Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb [2014]

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

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

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb [2014] (directed by Shawn Levy, screenplay and story by David Guion and Michael Handelman along with Mark Friedman, characters by Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant) continues and perhaps concludes this very nice / family friendly series of films about lowly New York Museum of Natural History night security guard Larry Daley (played by Ben Stiller), who in the first film, Night at the Museum [2006], discovered that thanks to a magically endowed ancient Egyptian tablet, all the statues / wax figures in the museum "come alive" at night. 

Among the "people" that Larry met in the first film were: (1) Teddy Roosevelt (played by Robin Williams); (2) an eyes rolling Sacajaweja (played by Mizou Peck) (Lewis and Clark NEVER asked her for directions ;-); (3) a strangely sad Attila the Hun (played by Patrick Gallagher) (who pillaged because he never had a good father-figure in his life ;-); (4) two miniature figurines, one of an American "Wild West" era prospector named Jedediah (played by Owen Wilson) and another of Roman Centurion Octaius (played by Steve Coogan) from neighboring (and it turns out competing) "dioramas" (Jedediah and his miner friends would try to "miniature dynamite" their way into the neighboring Roman empire themed "diorama" while the Romans would try to blow their way into the "Wild West" themed "diorama" with a battering ram... ;-); and (5) finally "young" Egyptian pharoah Akhmenrah (played by Rami Malek) to whom the magical tablet "belonged."  All these figures, who previously just caused havoc in the Museum after dark come to like the lowly and previously largely down-on-his-luck / friendless, night-watchman Larry and later rally to save his job when HE gets blamed for the mess that they cause each night.  And thus, an ensemble for many, many playfully "historically based" adventures was born ...

The second movie, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian [2009], moved the story to, well, Washington D.C., where at the Smithsonian Institute Larry and his "band of anachronistic merrymen/women" met the energetic and brave Amelia Earhart (played there by Amy Adams), the hapless Indian-War loser General Custer (played there by Bill Hader) as well as a true "gang" of History's "bad guys" including a cursed Egyptian pharoah named Khanumrah (played there by Hank Azaria), Ivan the Terrible (played there by Christopher Guest), Napoleon Bonaparte (played there by Alain Chabat) and Al Capone (played there by Jon Bernthal).  The "gang of baddies" had nefarious plans of "world domination" if only they could get their hands of the magical tablet ... ;-).  Much ensued...

The current movie, moves the story to the British Museum, where N.Y.C. Museum of Natural History's "young" pharoah Akhmenrah's father Merenkhare (played by Ben Kingsley) "lives."  The magical tablet was starting to wear-out and the characters from the N.Y.C. museum had to figure out why.  So ... Larry as well as a number of the other characters ... find their way to London's British Museum, and ... much again ensues ;-). 

Among that which ensues is that they meet "Sir Lancelot" (played by Dan Stevens) who, when brought to life by the magical tablet has an interesting problem that differs from the experiences of the other figures under its spell: Lancelot never actually existed, but NOW there he is ;-).  It's an interesting take on the question of "What to do IF YOU "DISCOVER" THAT _YOUR WHOLE LIFE_ HAS BEEN 'A LIE.'" ;-). 
 
Another priceless bit that perhaps is a MINOR "SPOILER" here but is simply worth sharing is the dialogue between the Ben Kingsley's Pharoah Merenkhare and Ben Stiller's Larry the Security Guard when Pharoah hears that Larry's "half Irish and half Jewish."  Pharoah says delightfully: "Oh I always LOVED Jews, I used to own 40,000 of them ;-).  Always, happy people, loved to sing..."  To which Larry responds: "Oh, believe me, the feeling wasn't mutual.  They spent 40 years in the desert running away from you.  WE STILL GET TOGETHER _EVERY YEAR_ to talk about it ;-)"

Additionally, the film had its (since its making) poignant moments.  Two actors from the film, Mickey Rooney (who plays a bit part as a retired museum security guard) and Robin Williams have died since the making of the film, Robin Williams, of course, of suicide.  Seeing Williams' ever "saddish" smile is quite sad to watch.

In any case, a very good film capping a very nice three part, ever family friendly series.  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 Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  

The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies [2014] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Peter Jackson along with Fran Walsh, Philipa Boyens and Guillermo del Toro) is the final part of a three part series of films based on J.R.R. Tolkien's [IMDb] novel The Hobbit [Amazon] released over the past several years.

The near universal critical opinion of this project has been that the source material, a single 300 page or so book (shorter than any of the three part Lord of the Rings Trilogy [Amazon]), was simply too thin to justify a three part film.  Yet, as I wrote in my review of the first part of this trilogy of films, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey [2012], those viewers who were "at all enamored by (or perhaps more fittingly here, enchanted by ;-) the LOTR series, [will probably] just bask in the opportunity of spending a few extra hours in the 'Middle Earth' of these films because the New Zealand location, the CGI and the cinematography in general are once again simply AWESOME."

Some nine hours (!) of three Hobbit movie(s) later, my own patience has admittedly worn thin as even MOST TEENAGERS could probably READ THE BOOK in shorter time than that need to watch the three movies ;-).  Still, I suspect that many fantasy role-playing gamers (and I would count myself as a lesser one among them) will probably find the extended (and I mean extended, perhaps 2/3 of the current movie) battle scenes between the promised five armies -- dwarves, elves, orcs, humans (Laketown refugees) and (once sleeping cousin) dwarves and/or orcs again (I lost count / got confused after a while ;-) -- quite AWESOME again ;-). [Note here that the book posits the Battle of Five Armies to be between dwarves, elves and humans (said Laketown refugees) on one side and "goblins and wild wolves" on the other (pg 281 of 305 in my Kindle edition).  While goblins do certainly make a brief and identified appearance -- "Look, there!  (A rather small detachment of) Goblins!" --- the primary enemy in the film would appear to be orcs].

The battle scenes are filmed then made "close-up" to show various individual hand-to-hand battles, as well as well "from a distance" to give a "bird's eye view" (which actually proves important because as in the book, the battle finally comes to an end with the arrival of Eagles ... ;-) who swoop down to take care of the remaining goblins (or orcs).

Now why was there fighting at all?  This is where IMHO things get interesting from my perspective (writing this blog) as well as that of Tolkien fans who've ALWAYS understood his works to be more than "just fantasy" but rather fundamentally allegorical in nature: Arguably The Hobbit is an allegorical presentation of World War I: 

The Dwarves (little people) whose mountain kingdom was stolen from them by the Dragon Smaug "centuries before" perhaps represent the "little kingdoms of the Slavs" and/or various other "little kingdoms" of Eastern and Southern Europe which had been swallowed-up by some of the larger countries in the region.  The Elves (living mostly "in the woods," and who _didn't particularly like the Dwarves_...) could have been the various Germanic peoples (with their own little / magical kingdoms).  The Hobbits, "living quietly in the Shire" would have almost certainly been "common English folk."   At the beginning of the story, the Hobbit Bilbo (played throughout by Martin Freeman) gets recruited by the Merlin-the-magician-like wizard Gandalf (played by Ian McEllen) perhaps representing British "high aristocracy" (or "all that is/was good and true in ancient / modern Britain / Britannia") to join the fight _of the dwarves_ TO REGAIN _THEIR_ (mountainous) HOMELAND (Note that with the exception of Poland, itself bordered to the south by mountains, the whole of Central and Eastern Europe is one mountain or mountain range after another).  Bilbo's initially quite skeptical but does ultimately join The Cause.

But as soon as Bilbo and the small party of Dwarves drive the Dragon out of the Dwarves' Mountain (their ancestral homeland) ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS BOTH ANCIENT and NEW APPEAR.  Among the ANCIENT PROBLEMS that (RE)APPEAR are those pesky Orcs/Goblins who had seemed buried (or at least out of mind) before.  Among the NEW PROBLEMS that APPEARED was the destruction of the previously PEACEFUL TOWN OF "LAKE TOWN" (Flanders??) whose residents were now Refugees as a result of its (unwanted) battle with (and ultimate defeat of) the Dragon Smaug.

Then finally, the Dwarves, PITIED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE STORY (for having lost their homeland centuries before as a result of the BEASTLY DRAGON SMAUG) TURN OUT TO NOT BE ALL THAT "GOOD" AS SOON AS THEY REGAIN THEIR MOUNTAIN KINGDOM.  Their "king" Thorin (played throughout by Richard Armitage) turns out to be quite greedy / self-interested as soon as "he gets his gold back."  Thus, he proves NOT willing to help the Laketown refugees, who after all, were the ones who ACTUALLY DEFEATED THE DRAGON (the dwarfs just chased him out of their mountain ...) and then he didn't even want to pay Bilbo his promised share for having joined their expedition to begin with.

It's fascinating, but a lot of Englishmen _could have felt similarly_ like Bilbo or the Laketown people after World War I (then The Great War).  Millions of Englishmen died in The Great War, for what?  Okay, the Central Powers of Europe (Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire) were defeated / destroyed.  BUT the resulting tiny countries that reappeared all quarreled with each other and many/most probably didn't even appreciate how many Englishmen died in that War that didn't really give England all that much as a result, except PERHAPS the sense of "having done the right thing."

The story today could remind us that even "just causes" have unexpected consequences and even the leaders of various just causes, when in power, could end-up "like the Dwarf King Thorin," that is, "problematic."

Still, Bilbo (and Gandalf) "did the right thing" and certainly Bilbo got an Adventure that he could talk about "in the Shire" (where "nothing ever happened") for the rest of his life.

Hence the book (or the THREE movies) gives one much to think about ... the value / pitfalls of setting out on a "Grand Adventure" even when "the Cause" is Just.  (Yes, it's still worth it, but ... not without its Disappointments).


<< 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 Imitation Game [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  Chicago Tribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars w. Expl.)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review  

The Imitation Game [2014] (directed by Morton Tydlum, screenplay by Graham Moore based on the book by Andrew Hodges [IMDb]) tells the story (in very rough outline it turns out) of smart, socially-challenged oddball (and gay) Alan Turing who improving on similar machines already designed and constructed by Polish intelligence services in the 1930s, designed and supervised the construction of the proto-computer (that he nicknamed "Christopher") that definitively broke Nazi Germany's all-but unbreakable Enigma code during WW II that helped the Allies win the war.  

Turing's story plays out in this film in three stages of his life: in the 1920s when he when he was a teenager at a British all-boys boarding school, during the war years 1940-1945 when he was first part of and then allowed (very, very reluctantly by his bosses much less bright than he and his colleagues ever were) to lead the U.K.'s Bletchley Park Enigma code-breaking unit (code-named ULTRA) and then in the early 1950s after he was arrested for a (homosexual) morals charge.  As a teenager, he is played by Alex Lawther, as an adult, engagingly and magnificently throughout by Benedict Cumberpatch (Cumberpatch is almost certainly going to get an academy Award Nomination for his performance in this film and despite some other excellent performances by other actors in other films this year, I'd hand him the Oscar now). 

As could be imagined from the hints already given above, this is a fairly challenging story to put on screen.  First of all, Turing was an interesting character -- brilliant but perhaps almost necessarily odd.  Second, while his role in breaking the Enigma code was certainly significant, the film really plays the Polish contributions the code's breaking with almost categorical racist (WASP in the worst possible way) disrespect.  And yet, after the war, BECAUSE HOMOSEXUALITY WAS STILL A CRIME IN BRITAIN, Turing, without a doubt A LEGITIMATE WAR HERO (if only the public and EVEN CIVIL AUTHORITIES of the time would have / could have known) was DESTROYED for not fitting the heterosexual norm: Given a choice of PRISON or "hormonal therapy" (for A BLOW JOB ...) he chose the latter so that he could continue his work in the then still infant science of computer engineering.  In 1954, he died as a result of (probably) committing suicide...

The film's thematics, IMHO are excellent: Can we accept diversity AS A GIFT?  It did take someone who was "odd" (and not just that he was gay, even today, he'd probably be considered "socially challenged" / "odd") to do something next to unimaginable.  Yet, I do wish this was done in a manner that did give DUE CREDIT to the Poles (who are AS WHITE AS CAN BE and yet _still_ considered by more "Anglo" / "Aryan" whites to be SOMEHOW NECESSARILY "LESS" than they ...).

Sigh ... _excellent film_ otherwise, but 1 1/2 to 2 Stars ... (and I do think I'm being kind here on account of its _otherwise excellent message_).


<< 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! :-) >>

Exodus: Gods and Kings [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (1 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

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

Nat'l Catholic Register (S.D. Graydamus) reflection , interview w. director / stars of film

The first thing to say about Exodus: Gods and Kings [2014] (directed by Ridley Scott, screenplay by Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine and Steven Zaillian) is that it is an intelligent, thought-provoking, discussion-provoking film.  It is not simply a retelling of the story of Moses of the Book of Exodus.   What good would that do, after both having received the Canonical text in the Bible, and even perhaps a "canonical" presentation of it in Cecil B. DeMille's presentation of it in The Ten Commandments [1956]?

Instead, the current film, is a kind of Midrash or Reflection, as it tries to "get into the heads" of the Exodus story's main characters -- Moses (played by Christian Bale), Ramses (played by Joel Edgerton) who was according to the second chapter of Exodus for the first 40 years of Moses' life "like a brother to him", and yes, even God, or at least a messenger of God or Moses' visualization of God, credited in the film as Malek (played by Isaac Andrews).  [Note that Malek translates from Hebrew to English as "Angel" or "Messenger"].

For instance, the film explores the question of what would have it been like / WHAT COULD HAVE IT BEEN LIKE for Moses who grew-up AS AN EGYPTIAN to encounter the THE HEBREW GOD at the Burning Bush?   The film-makers' portrayal of God here is fascinating:  They portray Moses "seeing" the Hebrew God as a VERY POWERFUL (indeed DIVINELY POWERFUL) ... CHILD. 




Now why would Moses "see" / "experience" the Hebrew God "as a child"?  Well, Moses would have grown-up in the Royal Court of the most powerful, most sophisticated country of that time.  Egypt had an elaborate and complex / ELABORATED Pantheon of its own, perhaps even TOO ELABORATED for his liking (Near the beginning of the film, we see him more or less "roll his eyes" as a very solemn-looking Egyptian Priestess goes through the very solemn-looking motions of performing an oracle for the Pharoah's court).

As someone educated in Egypt's court, the Hebrew God VERY WELL COULD HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED by Moses, as somewhat "childish" / "primitive", indeed at times PETULANT and YET, PERHAPS, ...  ALSO _FRESH_.

The Divine Name that the Hebrew God gives for Himself, "I am what I am," when Moses asks Him for it at the " Burning Bush" (Exodus 3) , IS kinda ALL OF THESE THINGS: "childish", "petulant" and FRESH ... God tells Moses (and US, the readers) that HE (God) can be WHOEVER / WHATEVER HE WISHES TO BE.  Indeed, isn't that a pretty good fundamental definition of a God?  A GOD [TM] would be someone WHO CAN DO WHATEVER ONE WANTS.

And yes, someone truly "Godlike" (able to do whatever he/she likes) WOULD RUN THE RISK being experienced (at least initially) as "kinda childish," "kinda despotic", "kinda petulant" UNTIL ... one got to know him better.  ;-)

And yet, such a partly "childish" God would be ALMOST THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF A LARGE IMPOSING STONE STATUE REPRESENTING ONE OR ANOTHER EGYPTIAN "GOD" about whom very long and (seeking to be) manipulative incantations would have been written (and often dryly recited...) which could have been the experience of someone like Moses who had grown-up in a "sophisticated court" like Pharoah's.

The Hebrew God may have seemed "childish", at times even "petulant" but ALSO SOMEHOW FAR MORE ALIVE than the "stone Gods" of Egypt.

So ... having made his "initial acquaintance" with "the God of his forebears" ... Moses then struggles with his Call.  Why him?

Good question, why?  By this point in the story, Moses was NO LONGER OF PHAROAH'S COURT but LIVING AS A SHEPHERD IN FAR OFF EXILE.  In the film, the "boy" representing "God" tells Moses: "I don't need a (lowly) shepherd.  I need a General."

Again, why?  The film has Moses coming back to Egypt initially to try to train some sort of a Hebrew resistance army.  But, if this seems apocryphal (and it certainly is), the film then makes clear that NO this was NOT the reason why "God needed a General."  AS IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS, SO TOO IN THE MOVIE, NEITHER MOSES NOR THE HEBREWS DO ANY REAL FIGHTING.  IT'S GOD WHO DOES THE FIGHTING FOR THEM THROUGH THE VARIOUS PLAGUES ... and yes, while SOME OF THE PLAGUES WOULD SEEM TO INITIALLY BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO "NATURAL CAUSES" (and plausibly would have even experienced by the Egyptians at the time as such ...) AS THEIR INTENSITY INCREASED, IT BECAME INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO "EXPLAIN THEM AWAY" IN THAT WAY ... (As such, the film actually does _powerfully affirm_ God's action in the tale).  [So why did God "need a General" if not for fighting?   MILD SPOILER ALERT: The film makers remind us that a General does more than just fight.  A General is, above all, a logistician, one who can organize and _lead_ a great deal of people].

So this IS an INTERESTING TAKE ON THE EXODUS STORY one that is CERTAINLY NOT "Literalistic" but tries to play, indeed _wrestle_ with the points / implications of the Exodus story:

Would God [TM] "not care" what happened to all those Egyptians killed by the Plagues sent down on them?  Well the "childish" but quite self-righteous God portrayed in the film gives a quite "certain" answer to this question: "Did the Egyptians 'care' about what they have been doing to their Hebrew slaves over the last 400 years?"

I'm fascinated by this kind of newly audacious inquiry into / wrestling with the Scriptures and I'm VERY HAPPY that a director like Ridley Scott did TAKE THE RISK of making a film such as this.  Martin Scorsese was certainly "burned" for making The Last Temptation of Christ [1988] and the result has been to scare-away serious directors from making Biblically themed movies for almost a generation.

I'm very happy to see that since Terrance Malick's Tree of Life [2011] the drought may have finally come to an end.

Good job Ridley Scott!  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 Pyramid [2014]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChiTribune/Variety (1 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (1 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C-)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune/Variety (G. Lodge) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review  

The Pyramid [2014] (directed by Grégory Levasseur, screenplay by Daniel Meersand and Nick Simon) is actually a kinda fun horror movie conflating one of the oldest genres of horror films (the "mummy movie" with one of horror's newest genres (the "lost footage film").

Set in contemporary Egypt with Cairo, in flames because of various disturbances, we're told that using satellite imaging American researchers recently discovered a previously completely buried pyramid located in the desert some 200 miles to the south. 

The researchers, a father and daughter team Miles and Nora Holiday (played by Denis O'Hare and Ashley Hinshaw respectively), both PhDs of course, are both "working together" and "of different schools." 

When a documentary crew Sunni (played by Christa Nicola) and Fitzie (played by James Buckley), probably hired by the daughter, comes out to the excavation site, they encounter something straight of an Indiana Jones movie -- hundreds of Egyptians with shovels, pick axes and wheelbarrows clearing away the sand to expose said pyramid, and more to the point "an entrance" detected previously by ground penetrating radar.  Who hired the Egyptian diggers? probably dad.  Who thought of getting the radar imaging scan? probably the daughter.  Dad's looking forward to entering the pyramid, "old school," with rope, pick axe, etc.  Daughter and her techie Egyptian boyfriend Zahir (played by Amir K) are looking forward to sending a small remote control rover, "borrowed from NASA," into the pyramid first. 

So part of the initial joy of watching this film is the back-and-forth between Father and Daughter, who again, are "(basically) on the same team," but then again "they're (kinda) not" ;-)

Okay, the hired Egyptian diggers get to the entrance to the Pyramid and ... suddenly, they are ORDERED by the Egyptian government TO STOP.  Now remember folks, Cairo's "in flames" ... So why the heck would they care about a dig 200 miles away?

Well, that's exactly what both Father and Daughter (Americans) think.  So they try to tell a rather angry Egyptian soldier (played by Faycal Attougui) sent there to shut them down to give them just a "couple of hours" to at least get to see something of the inside of the pyramid that they spent so much time and money digging out.  He's not exactly convinced, but they decide to steal those few hours anyway.

What now?  Well, the rover seems the better way go now since they don't really have the time to explore it (quickly) themselves.  HOWEVER, a few minutes into the rover having entered the pyramid SOMETHING -- is it some sort of a feral dog? -- jumps out of nowhere and knocks said rover out of commission.   Well, that rover REALLY WAS "on loan from NASA" and we're told it cost $3 million.  So now the team has to go quickly into the  pyramid ... to retrieve that rover ;-).  The rest of the movie ensues ...

What ensues? ... Well, there are "things" in there that appear to be really dangerous.  What kind of "things"?  Well, the kind of things that perhaps a society really would want to entomb / bury for a really, really long time (and perhaps even for eternity).  Hence _perhaps_ answering the question of why the Egyptian government with seemingly "much more on its plate than simply a random 'dig' by a team of American archeologists" would _care_ about the dig ... 

Anyway, what follows is a kinda an "Ancient Alien" inspired stew (kinda "Ancient Alien" inspired but not that much...) that's again both kinda fun to watch and kinda scary.  And, of course, every "bump in the night" is being recorded by the invited "Documentary Crew."

So this is NOT a particularly deep movie.  But it is quite contemporary.  And CNN / History Channel junkies would probably enjoy it.  So even though this film will certainly win no Oscars ... IMHO it is a kinda fun movie to watch.  So good job folks, pretty 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! :-) >>

Wild [2014]

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

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review  

Wild [2014] (directed by Jean-Marc Vallée, screenplay by Nick Hornby based on the memoir by Cheryl Strayed [IMDb]) tells the a compelling story of a young 20-something woman Cheryl Strayed (played in the film by Reese Witherspoon) whose life disintegrated into a chaotic mess after her mother Bobbi (played by Laura Dern), 45, first was suddenly diagnosed of having cancer and then rapidly died of it (within a month).

In the chaotic aftermath, Cheryl had perhaps married the right guy, Paul (played by Paul Sadoski), but certainly at a terrible time.  The result was that she just spiraled down, having sex repeatedly with random men, acquiring a heroin habit along the way, smashing a marriage that could have perhaps worked in other, better circumstances, but certainly NOT in the circumstances that she found herself in.

Couldn't she get help?  Honestly, for many people WHERE???  Bobbi/Cheryl's family WAS NOT WEALTHY.  There's a great scene in the film, a flashback when she did have a session with a counselor.  She asks: "Shouldn't there be a couch and some kleenex somewhere."  Instead, she's meeting the counselor in what seems to be a community college classroom.  He tells her calmly but directly: "That would be $50/hr therapy.  What you're getting here is $10/hr therapy..."

FOR ALL THOSE WHO'VE MADE IT A VIRTUAL DOGMA OF "FAITH" TO OPPOSE "OBAMA CARE" ... THIS IS OUR NATION'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.  OBAMA CARE WAS GOING TO MAKE THINGS MARGINALLY BETTER ... BUT STILL UNBEARABLY HOPELESS TO BASIC MENTAL HEALTH CARE.  We are NOT EVEN CLOSE when it comes to being "The Greatest Country in the World" when it comes to providing affordable health care to either people like Bobbi (people DON'T DIE IN A MONTH of Cancer unless they come to the doctor REALLY, REALLY LATE, or their affordable treatment options are NIL) or Cheryl (even TODAY there is NOTHING SERIOUS THAT THIS COUNTRY WOULD HAVE AVAILABLE TO HER IN HER NEED).

So, a smashed marriage, and an apparent abortion after conceiving by anyone of a random number of men later and LUCKY SHE DIDN'T GET HIV OR HEP ... she did what a lot of people over the ages have done in times of otherwise unbearable personal crisis: She decided to walk ... The Pacific Crest Trail.

By her own admission, this was something of a random decision.  However, she decided that she was going to "Walk her way back into being the woman that her mother thought she was."

So then, what this story is about, is this woman's "walk" back to sanity.

Look, I'm a Catholic priest, so for me the Religious theme here is obvious.  Indeed, I've reviewed two recent films on my Blog about the increasing popularity of walking the "Camino de Santiago de Compostela" (The Way [2010] directed by Emilio Estevez and starring Martin Sheen, and then the documentary Walking the Camino: Six Ways to Santiago [2013]).

Journey, Pilgrimage is an obvious metaphor for LIFE - which itself, like it or not, is "a journey."  NONE OF US STAY "IN THE SAME PLACE."  OUR LIFE even HISTORY is always moving, even if we wish they were not.

-- In Buddhism, "Change" is seen as the fundamental source of "Sadness" (Samsara -- the title of ANOTHER recent film that I reviewed here on my blog).

-- The foundational experience of Biblical Israel was its 40 year "Journey in the Desert" from "Slavery in Egypt" to "The Promised Land" recounted in the Torah / Pentateuch (the first five books in the Bible). 

-- To this day, the Israelites' 40 year "Journey in the Desert to the Promised Land" becomes the metaphorical backdrop to the Catholic Church's annual 40 day observance of Lent in preparation for Easter (Jesus' Resurrection seen as "the first fruits" / a "prefigurement" of OUR ENTRY into A FINAL "PROMISED LAND" (Heaven) after "The Journey of Earthly Life")

-- In Islam, the making of the Hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca, _at least once_ in one's life is a fundamental duty of all Muslims.

All this is to say that the idea of finding Truth, Wellness, Healing, Insight, Purpose, HOPE while "on a/the Journey" is a concept appreciated by many, many sages / religions across the ages.

But here it must be said, that certainly in the film Cheryl Strayed did not embark on this journey for ANY religious motivation.  Should that matter?

I would say emphatically NO.  This was a woman who desperately needed help, to bring her life back together, and she tells us that she found new hope, new purpose, a new future as she "walked her way back to being the woman her mother thought her to be."   And honestly, good for you!  And good for the others that her experience may help.

But if you do find God along the Way ... I'm not going to object either ;-)

In any case, a good job!  And a great and hopeful story!


<< 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 Small Southern Enterprise (orig. Una Piccola Impresa Meridionale) [2013]

MPAA (UR would be R)  MM.it (2 Stars)  OC.it (6.5/10)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars w. Expl.)

IMDb listing
FilmTV.it listing*

Panorama.it (S. Santoni) review*
CineBlog.it (A.M. Abate) review*
MyMovies.it (D. Zonta) review*
OndaCinema.it (C. Cerofolini) review*

A Small Southern Enterprise (orig. Una Piccola Impresa Meridionale) [2013] [IMDb] [FT.it]* (directed, starring and cowritten by Rocco Papaleo [IMDb] [FT.it]* along with Walter Lupo [IMDb]) is at times an exaggerated / silly but at other times quite poignant and intelligent recent Italian "dramedy" about a Catholic priest, leaving the priesthood, that in this time of Pope (St) Francis-the-first could offer some interesting / thought provoking viewing -- if, of course, one can get past some of the film's silliness (obviously, since I gave the film 3 1/2 Stars, I did).  The film played recently as part of the 1st Chicago Italian Film Festival organized by the Italian Cultural Institute of Chicago and held at the Music Box Theater here on the North Side.

At the center of the story is a 50-year-old (ex)priest Constantino (played by Rocco Papaleo [IMDb] [FT.it]) who explains in the initial voice over that 3 months past he filed for laicization.  Why?  Over a woman, who he's since discovered was far more attracted to him as a Priest than as a Person.  So, we find him in the beginning sequence of the film, literally with his one suitcase in hand, leaving his old rectory, no longer a priest nor a "significant other" of another, heading, with some dread, to the home of his 70+ year-old mother Stella (played quite well by Giuliana Lojodice [IMDb] [FT.it]*) to break her the news.  

When he gets over to his mother's house, he discovers her in full-panic-mode regarding another family crisis that's suddenly surfaced:  Her daughter, Constantino's sister, Rosa Maria (played by Claudia Potenza [IMDb] [FT.it]*) had just left her husband Arturo (played by Riccardo Scamarcio [IMDb] [FT.it]*) for apparently "someone else" (who?) and ... vanished.  Constantino had married the two, Rosa Maria and Arturo, some years back in what seemed to have been the "happiest of days" for all of them.  What happened?  Obviously it would take some time to sort it all out.  Seeing mom devastated by news about Rosa Maria, Constantino did not feel it particularly opportune to tell her then that he's left the priesthood.  SOO ... he tells her that he's taking "some time off" (perhaps simply "a short vacation") and that he was wondering if he could spend the time at a property (an old lighthouse) at the edge of town that the family apparently owned.

The "old light house" (talk about a symbol...) amidst all kinds of "rocks and cliffs at the edge of the sea" (talk about another symbol...) "at the edge of town" (yet another symbol...) seemed like a good place to set oneself down, when one's trying to figure-out what the heck to do now/hence with one's life.  And so it is, he walks down a lonely path (another symbol...) to the light-house, opens up the living quarters, finds himself a bed, plops down and ... begins to ponder WHAT THE HECK TO DO NOW.

But ... soon ... the cell phone rings (a new symbol :-).  It's Arturo, Rosa Maria's (soon to be ex?) husband.  He wants to Confess.  Constantino's no longer a priest.  BUT HE HASN'T TOLD ANYBODY YET in the family.   AND here's Arturo, CLEARLY IN CRISIS.   What can he do?  What should he do?  What would YOU do? ... In any case, Constantino ... hears Arturo's "Confession." 

Arturo's Confession is not particularly revelatory (Honestly, most Confessions generally aren't.  Rather they're generally a list of sins that one's ALWAYS / LONG-TERM struggling with) but MOST WOULD UNDERSTAND that in the situation like the one that Arturo's found himself in (his wife's left him for ... still no one knows who) one would like TO GET A LOT OF THINGS "OFF ONE'S CHEST." 

By the end of the Confession (or "Confession") it's clear that Arturo does feel better ... and both Constantino (and probably a good part of the audience) are reminded THAT a (Catholic) PRIEST DOES HAVE A USEFUL EVEN FUNDAMENTAL / ARCHETYPICAL ROLE IN THE WORLD.  Among the Priest's "gifts" / "usefulness" to the world is the priest's ability to raise people out of the depths of despair and even sin when they find themselves crushed down by them.  (And where do they get that "Power" / Power? ... Honestly ... from "God" / God).

Things get "curiouser" for Constantino when a short time after Arturo leaves "the old lighthouse" for "home" another even stranger set of visitors come by:  There's a young-early 30 something woman Valbona (played by Sarah Felberbaum [IMDb] [FT.it]*) who, surprised to find "the old lighthouse" not empty, introduces herself to Constantino as his sister Rosa Maria's "friend." "You know Rosa Maria?  WHERE IS SHE?  Valbona does not say.  However, she's there to dump her older sister A "RETIRING" FORMER PROSTITUTE (and proud of it, "I worked my way up from 'lap dancer' all the way up to 'top escort') going by the name Magnolia (played by Barbora Bubolova [IMDb] [FT.it]*) at the old lighthouse because goos ole Magnolia "just dropped back into her life" suddenly and "with so much else going-on" at the moment, she didn't know where to put her.  So Rosa Maria had suggested "old lighthouse" where "no one ever goes." 

So Rosa Maria's friend Valbona drops her older sister / "retiring" prostitute over there at the "old lighthouse" where Constantino, who just dropped-out of the priesthood, was trying to get some rest and get some new direction in his life.  (Honestly, I found _this subplot_ somewhat needlessly distracting).  MILD (though rather obvious) SPOILER ALERT (because "inquiring minds" would "want to know"): No, the two never come even close to sleeping together.  HOWEVER, they do have some rather interesting discussions.

Then a construction crew comes to the old lighthouse, sent there by Constantino's mother to, since her son would be there to look after / supervise them, do some much needed reconstruction / renovation (still more symbols ...) of the place.  Among the first things that they are there to "repair" is the roof, of one of buildings, where they of course, find Magnolia "sunbathing" in "all her glory" ...  She doesn't mind.  BUT they, it turns out, have other worries on their minds ... mostly to simply get their jobs done and to get paid: One of the construction workers is divorced and simply needs the money to be able to keep custody of his daughter who's there with them as well.  (Interestingly enough, the former prostitute is told _at least twice_ in the story and by different men that "You know, you're beautiful and all, but I honestly have other concerns on my mind than simply sex ...")

Then as the story goes on ... Rosa Maria is "found."  Previously, there were all sorts of rumors in the family (and of the soon-to-be ex-inlaws) that she fled all the way to Beijing with some lover.  It turned-out that she was staying with, HIDING WITH ... the thirty-something Valbona IN A RAMSHACKLE SHACK (another symbol ...) AT THE VERY EDGE OF THE SEA (symbol again ...) UNDER THE LIGHT HOUSE (yes, we already know that's a symbol). 

Why is she / WHY ARE THEY THERE?  Well .. of course they are "in love."

It's (ex)-priest Constantino who convinces them to "come out of the shack" to "safer ground" EVEN IF IT WOULD (INITIALLY) BREAK THE HEART OF THEIR MOTHER (yet another symbol actually ...).  And yes, he himself has to "come clean" at one rather poignant point to tell Mother as well that he's no longer (at least canonically) a Priest.

The film ends (SPOILER ALERT ... BUT MOST READERS HERE WILL NOT FIND A WAY TO SEE THIS MOVIE ANYWAY) with Constantino, PRESIDING, no longer as a Catholic priest (but in some larger / even more basic perhaps archetypical capacity) AT HIS SISTER'S (necessarily LESBIAN WEDDING) on the Grounds of the Lighthouse, now renovated into something of a RETREAT HOTEL ... AND MOM, with BOTH TEARS AND A SMILE, IS THERE (THEY ARE HER KIDS AFTER ALL).

And in the last line of the film, ex-Father Constantino asks his sister for a dance at the wedding.

HONESTLY, ONE HECK OF A CHALLENGING / THOUGHT PROVOKING FILM ... and all said with a ton of (at times nervous) smiles.


ADDENDA (how to find / play this film):

This film albeit in European PAL format is available with English subtitles for a reasonable price through Amazon.com (Amazon.it)

Further, DVD players capable of playing DVDs from various regions (North America, Europe, etc) are no longer particularly expensive (costing perhaps $10 more than a one region DVD player).

Finally, a simple program called DVDFab Passkey Lite (downloadable FOR FREE from Softpedia.com) allows one to play DVDs from all regions on one's computer's DVD-Rom drive. 


* 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! :-) >>