Black or White [2014]

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

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

BET coverage
TheSource coverage

Black or White [2014] (screenplay and directed by Mike Binder) is IMHO yet another film that's actually _better_ than it may seem at first.  However since it is about race, I do believe it would have benefited from clearer African American input, that is, it would have benefited if the writing credits had included an African American voice and perhaps if an African American had served as co-director.

I write this because as good, even excellent, as the film is _in parts_, it's obvious at the end of the day that the film was made by a white people, perhaps by _very well-meaning_ white people, but by white people nonetheless.  Why?   Without revealing how this story ends (and it's not easy to do so here), I'm more or less certain that if the film's "writing team" had included an African American or two it would have ended differently.

YET THERE ARE GOOD / THOUGHT PROVOKING CHALLENGES to both African American and white viewers in this story about two grandparents Elliot Anderson, white (played by Kevin Costner), and Rowena (Weena) Jeffers, black (played by Octavia Spencer) fighting over custody of their 7-8 year old mixed race grand-daughter Eloise Anderson (played by Jillian Estrell).

But then why is the film about TWO GRANDPARENTS, one black one white, fighting over a granddaughter?  Where are THE PARENTS of Eloise?

Well Eloise's mother, white, (Elliot and his wife's daughter), died in childbirth because she was 17 at the time and had run-away / sought shelter from her parents because she knew that the father Reggie Davis (played by André Holland), 23, was black and feared what her parents would do if/when they found out.  Eloise's father, Reggie (Rowena's son), was also out of the picture because as a troubled, fatherless youth (his dad was shot and killed when he was young), he's spent most of Eloise's 7 years of life in jail for stupid/directionless crimes of a troubled young person -- drugs, assault/battery, etc.

Upon hearing of their daughter's death and their grand-daughter Eloise's birth, Elliot and his wife took Eloise in and raised her.  But it was pretty clear fairly early in the film that Elliot's wife did most of the raising.

Things would have continued on this way, with Elliot and his wife raising their mixed race grand-daughter as their own and only a very peripheral presence of Rowena and her large African American family, if not for the sudden death of Elliot's wife due to a car accident at the beginning of the story.   With Elliot's wife's death, Rowena becomes concerned that Eloise not be simply abandoned to her white grandfather who Rowena frankly doubted had the capacity to raise her well.

Why?  Well the families _did_ (come to) know each other over the years.  Elliot it turned out did know, quite well, where in South Central Los Angeles Rowena and her family lived.  And Rowena's family did clearly know him -- as perhaps the "somewhat arrogant white guy" who probably did the driving when he and his wife did _very occasionally_ take their grand-daughter down to Rowena and her family so that she could see them.  And Rowena would have known that Elloit's wife would have been doing most of the raising of Eloise anyway.  Finally, Rowena may have honestly mistrusted men.  After all, Reggie's father (her previous husband/boyfriend), had been killed for unknown reasons earlier, and Reggie himself had (even by her own estimation) not turned out well.  Finally, she would have seen Elliot's non-involvement in Eloise's upbringing prior to his wife's death.

So ... there it is.  Rowena's concern for her grand-daughter is initially dismissed out-of-hand by Elliot.  BUT Rowena and her family were _more_ than just "Reggie" and even more than just "Reggie and Rowena."  She had a large family.  She herself is _hard working_.  We discover that she owns TWO HOUSES OUT THERE IN SOUTH CENTRAL L.A. AND _FIVE_ BUSINESSES (okay some run out of her garage but FIVE LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES).  Beyond this, she had a brother,  Jeremiah (played by Anthony Mackie) WHO WAS A LAWYER.  SO ... Rowena and her family were not _defenseless_ anymore.  And so they took Elliot to court ... over custody of Eloise.

And the rest of the film ensues ...

 The film the proceeds, often painfully, through the objective failings and then misconceptions that both Elliot and Rowena / her family had of each other.

And the film does invite, again painfully, viewers, both black and white, to "grow"

African American viewers are "reminded" of the ENORMOUS DAMAGE THAT THE "REGGIES" IN THEIR MIDST DO TO ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS (But does _anybody_ need to be "reminded" of this? -- And there are plenty of pretty stupid WHITE "Bubba's" out there too...)

More interestingly perhaps, whites are reminded that if they say that they "don't like black people" that they really have to be _far more specific_ because while there was the troubled "Reggie" in this film, there are FOUR OR FIVE COUNTER EXAMPLES of AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO REALLY SHOULD BE EMBRACED and EVEN APPLAUDED BY THE LARGER (NATIONAL / WORLD) COMMUNITY:  There's (1) Rowena herself WITH HER TWO HOUSES and FIVE BUSINESSES.  She's A VERITABLE POSTER CHILD OF HARD-WORK AND ENTREPRENEURISM, (2) there's her brother WHO'S A SOLID, EVEN ERUDITE COURT ROOM LAWYER, (3) There's THE JUDGE, African-American, in the case (played by Paula Newsome) who's a PARAGON OF NO NONSENSE CALM DECORUM AND ORDER and (4) there's an earnest super-hardworking African college student named Duvan Araga (played by Mpho Kaoho) who Elliot hires to tutor Eloise with her school work after his wife dies, (5) Finally, there's the rest of Rowena's LOVELY LARGE FAMILY that's nice, smiling, supportive of each other and others, including Elliot (!), when in need.

So then if one says that one "doesn't like black people" WHICH OF THESE "BLACK PEOPLE" DOESN'T ONE LIKE?  AND THEN HONESTLY WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS (!!)

So this is not a bad film ... just a very painful film and one that honestly probably would have benefited from the African American _input_ that it appears to otherwise advocate for. 


<< 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! :-) >>

Life Itself [2014]

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

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) reviewRE.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Life Itself [2014] (directed by Steve James) is a documentary released earlier this year about the life and, as it poignantly turned out, the last months of the life of life-long Midwesterner, world renowned Chicago film critic Roger Ebert [wikip]. 

As I wrote on my blog at the time of his death, I grew up watching regularly, almost religiously, with my family the "Sneak Previews" / "At the Movies" movie review show hosted by Roger Ebert of the Chicago SunTimes and Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune in its various incarnations first produced by PBS, then by Tribune Entertainment and finally by Disney. 

To its credit the documentary was neither a "puff piece" nor a "hagiography." 

First, the documentary noted that Ebert entered the movie review business actually as "a newspaper man."  His original dream was _to write for a major newspaper_, which AS A MIDWESTERNER growing up in the _college town of Champaign-Urbana, IL_ meant eventually working for one of CHICAGO's major newspapers -- then the Daily News, the Sun Times or the Tribune.  After college, which he spent at the the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign where he served as the editor of the Daily Illini during his senior year, he got a job as a reporter and feature writer at the Chicago Sun Times.  Only after getting the job at the Sun Times in 1966 did the job of being the newspaper's movie reviewer open up and then only by accident.  In 1967, the newspaper's chief movie review ... retired.   Being both young and still a relatively new hire, Ebert was offered the desk and it proved to a good fit and neither the paper nor he ever looked back.  (Now why would it be a "good fit?"  Well, in 1968, the Hollywood Production Code finally collapsed and with it a came a whole new generation of film-making.  And who best to review those new films but someone who was young / of a whole new generation of film critics...).

Second, while most Americans of my generation would remember Siskel and Ebert as household names in the 1970-80s and into the 90s, thanks to the TELEVISION SHOW that they appeared on TOGETHER, most of us would not have appreciated just how much the two "really didn't like each other," especially at the beginning.  Having grown-up in Chicago myself, I've certainly understood the rivalry that's existed between the more "patrician" Chicago Tribune and the more "working class" Sun Times.  However, I honestly didn't appreciate how much the two reviewers, hired by their respective newspapers in good part because they already fit in well into their institutional cultures, didn't like each other: Siskel, though born in Chicago was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants and studied at Yale.  Ebert, Catholic, though interestingly an only child, grew-up downstate in Urbana, the son of an electrician and went to U of I.  Both, came to their show, every show, especially at the beginning expecting to be "on top."  It did make each week's show _interesting_ ... but I honestly didn't appreciate that a good part of why their show was so _animated_, was because the two were so competitive and that (at least initially) the two really didn't like each other.

Third, while in his later years Ebert would regularly refer in his reviews to his experience of being a recovering alcoholic, this was an aspect of his personal life that until he "outed himself" was not a visible part of his public persona, and yet it certainly informed it and on many levels.  Roger Ebert probably would not have met or married his wife Chaz if he had remained living life with the view that "the night begins, _every night begins_ at some drinking establishment ... and _certainly_ ends at (the then Chicago journalists' hangout) O'Rourke's."

Finally, while most Chicagoans would have appreciated that in the closing years of Roger Ebert's life he was suffering as a result of (and was significantly disfigured by) throat cancer.  In the closing years of his life the cancer took his jaw.  As a result he was no longer able to speak (except by means of typing on a keyboard) and he received nourishment by means of a tube.  It was _not_ an easy life, and the documentary makes it absolutely clear that he found the closing years of his life very, very difficult at times. 

And yet, he also made the best of it.  Up until his death, he continued to review films for the SunTimes.  His blog www.rogerebert.com where those reviews were made available online became enormously popular.  The blog as a website featuring now some excellent young reviewers continues happily to this day (reviews that I continue to cite at the beginning of my own reviews to this day ;-)

Most of this is covered in the current film.  The picture that emerges is of a human being who did have both gifts and limitations, who did at times have an ego but also proved generous to others, especially to the young, and one who I do believe used the gifts that he was given well.

It all makes for a very nice tribute to a man who did a lot for both film and for the Midwest / City of Chicago during his lifetime.  It was a life that had been worth living through to its end.

So good job folks -- director Steve James, Chaz Ebert -- and most of all good job Roger!  You did leave this world a better place.


<< 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! :-) >> 

Mortdecai [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (G. Lodge) review
RE.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub (J. Hessenger) review


Mortdecai [2015] (directed by David Koepp, screenplay by  Eric Aronson, based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Kyril Bonfiglioli [GR] [IMDb]) is another typical "January" (or at least "Winter") "Hollywood Release," that is, often not particularly good, but above all considered to be _risky_ for one reason or another.

Gems released at this time of year in the recent past have included the "Trenton NJ / blue collar comedy" / Katherine Heigl vehicle One for the Money [2012], and the inversely "lost era" comedy The Grand Budapest Hotel [2014] (the second actually proving good enough to earn the 2014 Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture (Comedy / Musical) and nine (!) Oscar nominations including Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Director and Best Picture).

Other "risky" projects to have been released at this time of year have included the Hollywood star-studded, but _wildly over-the-top crude_ (yet often mouth-gaping-open LOL funny) Movie 43 [2013], the "we never even left the 'green screen' studio" CGI / 3-D "experimental dream-sequence epic" Sucker Punch [2011], and the stylized or otherwise "risky" dramatizations of two 20th century American literary classics - Kerouac's On The Road [2012] and F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby [2013] (the latter, starring Leonardo DiCaprio in what I still believe to be the single best performance of his entire career).

Of the above examples, the current film, Mortdecai [2015], certainly above-all a Johnny Depp vehicle (though costars Gwyneth Paltrow and Ewan McGregor are quite excellent as well), most closely resembles The Grand Budapest Hotel [2014]. 

The film will NOT be "for everybody."  Indeed, as I watched it, I kept thinking of a 2008 Onion article about the coming "Aristocratization" of gentrified city neighborhoods ;-), where city blocks that once housed "viable businesses" like "small corner bistros, jazz clubs and gourmet bakeries" were being "razed to make-way for stable houses, servants' quarters and English gardens" ;-).

In the film, Johnny Depp plays the lead-role of Mortdecai, a really annoying "country gentleman," who still lives, with his wife Johanna (played by Gwyneth Paltrow), in a palatial estate somewhere in the rolling English countryside and makes his money, sort of, by "dabbling in the art market."   One could think of the movie as perhaps Mike Myers' Austin Powers [1997] meets Downton Abbey [2010-] ;-).

Mortdecai's life really could have been reduced to blithely arguing with his wife over his new and godawful mustache he's chosen to grow -- She resolutely refuses to sleep with him until he gets rid of the thing.  He "being English" / "principled" even when it makes no sense, has chosen "to prepare for the long siege" and "sleep out in the drawing room" until his wife "comes to see reason" ... -- if not "for another matter": THEY'RE BROKE, owing 8 million pounds in back taxes to "Her Majesty's Government."

But ... "as luck would have it," Martland (played by Ewan McGregor), MI-5, and once Mortdecai's Oxford roommate and still desperately in love with Johanna who he feels Mortecai had stolen from him -- why?, apparently because she found Mortdecai _slightly_ less boring than he ;-), and then, well, Mortdecai, was "of the right station / noble birth" afterall ;-) -- has a project for him:

He's to find a "lost Goya painting" on the back of which Hermann Goering had by legend scribbled a code that would lead one to a vast treasure of lost Nazi gold.

Previously, finding the lost painting had not been a big priority for MI-5. However, they had recently gotten word that a "terrorist" named Emil (played by Jonny Paslovsky) amusingly "with a different kind of mustache" -- think Che Guevara meets ISIS (remember that the original book was written in the 1970s when terrorists were of the more left-wing / "revolutionary" variety) -- had started to make inquiries about the lost painting (and the code leading to Nazi gold, scribbled on its back).

Mortdecai is thus tasked to find said painting before the Evil terrorist Emil got his hands on it.  Should he succeed, presumably his tax-debt "to the Queen's government" would be forgiven.  If he did not, well, Mortdecai's "unfortunate demise" would "(re)open the path" for Martland to Johanna's "heart" (as it were).

Was Mortdecai "up to the task?"  HE certainly thought so.  In reality ... (of course) not so much ;-). BUT he did have TWO allies to help him along: (1) Johanna (of course), who was always far smarter / more competent than either Mordecai or Martland, and then (2) Mortdecai's "man servant" (sort of a "squire"-like character) named Jock (played inspiringly by Paul Bettany) who, again, did pretty much everything short of breathing and eating and ... for Mortdecai anyway.

So then, much ensues ... ;-).

That which ensues ... leads the bumbling Mortdecai into encounters with not only the Che Guevara / Baader-Meinhoff Gang-like "Emil" but also (1) Asian underworld types like "Fang Fat" (played by Junix Inocian), (2) slippery art-dealers like "Spinoza" (played by Paul Whitehouse), (3) trying _really hard_ to act "civilized" Russian mobsters like "Romanov" (played by Ulrich Thomsen), (4) as clueless as "really old moneyed" Mortdecai but "nouveau riche" Hollywood producers like "Krampf" (played by Jeff Goldbloom) and (5) an ANCIENT "Rule Britannia" / Montgomery's "Desert Rat" (OMG why was HE still NOT dead yet?) British military officer known only as "Duke" (and played wonderfully by Michael Byrne).  There's even (6) a "Patty Hearst"-like character (played by Olivia Munn) in the story ;-)

All in all the story's actually pretty funny ... in a "For the 1%" hearkening back to The Great Race [1965] sort of way.  One gets the sense that someone like (19th century robber-baron...) Carnegie in particular would have LOVED this story.  And the performances were often very good.  In particular, Gwyneth Paltrow's Johanna and Paul Bettany's "Jock" were joys.

Still, like I've already said, the film's "not for everybody."  And I'm not really sure if I'd want a lot of Tony Curtis / Peter Sellers-like films like this to come back again.   BUT the film is _a lot better_ than many critics (above) make it out to be.  That's for sure ;-).  So ... see if you'd want to give a movie like this a shot ... ;-)


<< 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 Boy Next Door [2015]

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

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


The Boy Next Door [2015] (directed by Rob Cohen, screenplay by Barbara Curry), released as it was in late January is a B-movie that was never intended to be "Oscar caliber."  However, if nothing else it can serve as _a deterrent_ to any 30 or 40 something high school teacher who may be tempted by a, um ... "mature his age" HOT "transfer student" who suddenly shows-up on the scene "one day like any other day."

Now it may seem kinda obvious "in retrospect" that "a transfer student" CAN "have a history ..."

... but, when said überhunk, Noah (played by "unnaturally" even perhaps "prison buff" (!) Ryan Guzman) moves-in next door, when it's still summer, and he's out there, sweaty, working (with "his tools"), on,  um, "his car," "tuning her up," making "her run ... (um...) better" (one could go on for a while here ;-)  in a distractingly torn t-shirt, with all those pecks and biceps glistening there in the summer's sun, it can get _rather distracting_ to late 30-something early 40-something high school lit teacher "of the classics" named Claire Peterson (played quite well actually by Jennifer Lopez), the mother of a still somewhat awkward teenage son Kevin (played by Ian Nelson) and going through some fairly serious marital problems with hubby, Garrett (played by John Corbett), a silicon valley / middle management sort of guy, who's _also_ coming-up against and _not_ dealing particularly well (at all) with "the onset of middle age."

Well, one thing leads to another ... Kevin and Garrett go off on a late summer "father / son camping weekend trip," Claire somewhat lazily has herself "one too many glasses of wine."  Noah comes to the door for some stupid reason and somewhat inappropriately late that evening, then "there's a storm" and ... sigh ... "mistakes are made" ...

The rest of the movie follows ...

To some extent Jennifer Lopez' role is a conflation of Michael Douglas' role in Fatal Attraction [1987] and Kevin Spacey's in American Beauty [1999]).  Kevin Spacey in particular traversed similar territory in his film, when his character found himself, middle aged, recently downsized, with marital problems, suddenly _way, way more attracted than he really should have_ to the "cheerleader classmate" of his teenage daughter, finding himself focused _on her_ "out there" on the floor "performing" (_next to his daughter_ and the rest of the squad) going "Rah, Rah, GO TEAM" at some random high school basketball game...). 

Then after "the Mistake was made" ... _the current film_ becomes a _searing reminder_ (again...) to ANYONE that one _really, really shouldn't sleep_ with someone who one _really doesn't know_.  Those "long walks along the beach, holding hands, and just talking" (and LISTENING) to each other and each other's dreams do have a purpose ... ;-) ... and, oh yeah, ONE CERTAINLY SHOULDN'T GO TO BED WITH A _MINOR_ (!!) NO MATTER HOW "HOT" OR "IN NEED OF SUPPORT" HE/SHE MAY SEEM (Though the issue of Noah's maturity is actually "finessed" somewhat ... perhaps to get an a-list actress like Lopez to take the role ... it's clear that "Noah" would NORMALLY be certainly "underage", hence A MINOR / "JAIL (!!) BAIT").

Anyway, this _is_ a B-movie, and it's _intended to be_ a B-movie.  But it may, in fact, "scare the daylights" out of vulnerable people approaching middle age, who otherwise, might be tempted to do some really stupidly (!) tragic things.  And in that sense, it's not necessarily that bad of a movie to for adults in that approaching middle-age range.

Parents do note that the R-rating is certainly appropriate due to the theme.  Besides, would you want your teens seducing your neighboring "Mrs. Robinsons" ... ?


<< 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! :-) >>

Two Days, One Night (orig. Deux Jours, Une Nuit) [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChiTrib (3.5 Stars)  RE.com (2.5 Stars)  AVClub (A)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Allociné.fr listing*

AV Club (A.A. Dowd) review
Avoir-alire.fr (T. Gauthier) review*
CervenyKoberec.cz (J. Kábrt) review*
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
Critic.de (N. Klinger) review*
EyeForFilm.co.uk (R. Mowe) review
LaCroix.fr (A. Schwartz) review*
LaLiberation.fr (G.L. / O.S.) review* 
L'Express (E. Libiot) review* 
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
Slant Magazine (E. Gonzalez) review
Variety (S. Foundas) review

Two Days, One Night (orig. Deux Jours, Une Nuit) [2014] [IMDb] [AC.fr]* (written and directed by the Dardenne brothers [en.wikip] Jean-Pierre [IMDb] [AC.fr]* and Luc [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) is a remarkable / critically acclaimed "thriller of the mundane / day-to-day" and is certainly one of the most compellingly constructed stories put on film in 2014.

I say that the current film had to be _one_ of the year's most compellingly constructed stories put on film because 2014 included Boyhood [2014] which having been filmed with the same ensemble-cast over the span of 10 years had to be the year's _most compellingly constructed story_ .

And then during the past several years there have been some other stunning to remarkable "minimalist" tales put on the screen.  One thinks of the British "drive home one night" Locke [2013], the remarkable Paraguayan film 7 Boxes (orig. 7 Cajas) [2012] about the drama that meets a Paraguayan teenager tasked with simply transporting seven boxes from one end of capital Asuncion's central market to the other and Cosmopolis [2012] about a young New York businessman's afternoon limo-drive through traffic "to get a haircut."  And then there's even a recent, simple, yet also award-winning, Iranian film, The Bright of Day (orig. Rooz-e Roshan) [2013] about a school teacher who has a single day to try to find one witness to testify to the innocence of the father of one of her students.  All of these films, including the current one, would make both James Joyce (Ulysses / Finnegan's Wake) and Vittorio de Sica [IMDb] (Ladri di Biciclette [1948] [IMDb]) proud.

So what's _this_ film about?

Late-20 / early-30-something Sandra (played by Marion Cotillard [IMDb] [AC.fr]* in a performance worthy of her Oscar nomination) after having been on sick leave for several months (for depression) finds when she seeks to return to work at a small Belgian solar panel assembly plant that her job has been eliminated.  Her boss has found that the assembly plant can work with just fine with 16 workers rather than 17.  But she needs the job.  So ... he offers her and the other workers a deal: He can rehire her ... or he can pay-out the other sixteen workers their end-of-year bonuses (about $1200 USD each) but not both.  And he gives Sandra the weekend to persuade the other employees to forgo their bonuses so as to take her back.

Wow.  A heartbreaking to impossible task (and remember why she's been on sick leave to begin with -- for depression...).  The other workers, obviously none of them wealthy, count on that end-of-year bonus, some more than others, but forgoing $1200 would be a significant sacrifice for all of them.  Further, the boss has turned Sandra's future employment at the firm into "a charity case."  It's obvious that he believes that her place at the firm would be superfluous.

But what then to do?  Fascinatingly, Sandra's husband Manu (played also magnificently by Fabrizio Rongione [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) urges Sandra to go out during that weekend and talk to each of the 16 co-workers, ONE-BY-ONE, ANYWAY.  Why?  He also must have known that it was a near impossible task to persuade enough of them to go her way.  But he wants her to try.  Again, WHY?

This is where the film becomes interesting and IMHO becomes MUCH MORE than simply a anti-capitalistic setup.  What was Sandra suffering from?  DEPRESSION.  What's the best antidote to DEPRESSION -- GETTING-UP AND GOING OUT INTO THE WORLD EVEN IF ONE THINKS IT'S HOPELESS.

And it turns out that it isn't ENTIRELY HOPELESS anyway.  THERE ARE STILL AND ALWAYS WILL BE (SOME) PEOPLE willing to sacrifice for others (All / most of those co-workers knew what it's like to be unemployed and dreaded being so as well).

BUT FASCINATINGLY BY THE END OF THE WEEKEND, IT DIDN'T REALLY MATTER TO SANDRA IF SHE'D "WIN THE VOTE" ANYMORE ... she was WALKING again.

HONESTLY, ONE HECK OF A FILM !


* 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! :-) >>

The Babadook [2014]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (A-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  

Babadook [2014] (written and directed by Jennifer Kent) is by all accounts one of the best made horror movies since the turn of the 21st century.  Further, though presently unrated -- it comes from Australia -- there is NOTHING about the film (no sex/nudity, no bad language, no gore or otherwise graphic violence) that would would require an R-rating.  So this is a film that pretty much _the whole family_ can watch together ... and have the daylights scared out of them ;-).

So what's the film about?  Well part of its genius is that it's centered on a rather odd but certainly very scary _cut-out children's book_ named ... "Babadook" (pronounced ... Buh-buh-duk) after a shadowy monster who comes to children's houses, knocks on the door Buh-buh-DUK-DUK-DUK.  And if one opens the door, the monster (again shadowy / hard to see) comes in ... and ... NEVER EVER LEAVES ;-).

So ... there's this little family, really only composed of a 7-year old child Samuel (played by Noah Wiseman) and his mother Amelia (played by Essie Davis) a nurse, who (because she's a nurse) works odd hours.  The father (played by Daniel Henshell), Amelia's husband and great love of her life, who appears in the film occasionally in flashbacks and (we hope) dreams, died in a car accident 7 years before while driving Amelia to the hospital to give birth to Sam.  So traumatized was Amelia by her husband's death that she's never let Sam celebrate his birthday on the day of his birth because all that she can do on that day is grieve for her lost husband (Sam's father).

Well, one would suspect that this "unresolved psychological trauma" would also impact the child and ... it's clear that it does. Sam's turning out to be one troubled / annoying kid: hyperactive, always looking for attention, constantly interrupting people, both children and adults, saying strange generally disconcerting things.

As a result, NO ONE seems to like him: In one of the early scenes in the film, Amelia's called-over to Samuel's school and told by the Principal, "Your child needs help, help that our school can not provide. We recommend that he be put in a 'special school' equipped for your child's special needs."  Even Amelia's sister (Samuel's aunt) is weary of him, telling Amelia that her daughter (Samuel's cousin) just doesn't want to play with him anymore.  Amelia, of course, sees that Sam's growing-up to be a problem child.  But she's also his mother.  What can she do...?

THINGS RISE TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL thanks to that strange children's book named "Mister Babadook" that Samuel finds in the house one day.   Soon, Samuel, already with a hyper-active imagination born certainly in part of his increasing isolation (strange restrictions put on the celebration of his birthday, less and less friends to celebrate the birthday with anyway ...), becomes ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that "The Babadook" is in their house.

Soon, he's NOT sleeping.  Then Amelia STOPS SLEEPING (How can she when her son's making all kinds of noise ALL NIGHT, EVERY NIGHT, trying to keep awake convinced that otherwise "the Babadook" will get him?).   Then remember, Amelia's A NURSE for goodness sake.  Do you want a nurse working on you if she hasn't slept for days? ;-)  OMG ... are they all just going insane?

Much, much ensues ;-)

Honestly, this is a FANTASTIC FILM proving that one can make a _great_ "scary movie" with just a creaky house with random, quite normal stuff that one would find in any somewhat older house (remember they're living on one income) and lots and lots of shadows with _minimal_ other "special effects." It's BRILLIANT, JUST BRILLIANT ;-)
 
And remember, be careful if someone comes to your door at night, knocking: "Duk, Duk, Duk" ;-)


ADDENDUM:

1/21/2015 - The film's already available on Amazon Instant Video for streaming for a nominal fee.


<< 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! :-) >>

Still Alice [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
ChicagoTribune/LA Times (K. Turan) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

Still Alice [2014] (directed and screenplay written by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Lisa Genova [wikip] [GR] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is certainly one of the most gentle yet almost crushingly sad / poignant American films of 2014.

The story's about Alice Howland (played by Julianne Moore who may win and certainly deserves an Oscar for her performance in this film).  At the story's beginning she's at the top of her world.  Approaching 50, she's a professor of linguistics at Columbia University in New York, married to John Howland (played wonderfully in his supporting role by Alec Baldwin) a neurologist.

Together they have three grown children who are in various stages of "spreading their wings."  The eldest is Anna Howland-Jones (played by Kate Bosworth) already married, to a lawyer, named Charlie Howland-Jones (played by Shane McRae).  Together they are already working on having their first child.  There's son Tom (played by Hunter Parrish) who's in college, pre-Med.  And there's the youngest child, daughter, Lydia (played by Kristen Stewart) who's perhaps the only one isn't "following plan" or "meeting expectations."  Instead of going to college, she's moved to L.A. hoping to become an actress there.  And it's clear by way of a visit by Alice, after having given a talk at U.C.L.A., that "mom's not particularly happy." "Concerned" would probably be the word, with Lydia's recent set of choices.

Honestly, many, many Americans today would love to have a life like that of Dr. Alice Howland, PhD at the beginning of the story, but ...

... and this is a very important but ... just because up until this point, Alice has truly had "a wonderful life," doesn't mean that things will continue to go that way in the chapters that follow.

Life's difficulties come to all and in a way that teaches us as we mature and grow in wisdom that envy is pointless and often even cruel: the seemingly "easy years" of another's "fortunate life" are perhaps only God's merciful gifts to that person to help soften far, far harder years that can (and often do) follow.  And no one leaves this world without experiencing suffering, disappointment, eventual failure and death.  No one.

And so for Alice those _hard years_ arrive, initially almost imperceptively: During that speech at UCLA, she finds that she's suddenly and completely "lost her place."  And it takes her an embarrassingly long moment to find her place again, after having suddenly/surprisingly drifted away from her talk.  Then a few weeks later, back in New York, while jogging, an activity that she loved and kept her in the shape that she was in, she finds herself suddenly _lost_ ON CAMPUS, AT HER SCHOOL, COLUMBIA.  A number of weeks later, at Christmas dinner, the family notices that she reintroduces herself at table to her son Tom's girlfriend, after she had hugged her and welcomed her to the house when her son had introduced her to her perhaps only an hour before.

Enough of these small but sudden lapses makes her make an appointment with another neurologist (again her husband's one as well) to check if perhaps she may have a brain tumor.  Instead, after several visits to the doctor and some tests, she and by this time with husband John at her side are told that she's finding herself in the first stages of early onset Alzheimer's Disease AND that it's probably hereditary.

Of course John argues.  But yes, Alice's father "died early" nominally of cirrhosis of the liver (and had been previously dismissed as simply a drunk).  Suddenly it becomes possible that he _may have actually been compensating_ for early onset of  Alzheimer's (and nobody back then knew any better...).

Beyond the awfulness of the diagnosis comes of course the implication -- they two have three kids.  Two get tested, one does not.  One who's tested, tests positive and thus now knows what's coming 20-30, perhaps if one's lucky, 40 years hence ...

But then, this is still Alice's story ... What to do?  And remember this is a family that has a fair amount of money and the husband's EVEN ARGUABLY "IN THE FIELD."

Well there's NOT MUCH to do:  There's "research being done" that PERHAPS a generation from now may have a real impact.  There are "word games." And ... there are various somewhat ingenious "compensation strategies" (Thank God for "smart phones ...").  But in the end, there's the awful / heartbreaking / progressive decline ... of someone who "used to be able to do so much" and yet, now ...

This is a really powerful film, and ... perhaps as a small spoiler alert ... I do wish to say that the family really was, by and large, very, very good.

Anyone who's known anyone who's been diagnosed and suffered through the stages of a slow yet steady degenerative disease will definitely "understand" theis film.

And yet the film's not entirely a downer ... at least it's clear that Alice was loved.


<< 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! :-) >>