The Diary of a Teenage Girl [2015]

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

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


The Diary of a Teenage Girl [2015] (directed and screenplay by Marielle Heller based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Phoebe Gloeckner [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a definitely _appropriately_ R-rated film about a 15 year old whose first sexual experience (and second, third, ...) was with her mid-late 30-something mother's boyfriend (also 30-something though perhaps a couple of years younger than said mother).  Say what??

Obviously, this is _not_ a "light" film.  And let's be clear, there are adults, both men and women (among them, of course, some past Catholic priests), WHO ARE IN PRISON / AND ON LIFELONG SEX OFFENDER LISTS for having had sex / entered into sexual relationships with minors.  So what possible value could there be to making such a film?

To be honest, this is a film IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR PARENTS / OTHERWISE ADULTS and then perhaps for SOME TEENS (with HOPEFULLY some parental involvement).

Why Parents?  Well this film is as good a reminder as any to divorced / unmarried / recently married parents with kids that their new "one" could have dangerous issues with regards to the kids (from hitting them to hitting-on / SLEEPING with them...).  Yes, can be pretty awful and/or lonely to be divorced / unmarried with kids at home, but one simply has to be very careful about who one's bringing (new) into the house because one's not just putting oneself at risk, but also one's kids.  Honestly, it's just the reality.

Then why adults in general?   If a fifteen year old (a minor) starts thinking that you want to have sex with them, it's time to run.  There's NO WAY that such a relationship could play-out well and in the U.S. today (and, indeed, in most of the western world) 9-out-of-10, 95-out-of-a-100, the adult's gonna end-up in jail / on a sex offender list, etc.  So the film presents an opportunity to internalize how stupid / creepy the guy was in the film and then to redouble one's efforts manage one's life in a manner that would avoid getting sucked into a situation like the one portrayed in the film.

So then what the heck happened in the film to produce such an intro to a review of it?

The very first line of the film (set in San Francisco in 1976) has the film's 15-year-old protagonist Minnie (played by 20-something actress Bel Powley) proclaim in a voice-over to viewers: "Today, I had sex for the very first time."

The next fifteen-or-so minutes involves her progressively revealing to viewers the exact circumstances of the loss of her virginity, and it becomes clear that the circumstances were quite fumbled and yucky and let's face it, the guy (played by Alexander Skarsgård), was her twice divorced 30-something mother (played by Kristen Wiig)'s 30-something boyfriend.

How did it come to that?  Well, Minnie explained:  Some days (or a couple of weeks) before, she and her younger half-sister Gretel (played by Abby Wait) along with their mom and mom's largely-live-in boyfriend were all watching TV.  Eventually Gretel and mom pealed off to go to bed, leaving Minnie and her mom's boyfriend alone.  Having all been snuggling together (as "family") before, Minnie and mom's boyfriend were left in that position after the other two left.  Then whether by accident -- he _could have been_ tired, he _could have been_ drunk -- or intentionally, said mom's boyfriend plopped his hand on Minnie's breast and _appeared to fall asleep_.   Was it a come-on?

I could imagine a lot of people who see that movie debating that point.  However, it's beside the point:  that accidental and/or very creepy gesture left Minnie, a not particularly confident in her own skin 15 year old, wondering: "What did he mean?"  But she kinda liked it (it was the first time anyone had touched her like that).  And so sometime later (a few days later or a few weeks later) SHE TELLS HIM that SHE wants to have sex with him.

Said boyfriend of Minnie's mom had exactly one opportunity to end this well.  HE COULD HAVE SAID: "But Minnie I love your mom."  BUT HE DIDN'T (SAY THAT) BECAUSE HE DIDN'T (REALLY LOVE MINNIE'S MOM).  He was JUST SLEEPING WITH MINNIE'S MOM because she was available and HE (PROBABLY) HAD "NOTHING BETTER GOING ON."  Not exactly a romance that would "launch a 1000 ships ..."

He could have also said: "Minnie you're 15 years old and I don't want to go to jail" and since he didn't particularly love Minnie's mom anyway, could have made a relatively easy exit over the next several days.

Instead because he probably was something of a creep, he had sex with her.

The rest of the movie follows.  Again, this is not a pretty picture.  In fact, IMHO it is quite an ugly one.  Is it "realistic"?  I think that most viewers would probably hope not.  But it can give parents, adults and possibly some older teens some things to think about.


<< 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! :-) >>

Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (R. Moore) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub () review  

Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet [2014] (directed by Roger Allers, et al, screenplay by Roger Allers along with Hanna Weg and Douglas Wood based on the acclaimed spiritual book [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by turn of the 20th century Lebanese author Kahlil Gibran [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) offers a gentle introduction to the immensely popular text.

As in the book, so too in the current animated film (Al)Mustafa (voiced in the film by Liam Neeson), a spiritual leader, who has spent 12 years on an island outside of a fictionalized town called Orphalese, is about to go home.  A ship has come to take him to his homeland (or "homeland").

Now why was (Al)Mustafa on "the island" to begin with?  The book is (deliberately) unclear.  The film is much more specific (but certainly offers a credible explanation for both that time-in-history, and perhaps even ours.  After all, the story plays out near the Eastern Mediterranean / Western Middle East, hence in "the land of I.S.I.S." and all kinds of extremist militias).

As in the book, so in the movie, BEFORE (Al)Mustafa departs (or "departs" ... in both the book and the film the actual and certainly ultimate manner of his "departure" also remains vague) HE'S ASKED A NUMBER OF SPIRITUAL QUESTIONS by the people coming together to bid him farewell, which provides him opportunity to give sage advice about love, work, marriage, time, etc.

His answers, generally given in in the book 1-2 page poetic vignettes, make up the bulk of the small 60-or-so-page text.  The film expounds in generally lovely / gentle / colorful animated fashion on four or five of his answers.

Since the bulk of the 60-or-so-page book is in effect (Al)Mustafa preaching to the people, before "departing", the film does take _some_ imaginative liberties with the book to tell the story.

Notably, it dramatizes (Al)Mustafa's leaving of his "little house outside of town" and his walk to the town and its harbor.  (Al) Mustafa is portrayed as having a (widowed) house keeper, named Kamila (voiced by Salma Hayek) who, in turn, has a little 6-7 year-old daughter Almitra (voiced by Quvenzhané Wallis).  Note that that Almitra is imagined/portrayed quite differently in the original book than she in the film.  Together with a guard named Halim (voiced by John Krasinski), Kamila and Almitra help (Al) Mustafa travel down from his "little house outside of town" into town.

It all makes for a lovely story and for a nice, but certainly not only, perhaps even _intentionally_ limiting (concretizing) interpretation of the book.

So while not necessary to understand the story presented in the film, getting-hold-of and reading the 60-or-so page book both beforehand and perhaps especially _afterwards_ will help one appreciate the specific artistry and choices made in the film.

IMHO the book [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] is far more general in scope than the film.  However, as I've already suggested, the choices made by the film-makers make for an interesting, even compelling (and perhaps unfortunately still all too timely) interpretation of the book.

Good job folks!  Very 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 Man from U.N.C.L.E. [2015]

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

IMDb listing
AlloCine.fr listing*
CSFD listing*
FilmTV.it listing*
FilmWeb.pl listing*
KinoPoisk.ru listing*
Kino-Zeit.de listing*

CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (J.Hassenger) review

FilmServer.cz (V. Limberk) review*
Gazeta.ru (J. Zabaluev) review*
Kino-Zeit.de (Press Spiegel) reviews*
Rossiyskaya Gazeta (D. Sochovskiy) review*


The Man from U.N.C.L.E. [2015] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Guy Richie along with Lionel Wigram, story by Guy Richie, Jeff Kleeman, Lional Wigram and David C. Wilson based on the television series [1965-68] [IMDb] by Sam Rolfe) is the less "controversial" film coming-out in wide release this weekend, the other, edgier film being Straight Outta Compton [2015].  And I have to say that I enjoyed (indeed LOVED, read on...) this "lighter" / "safer" even if surely "more vanilla" film as well.

Though certainly more serious than the Get Smart [1965-70] [IMDb] television series, the current "U.N.C.L.E." film as well as the series that inspired it takes its lead with (and is partly a send-up of) the James Bond movies that were already so popular in the 1960s.

Like the Get Smart [1965-70] [IMDb] series, the U.N.C.L.E. [1965-68] [IMDb] series involved a battle between two great coalitions representing "Good" and "Evil."  In Get Smart, the Coalition for Good was called "Control" and the coalition for Evil was called "KAOS."  In U.N.C.L.E. the "Coaltion for Good" was indeed called U.N.C.L.E. (standing for United Network Command for Law and Enforcement) and its opponent was a neo-Nazi ODESSA-like Coalition called T.H.R.U.S.H. (Technological Hierarchy for the Removal of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity).

That the opponent of U.N.C.L.E. was a neo-Nazi ODESSA-like organization allowed both American / Western agents in general to work with Soviet (Russian) agents to work together _both_ in the original series and in the current film today.  This cooperation between East and West is a key distinguishing characteristic of the U.N.C.L.E series from pretty much all the others (in the West) of this genre: Ian Fleming's James Bond, Mel Brook's / Buck Hardy's Get Smart, Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan and so forth.  Given renewed East-West tensions today, I do find the decision to try to reboot this _hopeful_ 60s-era series to be an unexpected joy and a reminder that just as Russia (then the Soviet Union) and the West cooperated in defeating Nazi Germany (and no-doubt frustrated any subsequent attempts at revival of race-based neo-Nazi empire building, no in this case, no one's 'crying' Argentina ...), Russia and the West have common interests even today, notably in fighting Islamic extremism / terrorism.  So there is undoubtedly contemporary value to the revival of this (then) hope-against-hope 1960s era spy-series.

Another _great joy_ in the revival of this 1960s era spy-series can be found in the drawing of the key characters (re)introduced in the film -- the super-competent / stylish yet slippery American CIA Agent "Napoleon Solo" (played with exquisite brashness by Henry Cavill), his huge, perhaps coming across initially as somewhat clumsy, but also arguably more straight-forward / honest KGB counterpart Illya Kuryakin (played again spot-on by Armie Hammer), an OMG she _steals_ the movie (!) mild-mannered East German "auto-mechanic" (agent) named Gaby (played wonderfully by Alicia Vikander) WHO'S PLAYING EVERYBODY (but SHE HAS TO ... SHE'S GERMAN in the middle of the Cold War ;-) and the ever smiling (but which way is he really going?) head of British Intelligence, Alexander Waverly (played again wonderfully/spot-on by, again, ever jovial / ever-smiling Hugh Grant).

Together they must break into a secretive neo-Nazi/Fascist ring led by an Italian Versaci-dressed bombshell named Victoria Vinciguerra (played again perfectly as a Bond-worthy villian by Elizabeth Debicki) and, it turns out, some of Gaby's old (past-Nazi) relatives "Uncle Rudi" (played with appropriate "I'm a member of the Aryan super-race and if you are not you don't deserve anything from me" Evil swarminess by Sylvester Groth) and as well as _her dad_, a scientist who just seemed to get mixed-up _way over his head_ (again...) into something increasingly/unbelievably Evil).  Much then had to ensue ... and it does ;-)

I'd also add that the COSTUMING (and even SET DESIGN) in this film are about as good as they get.  While this is a very "light" film, I DO HOPE that come Oscar Season, this film gets remembered with regards to COSTUME DESIGN in particular:  For every time that Gaby came-up on the screen, I kept thinking of my (Chicago Art Institute diploma-ed / accredited) dress-designing mom who was in her 20s-30s in the 1960s and pretty much made / wore _exactly_ (!) the kind of light dresses that Gaby wore throughout the film.  (Honestly, I found this aspect of the film AN ABSOLUTE JOY).

So what then to say about this film?  Perhaps it's more optimistic than reality (certainly then, but also now) would warrant/deserve.  But this is a lovely / LIGHT film that offers the possibility of looking for the best in each other's characters (or at least of most characters) rather than looking for the worst.

So honestly, great job folks!  Honestly, great and _positive_ job!


* Reasonably good (sense) translations of non-English webpages can be found by viewing them through Google's Chrome browser. 

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

Straight Outta Compton [2015]

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

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

BET coverage
Ebony coverage
Essence.com coverage
TheSource.com articles

Straight Outta Compton [2015] (directed by F. Gary Gray, screenplay by Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff story by S. Leigh Savidge, Alan Wenkus and Andrea Berloff) is a biopic about the late-1980s early-1990s Los Angeles-based "gangsta rap" group N.V.A.

Perhaps the most important thing that I can say about both their story and the film is that despite a very long list of (legitimate) complaints about the content of their songs and then their often violent / often misogynist off-stage behavior, the group did OFTEN tell the truth, certainly the truth as viewed from their perspective.

And I think I can say that because I LIVED IN LOS ANGELES during those same years, studying for a PhD (in Chemistry) at the University of Southern California, at the northern edge of South Central L.A.  I knew very well the buzzing of police helicopters over my head at night, pretty much _every night_.  And I watched a black man being spread-eagled / arrested at night in front of my student room for rent where I was living.

Later, after I finished my PhD, I still lived in the area during the L.A. Riots following the trial of the LAPD officers in the Rodney King arrest.  I will never forget the smell of the city burning on the first night of the rioting.  And I spent the second night at a priest friend's out in the suburbs near where I was working because I could not get home to the apartment where I still lived at the time (on the east side of Hollywood) because the area was still cordoned off by police who were trying to restore order.  I spent that evening with my priest friend and his Hispanic gang-intervention group standing on a street corner by a shopping center a few suburbs away, chanting to very agitated passerbys essentially "Give Peace a Chance" and I've never forgotten my impression of that angry night as: "So this is how the Apocalypse would look like" as it seemed like there was a near total (if thankfully temporary) unraveling of social order.

While I did not know Compton as well as I knew South Central L.A., I would have to say that comparisons to the notorious Soweto Township in South Africa would _not_ be entirely off-base.  As such, I totally get the sharp, spare-me-the-B.S.(!) language / anger of N.V.A.'s songs and the current film.

Now a fair number of non-blacks who've never lived in an area like Compton / South Central L.A. will simply not understand or _not get past_ the anger expressed in the N.V.A.'s songs and videos (Hence a fair question could be asked: 'Okay, you're absolutely right, but ... if you turn a lot of people off who's going to really listen to you?' But a fair response would probably be: 'Well a lot of those people who don't like us weren't going to listen to us anyway...").  A fair number of observers will also discount / dismiss N.V.A. (and other rappers like them) for their attitude / descriptions AND OFTEN ENOUGH (DOCUMENTED) BEHAVIOR toward WOMEN.  I also _completely_ understand the AFRICAN AMERICAN PARENTS precisely living in places like Compton / South Central L.A. who would be saying: "WE GET IT.  WE SEE IT.  BUT WE _DON'T_ WANT OUR KIDS LIVING LIKE YOU -- with guns, drugs and whores (or living as drug dealers / whores)."

So this is a film that is edgy about a rap group whose music was and remains _very disturbing_.   Parents, this film certainly deserves its R-rating.  But it's NOT a film / story to dismiss.


<< 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! :-) >>

BaddDDD Sonia Sanchez [2015]

MPAA (PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing


BaddDDD Sonia Sanchez [2015] (codirected by Barbara Attie, Janet Goldwater and Sabrina Schmidt Gordon) is a documentary about the prolific 80 year old African American writer / poet / educator Sonia Sanchez [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]  co-foundress of the Black Arts/Studies Movement in California in the 1960s.

The documentary played recently as part of the 2015 (21st annual) Black Harvest Film Festival held here in Chicago at the Gene Siskel Film Center.

Her story could be inspiration to a lot of young educated men and women of color in the United States today because she had to navigate pretty much _every_ professional obstacle that could be placed in front of a woman or person of color to marginalize him/her:

Yes, she was a co-founder of the Black Studies Movement movement in the 1960s and hence had to FIRST DEFEND the very legitimacy of "Black Studies" as field worthy of academic endeavor and THEN had to fight clueless (generally white) university administrators who wanted the works of towering African American figures like Booker T. Washington (an African American leader of the post-Reconstruction Era who built an entire movement around African American self-reliance) and W.E.B. DuBois (the founder of the N.A.A.C.P. !) to be kept _outside_ of emerging Black Studies curricula (LOL ... probably "Uncle Tom's Cabin" would have been "okay" ...)

Then, she became an initially reluctant but as time went on _scathing_ African American opponent to the Black Panther movement also emerging in California in the 1960s for its horrendous marginalization / mistreatment of African American women.

For a time, she was part of the Nation of Islam movement RUNNING SCHOOLS FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSLIM WOMEN within the movement, until she came to realize with hard experience that this Muslim affiliated movement was, after all, (if _not_ explicitly hostile) not particularly oriented toward promoting higher / scholarly education of women.

And she did all this WHILE RAISING THREE CHILDREN -- two sons and a daughter -- in the course of two marriages (both eventually failed) and finally on her own.

What she did have, always, was her writing and her poetry and eventually a rock solid conviction that _violence_ of any kind, was NEVER the solution.

By then, living and teaching at Temple University in Philadelphia she publicly challenged then Philadelphia's African American mayor's 1985 decision to _bomb_ the somewhat odd, to many misguided, black separatist movement "MOVE's" compound in Philadelphia, an action that killed 11 MOVE members including 5 children.  Later, to oppose the 2003 Iraq War along with several other "grannies" (both black and white), she participated in a sit-in at at U.S. army recruitment office after the recruiters wouldn't take _their_ applications to enter the Army "rather than the young ones."

Those who know something about poetry will find her philosophy there fascinating: Sonia Sanchez [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] is famous for her free verse BUT she's also written _entire books_ on and in the style of Haiku and she would insist that her students become masters in form poetry _like but not inclusive_ of Haiku BEFORE going into free verse.  Also in the film, Ms Sanchez insisted that when she speaks, there's always a "sound track" (perhaps only in her imagination) behind it.  And indeed, most of the times when the film showed her reciting poetry, there was a jazz ensemble of one-sort-or-another playing "background."

All in all, I found this documentary about Ms. Sanchez to be a joy.  I found her person to be _very interesting_ and inspirational.  And I appreciate festivals such as this, the annual Black Harvest Festival held here in Chicago, as an opportunity to be introduced to people like her and to other artists, indeed often enough film makers, that I otherwise would probably never have learned about, but can enrich my / other's lives.

Great job!


ADDENDUM:

While this documentary film was _wonderful_, one need not find / see it to learn about Sonia Sanchez [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn].  There's plenty to find about her across the internet, in book stores and in libraries.  Just follow the links I've placed along side her name ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Shaun the Sheep Movie [2015]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (J. Hessenger) review  


Shaun the Sheep Movie [2015] (codirected and cowritten by Mark Barton and Richard Starzak of Aardman Animations [IMDb]) is a remarkable British children oriented "claymation" feature film about Shaun the Sheep (bah-ed/grunted by Justine Fletcher) and his barnyard friends (all bah-ed, grunted and quacked by various cast members), including a human Farmer credited as simply "the Farmer" (and "grunted" by John Sparkes).  For since the film was made "from Shaun the Sheep's perspective," the Farmer himself as well as all the other human characters in the story ALSO "grunt" their lines.  Hence this is a feature length film -- 85 minutes -- with no dialogue "to speak of" ;-)

I'm reminded here of a two minute "Law and Order" Adult Swim / Robot Chicken "short" [YouTube] which plays-out the entire story arc of a typical episode of the famed Law & Order television series [1990-2010] [IMDb] using nothing but "clucking chickens" (there's a victim chicken, bystander chickens, police investigator chickens, a "person of interest" chicken, prosecutor / defense attorney / judge / jury chickens, TV reporter chickens, etc ...).  I've long considered that two minute short to be absolutely brilliant and yet here the current movie extends this story-telling yarn to an 85 minute long (feature length) film.

Does it work?  Well ... ;-) ... smiling from ear-to-ear as I write this, I think that it basically does, but I'd understand that (many) people would be skeptical ;-).

So then, what's the story with regards to Shaun the Sheep?   Well, perhaps inspired in part by the "Harold the Clever Sheep"[YouTube] sketch of Monty Python's Flying Circus [1969-1974] [IMDb] fame, Shaun, also a fairly "clever sheep," finds the routine at the Farmer's farm to be dismally boring: Every morning that stupid rooster crows, then the dog starts barking, the farmer's alarm clock goes off and soon the farmer's down at the barn with the sheep and proceeds to tick off the same checklist for the day, every day.  That is, he lets the sheep out to pasture -- they graze -- and then he brings them back to the barn again to sleep at the end of the day.  It's not particularly hard work, certainly not for the sheep, but it's quite boring, or perhaps baaaah-ring.

Well, inspired by an advert that he reads on a bus passing-by saying "Take a Day Off" -- apparently though he can not understand spoken human language, Shaun can read ;-) -- Shaun puts together a rather ingenious plan (along with the other sheep) to "take a day off."  (Kind of an Animal Farm [book: 1945] / Chicken Run [2000] meets Ferris Bueller's Day Off [1986] ;-)

First they have to distract the dog.  To do so, Shaun pays off a "shady duck" from the nearby pond with a few slices of bread (amusingly, he has to haggle with the duck over the number of slices ;-).  Then the sheep have to get the Farmer to nod-off.  To do so, they run around in a quick circle behind him as he leads them to the pasture.  As the poor Farmer _counts_ them, first he's a little confused, then becomes drowsy and finally falls asleep.  The sheep then carry him (on their nice fluffy / wooly backs) to an out-of-the-way RV trailer where he could sleep the day away, while THEY (the sheep) get to "take their day off."  The pigs, watching the sheep do all this from their sty, are not amused (actually quite jealous), but they can't do anything about it ;-).

All seems to go quite well, until ... tragically, somehow the RV trailer starts moving and before any of the sheep (or the dog) could do anything about it, the RV trailer starts rolling ... toward "The Big City" (Well that's what the direction sign says anyway ;-).

The RV trailer _crashes_ then somewhere in the city.  The Farmer hits his head and temporarily forgets who he was or where he is.  And, well, come night fall ... he's not back and ... the sheep start to get hungry because ... the farmer's not there to feed them.

What now?  Well they, the sheep and the somewhat jilted / feeling betrayed-by-the-sheep dog have to go to "The Big City" to look for their master.  Much ensues ... ;-)

It makes for an amusing story perhaps teaching children the concept of "unintended consequences."  Here Shaun and his fellow sheep just wanted "a day off" and inadvertently lost (minor spoiler alert ..."at least for a while") the Farmer who took care of them.

Anyway, of course, things have to "end well" and (again minor spoiler alert) they do.  And all come to be happy on the Farm again.

Parents: I do not know if a really small kid would have the attention span to watch this movie all the way through in the theater BUT ... I would imagine that this will become a favorite HOME VIDEO for little kids in the years to come.

Good job, very good and funny 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! :-) >>

Ricki and the Flash [2015]

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

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

Ricki and the Flash [2015] (directed by Jonathan Demme, screenplay Diablo Cody) has some very well drawn, well acted characters.

The film's lead character, Laura (stage name Ricki) (played by Meryl Streep), who left her far more buttoned-up / conventional (and it turns out far more financially successful) husband Pete (played by Kevin Kline) and their kids to pursue a career in Rock and ... ended up 15 years later playing as "the house band" playing covers of other people's music at a random bar in the San Fernando Valley (Tarzana, California maybe 10-15 miles from the clubs on the Sunset Strip in Hollywood, but it could just as well been on Mars...) is a revelation.  In my line of work (as a parish priest...), I've known / worked with Rickis, even "musician Rickis" (this film came out on the weekend of our parish's annual Annunciata Fest that even features a lot of bands very similar to "Ricky and the Flash" ;-).  Indeed, there are moments in the film that I found jaw-droppingly poignant -- about a person that's both so flawed and yet also so sincere / perfect and  _ever_ partly / largely _aware of both_.  Wow ...

There's then Ricki's 20-something daughter Julie (played by Mammie Gummer) who grew-up hating her mom for having abandoned her along with her brothers Adam (played by Nick Westrate) and Josh (played by Sebastian Stan), but, having been dumped by _her_ husband after a very brief marriage was finding herself in a crisis of her own and discovering (partly to her own initial horror) that she had both more of her mom in her than she had realized AND MOM MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY THAT "STUPID" / "INCOMPETENT" / "TERRIBLE" AFTER ALL ...

Then there's Ricki's husband Pete's second wife Maureen (played perfectly by Audra McDonald).  Maureen, A NURSE, is exactly as _responsible_ a person as Laura/Ricki proved irresponsible, hence the almost PERFECT "second spouse" (An excellent recent Irish movie offering a similar dynamic of juxtaposing a terribly irresponsible first spouse and a super-responsible second one was Gold! [2014], though in that cases the juxtaposed first and second spouses were the husbands to a still 30-something Irish woman just trying to do the best for her kid and find some happiness as well).  In the current film, Maureen's become everything that Laura/Ricki was not and had, in fact, achieved the love / appreciation of Pete-and-Laura/Ricki's kids in a way that certainly Laura/Ricki did not (but honestly, neither did Pete).  Has Maureen become a "kind/gentle" EVER "saying the right things" USURPER?  Or was she simply EXACTLY WHAT THE FAMILY NEEDED after the breakup of Laura/Ricki and Pete?

Finally, there's Ricki's lead guitarist Greg (played reasonably well by ACTUAL 1980s-90s era POP STAR Rick Springfield [IMDb] I cut him some acting slack because he's been above all an A-ish-list pop musician rather than an A-list Hollywood actor).  He too has made relationship mistakes, but he too, like Laura / Ricki, "loved the music" above all and hence understood her in a way that none of the others, not even her family, could.

So there're some very well drawn characters here, why not such great reviews?  I personally found Pete and his family to have become WAY MORE FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFUL than necessary or even appropriate to effectively tell the story.   I think that the story would have been far better served if he had been made an accountant, perhaps a restaurant owner or something like that.  As portrayed, Pete had become SO RICH (doing some straight laced but certainly lucrative work -- was he a banker, was he a lawyer?) that I simply found it hard to believe that the two -- Pete and Laura/Ricki -- would have EVER met / seriously fallen in love and produced a family of three kids together before having so radically gone their separate ways.  The film provided no explanation and that proved an insurmountable problem for me.

Then this is a Hollywood film that thus had to "end well."  But Linda/Ricki's world and that of the husband/family that she met are SOOO far apart (and they needent have been so), that it's hard to see how it could work out, and CERTAINLY NOT in the stupidly cheap way (after creating sooo many well drawn characters) that it does in the film.

So there it is.  There are some very well drawn, even unforgetable, characters in this film ... which are then plunged into a story that doesn't altogether make sense.  And it's a shame, because many of the characters in this movie (and the actors/actresses playing them) deserved better.

<< 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! :-) >>