American Sniper [2014]

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

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

American Sniper [2014] (directed by Clint Eastwood, screenplay by Jason Hall, based on the autobiography [GR] [Amzn] [WCat] by Chris Kyle [wikip] [IMDb] coauthored by Scott McEwen and James Defelice) is a film that will be disconcerting to most viewers and I do believe that like many of Clint Eastwood's films it's intended to be disconcerting.

After all, this is a film about, without a doubt, an American patriot -- Chris Kyle [wikip] [IMDb-w] [IMDb-ch] (played magnificently in the film by Bradley Cooper) -- born and raised in Texas, athletic, good looking, honest / God fearing, with an early discovered gift of shooting very straight with a gun. 

After spending a number of years of soul searching after high school-- initially he just wanted to "live the dream" of being a ranch hand / cowboy -- he decided to join the military.

Though apparently thinking initially of joining the Marines, taking one look at his impressive physical stature and seemingly instinctively confident demeanor, his Navy recruiter immediately steered him to consider the elite Navy SEALS.  Never one to shirk away from a challenge, Chris Kyle took him up on it.  And so it was, though he was significantly older than most of the 18-19 year-olds with whom he entered SEAL training, he breezed through it like a natural.  Again a natural with a gun, he graduated as a Navy SEAL sniper.

A few weeks after 9/11 he married his girlfriend Taya (played again magnificently by Sienna Miller) and soon afterwards went-off to war.

With war came both fame (at least within both American military and Iraqi insurgent circles ...) and ... obvious points of discomfort / concern:

Chris Kyle became by far the most successful sniper in American military history.  Over FOUR tours, the U.S. Navy attributed to him 160 _confirmed kills_ (and those would be kills where the body was recovered and counted, and there were many others that could not be recovered and counted in this way).  He became both a Legend and A GODSEND to the Marines tasked to clear cities like Fallujah, who he helped protect from his (sniper's) position "above."  (On the other side of the coin, he became so feared by Iraqi insurgents that they put a price on his head).

My concern (as a Catholic priest after all) as well as many, many viewers would be: What becomes of someone who's killed (blown the heads off / splattered the brains of ...) at least 160 people, even if every single one of them was a legitimate threat to the U.S. troops clearing streets / performing operations below?   AND HONESTLY RAISING THIS CONCERN I do believe was a good part of intent of this film.

It's clear throughout the story that Kyle was conflicted in his job, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CAME TO SHOOTING (SHOOTING THE BRAINS OUT OF...) KIDS.  And yet, what to do when that kid's holding an RPG and aiming said RPG at a group of Marines that don't necessarily see the kid coming?  So Kyle did know that his job did save American Marines' lives (and again BOY WERE THEY APPRECIATIVE ...).  Still, the film showed plenty of instances where Kyle had to decide to take shots (AND KILL PEOPLE even KIDS ...) that were _very painful_ to take.

So ... this is a very serious movie.  And I do believe that it is more than just a glorification of what he was doing.  It was clear that his job did cause him significant distress in his mind (and the minds of others who found themselves fighting this war).

The film becomes a very serious invitation to reflect on war.  If one assumes that one's nation needs an army (and most Americans and really most nations would assume this to be simply necessary) then that army needs to have people trained _to kill_ as efficiently as Chris Kyle.  I don't think that anyone would doubt that he saved many, many American soldiers' lives out there in Iraq.  But then, at what cost ... even to himself?

It becomes very, very important that conflicts be managed intelligently so that the sacrifices (of mind, life and limb) of the soldiers that _may be_ deployed would not _be wasted_ or in vain.

A fascinating recent discussion on the PBS Newshour (Thu 1/15/2015) centered on the question of why the U.S. Military, second to none since World War II, has almost never been able to bring the country victory since World War II (and honestly, even World War II morphed rather quickly into the subsequent Cold War).  The suggestion was made that the U.S. Military has been tasked with trying to "win" "wars" for the country that are fundamentally political and unwinnable in simply a military sense.  Yes, armies could be routed even obliterated by ours, but ultimately to no lasting effect.  A larger toolbox is needed, where the military may be a tool in that box but certainly not the only one.

In the Catholic sense, this is an invitation (once again...) to reflect on the Just War theory where the decision to go to war is envisioned as being CONSIDERED SOBERLY and as a "LAST RESORT."  Now one understands that CONTINGENCY PLANNING may be necessary in any case (so that a nation / people don't get surprised by a malintentioned party or neighbor).

However even after the "war plans" are done, the Catholic Church has insisted that they not be put into action unless the criteria of the Just War Theory are met:  That war be declared / entered into (1) for a Just Cause, (2) by Competent Authority, (3) for the Right Intention (and not for ulterior motives), (4) as a Proportional Response, (5) with a reasonably high Probability of Success and (6) as a Last Resort (after less severe methods of rectifying the injustice have been considered, tried and have failed). 

Otherwise we're left with heroic but also tragic stories like the one in this film: Memorializing a soldier who _did save_ an awful lot of people (American Marines) ... by killing an awful lot of other people (Iraqi insurgents among them at times even women and children) which did not just kill them but also damaged his own well-being/spirit ... in a conflict that has since morphed beyond recognition anyway: The same places where Chris Kyle spent most of the active portions of his deployment -- Fallujah and Ramadi are now under control of a crazy Jihadist faction, ISIS, that didn't even exist at the time when U.S. troops were deployed there.  (Yes, _perhaps_ ISIS never would have formed "if we stayed there," but then how many of our people would have died there in the meantime and where would the money come from to keep our soldiers there ... for ... forever?)

In any case, a _very well done_ and _thought-provoking_ film.


ADDENDUM:

The U.S. Catholic Bishops' 1983 Pastoral Letter "The Challenge of Peace" (articles 80-110) provides a very good presentation of the Catholic Church's Just War Doctrine.


<< 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 Wedding Ringer [2015]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (D)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

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

Alas The Wedding Ringer [2015] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Jeremy Garelick along with Jay Lavender) is the kind of film that tends to get released in January after frenzied last weeks of December when most of the year's "Oscar contenders" get released to meet the end of year deadline for "award consideration."  The Wedding Ringer is a comedy, often a very low-brow comedy, that nevertheless does give viewers a grinning alternative to the often far more serious (and yes, often far more boring ...) "Oscar contenders."

And comedies often have their often subversive point.  So it is, exasperatingly, if often somewhat truthfully, with this movie which is about ... a big wedding. 

Doug Harris (played by Josh Gad) a soft-spoken, fundamentally decent if almost certainly previously quite boring, late 20-something to mid 30-something "tax attorney" finds himself engaged to Gretchen (played by Kaley Couco-Sweeting) a smiling, mid-to-late 20-something daughter of one of his clients (played by Ken Howard). 

Wonderful.  Isn't nice that the two would have found happiness with each other?  However, past (and mostly contemporary cultural) expectations get in the way: 

Gretchen, the daughter of a rich guy, grew-up with expectations of a nice even gloriously big wedding.  But look at who she's marrying: a decent enough guy, someone who's honest, probably won't cheat on her, and as a successful tax attorney (with even her father as one of his clients) almost certainly one who's going to be "a good provider" allowing her to live out the rest of her life "according to the standard that she's been accustomed to."  However, he's also kind of a shlep, one who's again a decent enough guy, but for various reasons (which become explained in the movie) never really was (or even had time to be) "the life of the party."  

So why's she (or why are they) getting married?  For the Wedding or for the Marriage that follows?  Actually this is a very good question ...

But the "immediate crisis" becomes how to _survive_ the upcoming wedding.  Yes, rather stereotypically gay wedding planner Edmundo (played by Ignacio Serricchio) sees a train-wreck coming.  So discretely suggests to Doug to seek-out a friend of his, Jimmy Callahan (played by Kevin Hart), who, for a price..., is able to provide "best man" and even "wedding party services" for those who'd otherwise, well, "not meet expectations."   This then sets up the film ... where much, of course, ensues.

But again, where does it say _anywhere_ that a wedding _must_ be large?  That a wedding _must_ include the "toasts" of _perfectly "cast"_ "best men" and "maid of honors"?  That a wedding _must_ include a rather large rehearsal dinner where both sides of the wedding party _produce_ (almost in a Hollywood or even BOLLYWOOD sense) including _well made_ and "appropriately embarrassing" roasts of the bride and groom?   And yes, that a wedding _must_ include the bachelor / bachelorette parties that have now become staples of Hollywood's films on weddings?

OMG ... THE PRESSURE!  I've come to think that main the reason why "bachelor / bachelorette parties" have become what they've become is to simply blow off the inevitable steam resulting from all the pressure accumulating with preparation of the "big wedding."  To some extent, they may be modern day expressions of the same phenomenon that in the Middle Ages produced the annual celebrations of Mardi Gras / Carneval before the arrival of Lent.  

But do weddings have to be so big?  NO.  Even a Church wedding need not be big (all that's needed, is proof that the two future spouses (one male, one female) are free to marry (not married to someone else somewher else), a church minister and two witnesses.  The "exchange of vows" could be done in 2-3 MINUTES).  Yes, there is MARRIAGE PREP. in the Catholic Church.  But it actually focuses FAR MORE ON THE MARRIAGE THAT FOLLOWS THAN ON THE WEDDING THAT INITIATES IT.


Is Marriage then "worth it" if PULLING OFF "THE PERFECT WEDDING" IS SO HARD?   This is the question that many more conservative "people of faith" may worry about, when hearing of a film like this.  However, I do believe that we're talking two different things here.  Marriage is generally good FOR BOTH SPOUSES (as well as the children produced in marriage) as it sets down IN LAW that rightful expectations of said spouses and their children.  These rightful expectations become confused outside of marriage.

Anyway, this film if (almost inevitably) often quite crude (the R-rating is deserved) is also often honestly quite funny and is fundamentally about managing the often _crushing expectations_ of the proverbial "big wedding."

But again, if you want to get married ... the wedding need not be big and what matters most are the years "till death do you part" that follow.  In the mean time, 20-somethings, enjoy the ride here (at another thankfully fictional couple's expense ...)


<< 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 Girl Walks Home Alone at Night [2014]

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

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (B. Sharkey) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night [2014] (written and directed by Ana Lily Amirpour), an IRANIAN (exile) VAMPIRE MOVIE (filmed in Bakersfield, California) is probably the COOLEST "genre movie" released this year.  In Chicago, it's had a 2 week run at the Gene Siskel Film Center.

Filmed entirely in high contrast B&W in said Bakersfield, CA substituting for a random, troubled Iranian oil town named simply "Bad City" somewhere in the Desert, the cast of characters is quite small, but unforgettable:

There's the central protagonist Arash (played by Arash Marandi) a young Iranian potential James Dean type if only he didn't have to take care of his heroin addicted father Hossein (played by Marshall Manesh).

There's Saeed (played by Dominic Rains) a drug dealing pimp with the word SEX tattooed on his throat.  He's kept Arash's dad supplied with drugs even as he takes Arash's _really cool_ "50s era-car with tail fins" as collateral for Arash's dad's accumulating debts.   When not shaking down Arash's family for money, he's keeping his local aging street-walker (mom?) named Atti (played by Mozhan Marnò) "unbalanced" / "in line" (it's probably time for her to start looking for another kind of work, but how when she seems to always owe Saeed money?).

There's a little kid with a skateboard (played by Milad Eghbali) who, since his parents never seem to be around, seems to be always outside, even at night, watching everything play out.

And ... then there's ... a teenage to early-20 something girl who turns out to be a demure "Vampire in a really-cool striped shirt and a chador" (played magnificently by Shiela Vand), who ALSO seems to live alone -- honestly, where are ANY OF THESE PEOPLE'S PARENTS except on drugs or walking the streets as hookers...? -- who LIKE THE LITTLE KID is always outside at night obvserving everything, EXCEPT UNLIKE THE LITTLE KID she finally decides to do something about the way things are in the town: Basically deal-out blood-sucking vengeance "on the guilty."

Oh yes, and there's A REALLY CUTE CAT who seems to be somehow aligned with the Vampire ;-)

Much, often in very dead pan if quite predictable yet VERY, VERY COOL FASHION, plays-out ;-)

Honestly, this is probably the coolest SUBTITLED FILM (yes, the film plays-out ENTIRELY IN FARSI ;-) that an AMERICAN TEENAGER (or really, ANY TEENAGER) really ought to see!

It's basically "A Rebel Without A Cause [1955]" only IN HIGH CONTRAST BLACK AND WHITE, IN FARSI and WITH VAMPIRES.  Honestly, how cool is that? ;-) ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Selma [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review

BET coverage
Ebony coverage
Essence.com coverage
TheSource.com (D. Green) review

ChicagoTribune (M. Philiips) review
RogerEbert.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Rolling Stone (G. Edwards) interview w. director Ava DuVernay
TheSource.com (S. Moscovitz) interview w. director Ava DuVernay


Selma [2014] (directed by Ava DuVernay, screenplay by Paul Webb) arriving in time for the 50th anniversary of the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the second of the two most important pieces of Federal legislation that were passed as a result of the African-American Civil Rights movement of the 1950s-60s (and, yes, perhaps coincidentally / perhaps not ... during the early part of the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration ...) reminds the United States (and the world) what life was like for African Americans in the Deep South of the United States prior to the passage of such legislation that finally allowed African Americans unhindered access, more-or-less, to the ballot box.

I say "more-or-less" because there has been steady if mostly thankfully "rear guard" battling over "voter registration legislation" ever since.  And I do believe that the continued shenanigans are real: As I noted in my review of the recent film Kill the Messenger [2014], the 1980s "crack cocaine crisis" gave white racists in this country an excuse to once again disenfanchise MILLIONS of African American voters by making possession of ANY AMOUNT of "crack cocaine" (but significantly NOT powdered cocaine generally prefered by white people...) to be a "felony" giving States permission to take away their Civil Rights, INCLUDING VOTING RIGHTS, essentially FOREVER.  More than a million African American male "crack convicts" in Florida (not / no longer in jail, but with their voting rights denied them FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES on account of their "felony conviction") or ONE THIRD of the voting age African American male population in the State was not allowed to vote in the 2000 Presidential election, an election that was "decided" by a margin of less than a 1000 votes in Florida...

However, even this apparent "crack" (felon) loophole in the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 pales in comparison to unblushing systematic denial of African Americans the right to vote that existed in the Jim Crow South prior to the marches / protests in Selma that made such practices no longer tenable and resulted in the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 quite shortly afterwards. 


To the film ...

Much controversy has been made with regards to this film's treatment of Lyndon B. Johnson (played in the film by Tom Wilkinson).  I would suggest to readers here to please read the two interviews of the director Ava DuVernay that I list above.  Apparently, the original screenplay (and probably historically more correctly) portrayed Johnson in far more positive light.  However, the director says in those interviews that she really didn't want to make a movie about a "White Savior" (Johnson...), that in fact, the biggest changes that she made to the script was _to add_ BLACK LOCAL WOMEN to the story like lowly, honest / church-going Selma resident Annie Lee Cooper (eventually played in the film by Oprah Winfrey).  

With regards to Johnson, the director sensed (again IMHO almost certainly correctly) that ultimately the Civil Rights movement was NOT his top priority.  Instead, Johnson's TOP PRIORITY was his hoped-for War on Poverty (which would seek to improve the lives of ALL POOR PEOPLE OF ALL COLORS).  Hence EVEN IF HE WAS SYMPATHETIC (and _I_ certainly believe he was ... Johnson did in a year / two in office what Kennedy seemed incapable of doing in pretty much his entire term ...) the Civil Rights Movement was something of a distraction:  SO ... "let's just get the Civil Rights legislation passed as fast as possible (and be done with it)."

AND LET'S FACE IT ... THAT IS THE HISTORICAL RECORD: The Civil Rights Act (which _didn't_ pass under Kennedy) passed RAPIDLY under Johnson in 1964 and the VOTING RIGHTS ACT again passed RAPIDLY after that in 1965.

So ... after 1965, Johnson had three years to focus on what he really believed was important: The War on Poverty.  (Of course, good will there got eaten-up by the concession(s) that he made to the American Right in ALSO allowing American involvement in the War in Vietnam to proceed...)

Was this "War on Poverty" worth it?  Did it even succeed...? Well, it's almost impossible to imagine TODAY what life would be like for American Seniors if not for Johnson's War on Poverty program Medicare (a health insurance "entitlement program" for Seniors that has honestly helped JUST ABOUT EVERYONE).

And truth be told, even Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr (played in the film by David Oyelowo) in his final years was coming around to the understanding that many / most of America's problems were not simply racial but economic -- for progress for African Americans to go forward, progress for poor whites had to go forward as well.

But be all this as it may, progress for African Americans COULD NOT GO FORWARD without more-or-less unhindered access to the ballot box.  And that then set the stage for the Civil Rights actions in Selma.  And this film ...

And yes, a lot of whites watching this film will certainly wince at seeing white police officers (of then still an ALL WHITE Selma police force) wrapping their batons with barbed wire and beating blacks seeking to peacefully march over a bridge ...

Now the film is also a lot about tactics -- Why put so much focus on what seems to be an insignificant (if county seat) like Selma?  Why simply a march?  Why not retaliation for violence inflicted on the marchers? -- and the result is an appreciation of the mind/thinking of Martin Luther King, Jr and the Southern CHRISTIAN Leadership Conference (my emphasis on Christian) the banner group with which he lead the Civil Rights Movement.  After all, there were alternatives -- the more militant Black Muslim Malcolm X (played briefly in the film by Nigel Thatch), and arguably more purely-legal approaches like that of the NAACP perhaps represented in the film by young "Obama-like" "community organizer" Andrew Young (played by André Holland).

The film's director, Ava DuVernay, noted in one of the interviews (given above) that since she was NOT "from the (rural) South" but rather "from Compton (the inner city), California," her own sympathies growing up were more with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers (an excellent if, all around challenging film about the Black Panther Party called For the Cause [2013] played at the 2013 Chicago Black Harvest Film Festival).

The director wished to underline in her film that the tactics chosen by and Martin Luther King, Jr and the SCLC were NOT merely "pie in the sky" but rooted in practicality and potential for success: "One can't fight tanks with beebee guns," a "violent struggle" could not succeed.  However a morally based struggle appealing to the "better (and in this country CHRISTIAN) angels" of the white majority COULD (and did) SUCCEED.  To the director's credit, she did _underline_ the presence of white clergy / religious in the Selma marches:  I PERSONALLY KNOW MEMBERS OF MY RELIGIOUS ORDER WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THOSE MARCHES OF THE 1960s AND I'M IN GOOD PART A CATHOLIC PRIEST TODAY AS A RESULT OF THEIR EXAMPLE.

So what then to say in a final analysis about the movie.  Did it "diss" Johnson too much?  I honestly don't think so, because I do believe that the director _was right_.  This film needed to be ABOVE ALL ABOUT THE PEOPLE like Annie Lee Cooper (played in the film by Oprah Winfrey) NOT "the big shots..."

So good job Ms DuVernay!  Good job!  And if any want to read-up more about the Selma marches, Rev/Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, the Civil Rights Movement, or President Lyndon B. Johnson just do a search on Amazon.  There are plenty of books to read on all of them ;-)



<< 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! :-) >>

Leviathan (orig. Левиафан) [2014]

MPAA (R)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing

KinoNews.ru listing*    KinoPoisk.ru listing*
Kino-teatr.ru listing*     Kritikanstvo.ru listing*
Megacritic.ru listing*

Gazeta.ru (V. Lyaschenko) review*
TheHollywoodReporter.ru (N. Karcev) review*
NovayaGazeta.ru (L. Malyukova) review*
RossiyskayaGazeta.ru (V. Kitchin) review*

ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
Cine Para Leer review*
CineVue (J. Bleasdale) review
EyeForFilm.co.uk (A.W. Murray) review
Slant Magazine (C. Bowen) review
Variety (P. DeBruge) review

Leviathan (orig. Левиафан) [2014]  [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* (directed and cowritten by  Andrey Zvyagintsev [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* along with Oleg Negin [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]*) promises to be an absolute darling to Western Liberals.

Yes, the story set in a small picturesque Russian town somewhere on the Arctic coast (and yes, the scenery is often breathtaking) is at least initially about corruption in contemporary Russia:

A lowly fisherman / auto-mechanic named Nicolay (played by Aleksey Serebryakov [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*) with a simple fisherman's house that he inherited from his father, finds to his horror that the local mayor (played by Roman Madyanov [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*) has come to covet said house for the only covetable quality that is has -- a view.  So he's decided to use the power of the local government force lowly Nicolay to relinquish said house for an obsenely low price, nominally to allow a "communications center" to be built there (but nobody seriously believes that.  The local mayor just wants to build his own house there).

Now Nicolay isn't completely without friends or resources.  So at the beginning of the film he has his old army buddy, now a hotshot Moscow lawyer, named Dmitri (played by Vladimir Vdovichenkov [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*) come up to challenge the confiscation of the house.  Dmitri is, in fact, not naive.  He comes up to the town not only with a legal case to defend Nicolay's claim on the property (or at least that he'd be compensated appropriately), but he ALSO comes with a dossier of dirt collected about the Mayor.  To no one's surprise, Dmitri loses the appeal for Nicolay.  HOWEVER Dmitri's dossier on the mayor does grab the mayor's attention.

What to do?  Well, the mayor goes _to the local Orthodox priest_ for advice.  AND THE ADVICE THAT HE GETS FROM SAID PRIEST IS (I'm not kidding): "Don't be such a baby!  All power comes from God, USE IT."   And so WITH THE PRIEST'S MAFIA-LIKE BLESSING, that's what the mayor does: He gets his thugs together, they pay a visit to the lawyer, drive him out of town and ...

Now tragically before being "driven out of town," the lawyer manages to seduce Nicolay's wife Lilya (played by Elena Lyadova [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*) -- Why would he do that?  Were there not enough women in Moscow to sleep with, and Nicolay was supposed to be his friend ... -- which after he "disappears from the scene" causes continued problems between Nicolay and his wife.  Those problems come to provide the Mayor a final / definitive means to simply get rid of Nicolay.

Wonderful, the director himself has stated that his film was inspired by the Biblical Job and the Thomas Hobbes' treatise Leviathan (a giant sea-monster that actually appears at the end of the Biblical Book of Job but in the Hobbesian conception it also represents the Power of the State).

So what's there to object to?  After all, this is (on the surface) a quite brave denunciation of the state of corruption in Russia today.  HOWEVER, note here that ultimate blame for said corruption doesn't fall on the thuggish mayor of the town, BUT ... ON THE ORTHODOX PRIEST (who arguably was just missing a tail and horns in the film).

So this is just catnip for both Western Liberals and perhaps a remnant of the ATHEIST Russian "Old Guard" still pining for the "Law and Order" that existed back in the "Good Old Days" of the Soviet Gulag.  Hence a film nominally about State corruption nonetheless gets funded by the Russian "Ministry of Culture." ;-)

Hmm... There's even a reference to Pussy Riot in the film.  What's going on here? 

I suppose that the question that the film asks is: To what extent is the Russian Orthodox Church complicit in the corruption that exists in Russian society today? 

HOW CAN AN HONEST WESTERNER POSSIBLY SEEK AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION?

Well a search of the term коррупция (corruption)* on the Moscow Patriarchate's official website* indicates quite that the challenge of corruption in contemporary Russian society is certainly not "off the radar" or even somehow a "verboten" subject in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church today.  And this really should not surprise anyone (unless one simply insisted on BEGINNING with the assumption that the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Church in general, Christianity and/or Religion in general simply HAD TO BE "EVIL").

Now how well is the Russian Orthodox Church doing in voicing opposition to corruption in Russian society today?  Well that is a fair question and I simply do not know enough about Russia or the actual workings of the Russian Orthodox Church to answer that.  However, let me offer a suggestion:

While there are fanatical groups like SNAP ("Survivors' Network for those Abused by Priests") in the United States who don't seem to recognize _even the possibility_ of a "good Catholic priest" in the United States today (just those who are "guilty" and those who are in "denial"), the National Catholic Reporter has for decades served as a "watch dog" / independent voice seeking to keep the Catholic Church in the United States honest not only with regard to the various priestly sexual abuse scandals but also with regards to its (obviously) FAR LARGER MISSION, notably to "bring good news to the poor."

There is no reason why such a newspaper of website could not exist (or come to exist, IF IT DOES NOT ALREADY, perhaps if need be OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA) that would seek to keep the Russian Orthodox Church accountable in its role as "the conscience of Russian society."  I have personally known plenty of good (AND EDUCATED) Russian Orthodox believers (My own grandfather was Russian Orthodox).  I simply do not believe that a "(Russian) National Orthodox Reporter" would be impossible to create (if it does not de facto exist already).

Would it be enough?  Well the National Catholic Reporter certainly did not prevent the sexual abuse crimes to occur in the United States.  But it did and does remind everyone willing to listen that there are American Catholics who _do actually believe_ and do actually want a Church that's accountable for its actions here on earth.

The Russian Orthodox Church may be being tempted by the same Devil's Bargain that the Catholic Church in the United States has been tempted by the American Right in these years after the sexual abuse scandals:  "We'll support you on such 'beside the point' matters as 'Gays,' just don't say a word anymore about the Economic Justice (or Corruption)."  The problem with that bargain is, of course, if the Church does not stand for the poor and oppressed then its other "teachings" become _meaningless_.    The Church's Power comes from standing-up for the weak:

You shall not oppress or molest a stranger, for you were once strangers residing in the land of Egypt.  You shall not wrong any widow or orphan. If ever you wrong them and they cry out to me, I will surely listen to their cry. My wrath will flare up, and I will kill you with the sword; then your own wives will be widows, and your children orphans.  -- Ex 22:20-23

So one could dismiss this film (and in fact the _provocative_ actions of Pussy Riot) as simply a "diatribe against the (Russian Orthodox) Church"  OR ... one could see it as a challenge to the (Russian Orthodox) Church stand-up and FULFILL its job to TRULY BE "The Nation's Conscience."  It seems obvious to me that the more useful / constructive interpretation would be the second one.


* 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! :-) >>

Taken 3 [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChiTribune/Variety (1 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune/Variety (M. Lee) review

Taken 3 [2014] (directed by Olivier Megaton, screenplay by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen) continues, IMHO quite unsatisfactorily, the Taken franchise through its third installment: 

Perhaps it was just that everyone involved in the story, especially lead actor Liam Neeson coming back, _again_ as _retired_, (presumed) _former_ CIA assassin Bryan Mills, seemed tired. (Hey, generally people don't "retire" for nothing ... they retire because they're "gettin' old for this sort of stuff ...");

Perhaps the story was beginning to "run out of places to go." (In the first installment, the story "shot itself out" in Paris, in the second in Istanbul, this time simply "just a few blocks down-the-street from the studio" in (presumably) the "Mills' Southern California");

Or perhaps simply this installment finally "just got sloppy" revealing just how improbable the whole franchise story always was ...

In any case, the story just felt flat, with key characters like Mills' ex-wife Lenore (played by Famke Jansson) being killed off (_she_ won't be coming back again) and the rest of the cast largely going through the motions.

The installment begins, quite endearingly, as the previous ones did (that's part of the franchise's schtick), with the Mills' each trying focus on their "regular lives."  Mills is shown busily trying to buy something for daughter Kim's (played by Maggie Grace) birthday.  She's in college now, apparently living with her boyfriend (worried actually that she may be pregnant), but she's still "his little girl."  So he settles on buying her a big stuffed panda and a bottle of champagne.   Mills' ex (and Kim's mother) is apparently having trouble with her second husband, but is trying "really hard" to make at least that second marriage work, and Mills is as "supportive" as a first (former) husband could be in a situation like that.  He DOESN'T try to "take advantage" but almost certainly he's smiling inside (thinking no doubt "I always knew it wasn't _simply_ me" ;-).  The second husband (played by Dugray Scott) even comes over, early on in the story to ask Mills to "keep out of the(ir) mess."  And Mills, gently, nonthreateningly (in as much as a _former CIA assassin_ could be "nonthreatening") assures him that he _doesn't_ want to get involved.

But becoming involved he must ... as a few days later Mills gets a text from Lenore asking him to stop at some neighborhood coffee shop "get some bagels" and come home to his apartment because, presumably, "she wants to talk."  Well, he gets the bagels, comes home and ... finds Lenore dead, in his bed.

What the heck happened?  He doesn't have a whole lot of time to ponder this because a few seconds later the LAPD is there (called apparently by SOMEBODY ...) yelling at him to "put his hands up."  Still not understanding what had just happened, but expecting that he wasn't gonna be able to figure things out as easily in a police lockup, he (former special forces, a former CIA assassin) decides "to make a run of it" ... does ... and the rest of the installment follows...

Of course, in the course of his running away from the cops (led by a LAPD inspector played by Forrest Whitaker) and later by his slinking / running around Los Angeles, there's _a lot_ of shooting, "glass breaking," and a fair number of "high speed chases."  And of course, (not much of a SPOILER here) ... EVENTUALLY he has to clear his name.

BUT ... while SOMEHOW (and in retrospect, with some embarrassment) these "shoot 'em up / chase scenes" seemed to "work for me" when the story was set in Paris or Istanbul, I FOUND THEM UTTERLY BELIEVABLE NOW THAT THEY WERE SET IN L.A.

Say what?  Don't these kind of scenes play-out in all kinds of Hollywood crime dramas set in Los Angeles?  Yes, but USUALLY these scenes involve chasing a "bad guy," not a "good guy trying to clear his name."

There's a scene in this film with the Police still chasing Mills as their prime suspect in which all kinds of "civilian cars" and even a huge semi-truck are wrecked on a freeway.  I simply can't imagine Mills, EVEN IF INNOCENT OF THE ORIGINAL CRIME (the death of his ex-wife) "WALKING AWAY" INNOCENT after CAUSING SO MUCH CARNAGE _RESISTING / FLEEING ARREST_.  At least SOME of those innocents crushed in some of those cars would have relatives WITH LAWYERS who would sue the LAPD (at minimum) "for compensation" and ASK QUESTIONS about "what the heck was that chase about?"  

Just IMAGINE even one of presumably MANY court cases that would follow that high speed chase:

My client's wife Molly was driving their 18-month year old toddler Jenny (look at my Molly's and my client's wedding pictures ... they got married in Santa Barbara, went to Oahu for their honeymoon ... ) to her mother's before heading off to work (Molly worked second shift at a Bob's Big Boy off of the 210 in Glendale, and look at all the pictures of their little Jenny playing with her little ducky in the bathtub at grandma's ...) when OUT OF NOWHERE THEIR CAR WAS CRUSHED BY A SEMI THAT SPUN OUT OF CONTROL AS A RESULT OF A HIGH SPEED POLICE ACTION with LAPD chasing some "shadowy figure" named Bryan Mills (it's all on the transcripts of the Police Radio of the time) who LAPD now maintains "committed NO CRIME."   My client's beautiful wife and 18-month-old toddler -- again look at all the lovely family pictures  -- ARE DEAD and LAPD and the District Attorney are NOW SAYING that Mills is "innocent."  HUH????   If he didn't resist arrest, my client's wife and kid would be alive today...

So at least this installment in the story seemed to me completely ridiculous (and with some embarrassment, I have to admit now that the two other installments set in Paris and Istanbul pretty much _had to be ridiculous_ as well).

Sigh ... it was a good run ... for a while ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Top Five [2014]

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

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

BET coverage
Ebony coverage
Essence.com interview
TheSource.com coverage

Top Five [2014] (written, directed and starring Chris Rock) is an appropriately R-rated, often quite funny (and in my position often quite frustrating to review) film about "a(n important) day in the life" of Andre Allen (played by Chris Rock), a (black) comedian trying to be taken as _more_ than "just a comedian."  (Arguably, the film covers similar ground as the Michael Keaton starring Birdman [2014] ;-)

So Andre Allen's portrayed in this film as having written, directed and starred in a _deathly serious_ 12 Years a Slave [2013] like Epic called "Upri^se" about Haiti's War for Independence, the largest and most successful Slave Uprising (the slaves _won_) in history since Spartacus or The Exodus.  This "important day in the life" of Allen was the day in which this film was to have been released to the theaters ... But was a film about a vast number of very upset, machete wielding black people putting-down / slaughtering thousands upon thousands of terrified white people really gonna be a "big draw" in the United States today ...? ;-) -- think Apartheid-era Zulu [1964] in reverse ;-)

THIS WAS PART of what 's on Andre's mind on this, very important, day.  The OTHER part was the, a few days hence, the "reality show wedding" that he's consented to do with his reality show star / fiancee' Erica Long (played by Gabrielle Union). 

But the reality show wedding IS "a few days hence" (though at the end of the day he has to "drop by" a (scripted?) "reality show bachelor party" - with friends / comedians Adam Sandler, Jerry Seinfeld and Whoopi Goldberg expected "to be present").  IMMEDIATELY before him was an interview with New York Times whose reviewer had previously HATED Allen's STUPID but INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL Allen in a head-to-toes-bear-suit "Hammy the Bear Superhero / Comedy" films.

To Allen's relief, the NYT reporter who steps out of the cab to meet him was not the 50+ year old white-anglo-male-patrician blowhard that he expected but a young/earnest African-American reporter named "Chelsey Brown" (still a very anglo name, but less threatening ... played by Rosario Dawson).  She asks if she could "shadow him" for the rest of the day so that she could write her piece about him at the end.  Having no particular reason to reject someone who was both attractive and seemed to be someone who probably would give him a fair-shake, Andre consents to this "shadowing-style interview."

The rest of the movie ... that (as per rogerebert.com reviewer Susan Wloszczyna) _does_ feel A LOT like the "Before Midnight" series of films (great insight there!) ... ensues.

The banter / conversation between the two, often more sexually graphic than it needed to be (again, the R-rating is certainly deserved as are the CNS/USCCB reviewer's concerns), is nevertheless often very, very good and both of the characters seem quite real.  But then, what exactly is "reality" here?

"Chelsey" turns out to be a young, hustling African American woman (of Latin American, hence Catholic heritage), a once teenage now still unwed mother and recovering alcoholic, who's still having all kinds of trouble with men, writing (quite successfully actually) for all kinds of magazines (amusingly from "Cosmo" to "the NYT" ;-) though under _all kinds of pen-names_.  (When was _she_ going to be able to "step-out" into the world under HER OWN IDENTITY?)

Allen began his life "in the projects" (there's a scene where his dad shakes him down for money) who had succeeded in first becoming a stand-up comedian, then a comedic actor (even if he had to _cover his own face_ to do so ...) and now was trying _really hard_ to become a serious actor even as he's getting married to a "reality show" star WHO HE ACTUALLY DID FEEL SOMETHING-FOR BECAUSE SHE _DID_ ACTUALLY HELP GIVE HIM DIRECTION EARLIER IN HIS LIFE WHEN HE WAS "LOST".

So portrayed is an intriguing and often quite honest-looking, multi-dimensional "mess" and truth be told, a story whose elements are not altogether far from what one continues to hear in the Confessional ;-).

So while I do wish that some of the dialogue and _some of the situations_ were "a little bit cleaner," nevertheless I do think that the film is quite good and deserving of many of the critical accolades that it has received.  So over all, good job folks, good job!

And I'd like to END BY THANKING Rosario Dawson for first _keeping her stage name_ ROSARIO and then allowing her character in this film to remain Catholic.  Yes, her character still had some "issues" (don't we all...).  BUT IT WAS NICE TO SEE that in her character's quite orderly (4 years in AA) apartment a Crucifix and a statue of Mary in places where one would expect them to be in a nice orderly Catholic home of today.  This may seem like "a little detail," but I certainly caught it AND APPRECIATED IT.  So again, good job there Rosario, 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! :-) >>