students.  They include a darker-skinned, dreadlock wearing South Asian/African mix perhaps Jamaica/Trinidad-originating "laser-saw" specialist nick-named Wasabi (voiced by Damon Wayans, Jr), a more punkish/attitude carrying Asian student nicknamed "Go Go" (voiced by Jamie Chung) who's an expert on magneto-levitation, a sweet Caucasian chemistry/materials expert nicknamed Honey Lemon (voiced by Genesis Rodriguez) and a kindly skate-boarding American slacker (not even a student, but some-kind-of-a hanger-on) named Fred (voiced by T.J. Miller) who the others don't mind because he's harmless and actually comes up with "really cool ideas" / "nicknames" (like some of those above).  No one really knows where Fred's from but he does seem to "have the time to hang around" and again, he's generally fun.

Rounding out the main characters in Hiro and Tadashi's lives are "San Fran coffee-shop" operating "Aunt Cass" (voiced by Maya Rudolf) who's been looking after them since their parents (somewhat mysteriously) died, and Tadashi's Prof, the kindly Dr. Robert Callahan (voiced by James Cromwell).

Floored by the "coolness" of his older-brother's previously seeming "nerdy" friends, Hiro now wants "in" -- to join Tadashi's school -- and Dr. Callahan assures him that if he can come up with "something brilliant" for the school's annual "scientific showcase," then 13-14 or not, he'll be admitted.  So Hiro goes to work ...

While Hiro's working on his "way cool", "totally life as we know it changing" project, we get introduced to Tadashi's project as well -- AN UTTERLY NON-THREATENING INFLATABLE BALLOON SKINNED "Robotic Health Care Assistant" named Baymax (voiced by Scott Adsit) who, walking slowly and talking in a kindly, slow monotone voice, once "called up" _relentlessly_ 'takes care of' whoever he's called-up to take care of, until the person being 'taken care of' says the words: "I'm satisfied with my care," where-upon the giant, fluffy, utterly non-threatening robotic health care assistant _deflates_ and folds himself back into the nice "carrying case" in which he is to be stored until ... the next time he's called-up to take care of someone ;-).

He's a lovely, gentle, life-enhancing robotic assistant -- AND BOY COULD WE USE SEVERAL THOUSAND OF THEM TODAY, PERHAPS, TO SAFELY TREAT ALL THOSE PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM THE EBOLA OUTBREAK THESE DAYS -- but Hiro honestly doesn't know how to understand him.  After all, to Hiro, robots are for fighting, blowing things up, doing all sorts of things that are too dangerous (or violent) to use humans for... and here Baymax is _designed_ to take care of people in as non-threatening a way as possible.

Anyway, Hiro comes up with his "way cool" project, a swarm of micro-bots, which together can be used to create just about anything.  Professor Callahan is impressed and Hiro is admitted to the school.

THEN ... suddenly there's a fire at the lab.  Among those appear to die are ... Professor Callahan ... and Tadashi, who tries to save him.   Grief-stricken, Hiro now doesn't know what to do.  Engineering, doesn't seem fun to him again anymore, now that his older brother, who never hurt a fly, is dead.

YET ... there's the giant inflatable, marsh mellow-looking robotic Baymax, who's still programmed (by Hiro's older brother Tadashi) to "take care of" ... him ;-).  SO NOW THE REAL STORY CAN BEGIN ...

And as in a good "superhero-ish" "comic book-like" story, a number of things come to be revealed in the story that follows, including:  (1) who exactly is this amiable "skate boarding slacker" named Fred who just hangs around the engineering lab (there simply _had to have been_ a "back story" there ;-), and (2) who exactly was Professor Callahan and as well as his "more Evil" seeming (and perhaps Silicon Valley mogul inspired) brother going by the name of Alistair Krei (voiced by Alan Tudyk)?

Anyway, it makes for a lovely and often Pixar-like "poignant" / Marvel Comics-like "superhero" story.  And IMHO it generally works ;-)

If nothing else, honestly, this is a film that EVERYBODY can see without anybody coming to complain "Hey wait a minute, why is 'my kind' being portrayed (yet again) as a villain?" Gotta hand it to Disney, despite all the "shaking one's head" potential traps and cliches, they seem seem to have pulled this thing off.  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! :-) >>

The Judge [2014]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (2 1/2 Star)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  


The Judge [2014] (directed and story co-conceived by David Dobkin along with Nick Schenk screenplay by Nick Schenk and Bill Dubuque) is a Grisham-like iconic story, IMHO worthy of some serious consideration come Oscar Time, about the complex relationship between Father and Sons.

The film begins focused on Hank Palmer (played by Robert Downey, Jr) a hotshot/arrogant Chicago lawyer who's made his career helping millionaire white-collar criminals beat the rap.  "But does it bother you that you only defend the guilty?" asks a hapless State's Attorney rival.  "I defend the guilty because only the guilty can afford me," is his smart/casual reply.

Of course, the rest of Attorney Hank's life is a mess.  His wife (played by Leighton Meester) apparently got tired of him and began an affair with someone else, something that Hank's clearly been unable to get-his-head-around / forgive. Then, Hank gets a message from his hometown somewhere in southern Indiana that his mother died.  He hasn't been home in 20 years.  But it's mom who died, so ... he decides to fly home, briefly, for the funeral, no need to bring estranged/angry soon-to-be ex-wife AND 10 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER Lauren (played wonderfully throughout the film by Emma Tremblay) along...

The "homecoming" is about as one would expect for an a-hole who hasn't been home for years.  Only sweet, blessedly largely-in-his-own-world, developmentally-challenged younger brother Dale (played again wonderfully by Jeremy Strong) greets him nicely.  Older brother Glen (played by Vincent D'Onofio) notes the obvious "Gee, so you did come.  Where have you been for the last 20 years?"  Bereaved Dad (played again wonderfully by Robert Duvall) a stern but fair local judge basically ignores Hank when he arrives.  When Glen shows Hank to his old room, he finds that Dad's made it into a storage closet ... Apparently not too many "Christmas cards" had been exchanged between Hank and "the folks back home" over the years.

The question, of course, is why.  And, of course, that's the rest of the movie.

Now it turns out that bereaved and aging / no longer altogether healthy Dad comes to need his son when Dad, somewhat confused, gets involved in an accident that takes the life of a person that years before he had sentenced to prison for a notorious crime in the town when Hank was still growing-up.  But I would argue that this _device_ (of Dad and estranged son being forced to "work together") is actually "beside the point."

The real story in this film is the OBVIOUS preference of Dad for the older son Glen over the only-a-few-years-younger-son Hank (Everybody liked / felt sorry for the youngest son Dale).  MOST PARENTS WOULD FIND IT VERY HARD TO ADMIT THAT THEY PREFERRED ONE OF THEIR CHILDREN OVER ANOTHER.  IN THIS FILM, IT IS OBVIOUS that Dad preferred Glen.  And here he was a "stern and fair JUDGE" to boot.  Again, the question becomes WHY?

Fascinatingly, THERE'S AN ANSWER.  And it's an answer that IMHO does makes one think.  I myself am still uncomfortable with it.  After all, WE ALL want our parents to be impartial and love without distinction.  But the Dad's behavior here does come to make sense.  And, of course, that the Dad here is a JUDGE does play into providing an explanation as well (and on multiple levels).

I'm not going to say more here except that this film does offer some very interesting "food for thought" for "adult families" facing some real reconciliation issues. 

Yes, Robert Downey, Jr continues to play "Tony Stark" / "Iron Man" in this film.  Still I do think that he plays _more_ than "just Tony Stark" here.  And he plays his role quite well.  He's definitely NOT a hero in this film.  I also appreciate Leighton Meester's presence, however small, in this film.  Both she and Downey, Jr have some personal experience with difficult family situations and Downey, Jr certainly has experience in facing some tough personal demons.  Those experiences, IMHO, show in the film.

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! :-) >>