MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (A-III) ChicagoTribune (3 Stars) RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars) AVClub (B) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J.D. McCarthy) review
ChicagoTribune (C. Darling) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review
The Visit [2015] (written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan) feels honestly like a modern Grimm Fairy Tale [wikip] (Little Red Riding Hood [wikip] and Hansel and Gretel [wikip] definitely come to mind) with all its original creepiness that subsequent storytellers, including Disney, et al often sanitized.
As such, while there are DEFINITELY aspects of this film that I don't like -- I think it goes out of its way to present "old people" as "scary people" / "people to avoid" (hence flies in the face of everything I've tried to do in this blog (promote understanding between people rather than provide (often cheap) excuses for people to fear / hate each other) -- if one is honest, the Grimm Fairy Tales [wikip] often portrayed "grown-ups" and "recluses" as dangerous / murderous wierdos. So ... I have to grudgingly admit that this film captured quite well the feel of some of the creepier Grimm Tales [wikip] while putting the story in a contemporary setting:
So ... as is the case in many of the Grimm Fairy Tales [wikip], 15 year old Becca (played by Olivia DeJonge) and her 13 year old brother Tyler (played by Ed Oxenbould) find themselves growing-up in a very dysfunctional situation.
Their mother (played by Kathryn Hahn) had left home at 19, having fallen in love with one of her former high school teachers, never talking to her parents again. Initially, mom had been angry at her parents for opposing her involvement with her former high school teacher (They warned her that a guy like him was not going to stick around). Later she was embarrassed because they proved to be right (the guy abandoned her and Becca / Tyler some years afterward when "someone 'better' / 'hotter' came along").
The result was that Becca and Tyler were growing-up without a father, and without ever knowing their grandparents (and presumably any of their other relatives).
At some point, Becca's / Tyler's grandparents made contact with them (finding their grandchildren on the internet) and Becca convinces her mother, who by then had a new boyfriend to go spend quality time with him (on a cruise) and allow her and her brother to visit the grandparents that they never knew for a week in the meantime.
With all the optimism of a 15-year old coming from a dysfunctional family full of secrets, Becca's convinced that she can "figure out what was wrong" and and "make things right" between her mother and her grandparents. And to do so she, a budding (15 year old) "film maker," was going to "document" everything that happened on her / Tyler's trip to their grandparents.
Sigh ... when Becca / Tyler meet their grandparents who they initially wish to call endearingly Nana (played by Deanna Dunigan) and Pop Pop (played by Peter McRobbie), they turn out to be decidedly strange. Initially, they believe that they seem that way simply because they are "old" and hence at least at some level "ill." However, as the week progresses, Nana and Pop Pop seem to get stranger and stranger, and more and more dangerous. What's going on?
It all becomes a pretty creepy story. I think it does play on people's fears of "old people" ... but it does follow quite remarkably well the story arc of an old time Grimm Fairy Tales [wikip]. Hence, while I _don't_ necessarily like the story, I have to accept that it's pretty clever at what it attempts to do. So grudgingly ... 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! :-) >>
Reviews of current films written by Fr. Dennis Zdenek Kriz, OSM of St. Philip Benizi Parish, Fullerton, CA
Friday, September 11, 2015
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Meru [2015]
MPAA (R) ChicagoSunTimes (3 1/2 Stars) RogerEbert.com (2 1/2 Stars) AVClub (B-) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing
ChicagoSunTimes (R. Roeper) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review
Meru [2015] (directed by Jimmy Chin and Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi) is a spectacularly shot documentary about a team of three experienced climbers -- Conrad Anker [IMDb], Jimmy Chin [IMDb] and Renan Ozturk [IMDb] -- seeking to become the first team to climb Meru Peak (elev. 21, 810 ft / 6,660 m) in the Himalayas by way of a fabled 1200 ft / 400 m rock-wall "shark fin" at the top. Previous climbers of the "shark fin" had either given-up completely or ended up taking a simpler path up the peak away from this enormous, legendary (and extremely high altitude) rock wall.
It's an exhilarating film that had me shaking my head repeatedly especially during the first half of the film which documented the three's first attempt to scale the "shark fin" back in 2008. Were these people "just INSANE" ?? ;-) -- They spent THREE DAYS in a snowstorm in pup-tents nailed VERTICALLY (like BATS...) to said rock wall waiting the storm out. Then just as their provisions were at a critical level, the storm passed ... what now? Do they continue up or do they go down (as they would have if the storm had lasted only a day longer)?
Their second attempt in 2011 had its own challenges. After spending the first hour of the film, explaining to viewers how important it was to for the members of a mountain climbing team to have absolute trust in each other in the months leading up to this second climb both Chin and Ozturk suffered significant injuries from other climbs / skiing expeditions, Ozturk having suffered signficant head and neck injuries from a fall. Yet, the three decided to "go for it again" together.
The discernment / decision-making process chronicled was remarkable and portrayed very, very poignantly: Yes, all three were professionals, all three were veterans of other very, very difficult climbs (and precisely because they were sober, no-nonsense professionals they WERE STILL ALIVE TO TALK ABOUT THEM). But professionalism aside, they were ALSO HUMAN / "HAD A HEART" and so were LOYAL (!) to each other. In the end, the heart won out over the head, and loyalty trumped actuarial tables / cold reason.
Did they succeed? Go see the movie ;-)
A great, great, spectacularly shot, heart thumping film, chronicling a story that also REALLY HAPPENED! ;-)
Wow, if this film does not get nominations for Best Documentary and even Best Cinematography at the Oscars this year, I'll be disappointed ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
ChicagoSunTimes (R. Roeper) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review
Meru [2015] (directed by Jimmy Chin and Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi) is a spectacularly shot documentary about a team of three experienced climbers -- Conrad Anker [IMDb], Jimmy Chin [IMDb] and Renan Ozturk [IMDb] -- seeking to become the first team to climb Meru Peak (elev. 21, 810 ft / 6,660 m) in the Himalayas by way of a fabled 1200 ft / 400 m rock-wall "shark fin" at the top. Previous climbers of the "shark fin" had either given-up completely or ended up taking a simpler path up the peak away from this enormous, legendary (and extremely high altitude) rock wall.
It's an exhilarating film that had me shaking my head repeatedly especially during the first half of the film which documented the three's first attempt to scale the "shark fin" back in 2008. Were these people "just INSANE" ?? ;-) -- They spent THREE DAYS in a snowstorm in pup-tents nailed VERTICALLY (like BATS...) to said rock wall waiting the storm out. Then just as their provisions were at a critical level, the storm passed ... what now? Do they continue up or do they go down (as they would have if the storm had lasted only a day longer)?
Their second attempt in 2011 had its own challenges. After spending the first hour of the film, explaining to viewers how important it was to for the members of a mountain climbing team to have absolute trust in each other in the months leading up to this second climb both Chin and Ozturk suffered significant injuries from other climbs / skiing expeditions, Ozturk having suffered signficant head and neck injuries from a fall. Yet, the three decided to "go for it again" together.
The discernment / decision-making process chronicled was remarkable and portrayed very, very poignantly: Yes, all three were professionals, all three were veterans of other very, very difficult climbs (and precisely because they were sober, no-nonsense professionals they WERE STILL ALIVE TO TALK ABOUT THEM). But professionalism aside, they were ALSO HUMAN / "HAD A HEART" and so were LOYAL (!) to each other. In the end, the heart won out over the head, and loyalty trumped actuarial tables / cold reason.
Did they succeed? Go see the movie ;-)
A great, great, spectacularly shot, heart thumping film, chronicling a story that also REALLY HAPPENED! ;-)
Wow, if this film does not get nominations for Best Documentary and even Best Cinematography at the Oscars this year, I'll be disappointed ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
The Gift [2015]
MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (A-III) ChicagoTribune (3 Stars) RogerEbert.com (3 Stars) AVClub (B-) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review
The Gift [2015] (written and directed by Joel Edgerton) is a psychological thriller whose catch phrase could be the saying: "You may be done with the past, but the past may not be done with you..."
A late 30s / early 40-something couple, Simon and Robyn (played by Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall), return back to Southern California (where Simon had grown up) after some 20 years. After a miscarriage and some other stressors (some becoming clear, others not particularly so) back in Chicago where the couple had previously lived, using some past connections, Simon, an "Type-A" personality sort of a guy, landed himself a very good job with a Los Angeles based computer security firm, where his quite impressed buddy / boss Kevin 'KK' Keelor (played by Tim Griffen) was promising him rapid advancement. Mission accomplished / (not entirely clear) problem solved. Or ... was it?
In the first scene of the film as recently returned to L.A. Simon and Robyn are shopping for housewares, they run into Gordo (played by Joel Edgerton), Simon's age, indeed, as we find out, Simon's former high school classmate.
The encounter is decidedly one-sided. Simon does not appear to even see Gordo much less recognize him initially. It's Gordo, who immediately strikes one as 'a bit off' in a 'beaten down by life' sort of way who recognizes Simon and comes up to him: "Hi Simon! Don't ... you recognize me? Gordo, from High School. Can't believe you don't recognize me. What you doing back in Southern California after ALL THESE YEARS?"
Simon tries to be calmly dismissive and end the encounter quickly, but ... Robyn comes by and Simon still (pretending to be?) unsure of who exactly Gordo is, has to take Gordo for his word and introduce him to Robyn as 'someone' from his old high school. Gordo tries to get the two's phone number which Simon tries to play-to-an-out (NOT give it to him ...). So Gordo gives his to them. "Hey, we gotta get together ..." "Yea, sure, yea..." Simon is _really happy_ that eventually Gordo leaves them to do whatever they were going, yes, shopping ... and that was that ...
... 'Cept, Gordo shows up at their house a few days later. "Hey, Simon NICE HOUSE!" WTF, how'd he find it? Unclear. "Thanks."
Gordo's bearing _a gift_. A bottle of wine or whatever. "Thanks! You shouldn't have (you really shouldn't have...)." Robyn who kinda likes Gordo's 'puppy dog'-like behavior asks him to "come on in." Simon's signaling NO! NO! NO! ... But it's too late ... Sooo.... 'sad eyed' Gordo's soon sitting at the kitchen table and some pleasant if quite unwanted (certainly from Simon's perspective) conversation follows.
Who is this Gordo? Why is he there? Why does he come by? Each time he comes by, he comes bearing a gift. He seems like 'a nice guy' he's clearly-'off'. And it's ALSO absolutely clear that Simon really doesn't like him. Why?
Any number of scenarios come to mind as one tries to guess how the story will proceed. To it's credit, the story spun here does keep one guessing. Who is this Gordo? Why is he so (if vaguely) 'messed up'? Who is Simon? Why does he hate the guy so much? Who indeed is Robyn? Why did they have to leave Chicago? And if there were 'problems' why exactly did they 'stay together' (but also _move_ to L.A.)?
All in all, the film becomes an exploration of the phrase: "You may be done with the past, but the past may not be done with you." It becomes clear that all three seem to be fighting demons from the past. But what demons and why?
Altogether, it's not a badly spun tale ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review
The Gift [2015] (written and directed by Joel Edgerton) is a psychological thriller whose catch phrase could be the saying: "You may be done with the past, but the past may not be done with you..."
A late 30s / early 40-something couple, Simon and Robyn (played by Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall), return back to Southern California (where Simon had grown up) after some 20 years. After a miscarriage and some other stressors (some becoming clear, others not particularly so) back in Chicago where the couple had previously lived, using some past connections, Simon, an "Type-A" personality sort of a guy, landed himself a very good job with a Los Angeles based computer security firm, where his quite impressed buddy / boss Kevin 'KK' Keelor (played by Tim Griffen) was promising him rapid advancement. Mission accomplished / (not entirely clear) problem solved. Or ... was it?
In the first scene of the film as recently returned to L.A. Simon and Robyn are shopping for housewares, they run into Gordo (played by Joel Edgerton), Simon's age, indeed, as we find out, Simon's former high school classmate.
The encounter is decidedly one-sided. Simon does not appear to even see Gordo much less recognize him initially. It's Gordo, who immediately strikes one as 'a bit off' in a 'beaten down by life' sort of way who recognizes Simon and comes up to him: "Hi Simon! Don't ... you recognize me? Gordo, from High School. Can't believe you don't recognize me. What you doing back in Southern California after ALL THESE YEARS?"
Simon tries to be calmly dismissive and end the encounter quickly, but ... Robyn comes by and Simon still (pretending to be?) unsure of who exactly Gordo is, has to take Gordo for his word and introduce him to Robyn as 'someone' from his old high school. Gordo tries to get the two's phone number which Simon tries to play-to-an-out (NOT give it to him ...). So Gordo gives his to them. "Hey, we gotta get together ..." "Yea, sure, yea..." Simon is _really happy_ that eventually Gordo leaves them to do whatever they were going, yes, shopping ... and that was that ...
... 'Cept, Gordo shows up at their house a few days later. "Hey, Simon NICE HOUSE!" WTF, how'd he find it? Unclear. "Thanks."
Gordo's bearing _a gift_. A bottle of wine or whatever. "Thanks! You shouldn't have (you really shouldn't have...)." Robyn who kinda likes Gordo's 'puppy dog'-like behavior asks him to "come on in." Simon's signaling NO! NO! NO! ... But it's too late ... Sooo.... 'sad eyed' Gordo's soon sitting at the kitchen table and some pleasant if quite unwanted (certainly from Simon's perspective) conversation follows.
Who is this Gordo? Why is he there? Why does he come by? Each time he comes by, he comes bearing a gift. He seems like 'a nice guy' he's clearly-'off'. And it's ALSO absolutely clear that Simon really doesn't like him. Why?
Any number of scenarios come to mind as one tries to guess how the story will proceed. To it's credit, the story spun here does keep one guessing. Who is this Gordo? Why is he so (if vaguely) 'messed up'? Who is Simon? Why does he hate the guy so much? Who indeed is Robyn? Why did they have to leave Chicago? And if there were 'problems' why exactly did they 'stay together' (but also _move_ to L.A.)?
All in all, the film becomes an exploration of the phrase: "You may be done with the past, but the past may not be done with you." It becomes clear that all three seem to be fighting demons from the past. But what demons and why?
Altogether, it's not a badly spun tale ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
A Walk in the Woods [2015]
MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (L) ChicagoTribune (2 Stars) RogerEbert.com (2 1/2 Stars) AVClub (D) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (T. Robinson) review
A Walk in the Woods [2015] (directed by Ken Kwapis , screenplay by Rick Kerb and Bill Holderman based on the book [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Bill Bryson [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a quite fun film for us approaching "a certain age" that feels like a cross between the similarly themed comedy Last Vegas [2013] and Robert Redford's film of a few years back, All Is Lost [2013], which was certainly more direct and more somber in tone than the current film but had the same subtext in which a character, "no longer a spring chicken," had to face the realization that he was not going to be around for ever.
And so it is here, _previously_ successful travel writer author Bill Bryson [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] (played in the film by Robert Redford) finds himself realizing he's _becoming_ a living "has been" ;-).
In the first scene of the film, he's shown plugging "a box set" of his previously successful travel books on a local Boston area morning news/talk show, where the interviewer notes: "So you're here NOT plugging anything new..." The 'interviewer from hell' continues by reminding Bill that in his entire career (in that boxed set) he's written about traveling in Europe, Asia, etc but NEVER about traveling in the U.S. "So you're peddling a set of OLD books about TRAVEL to PLACES that most of your readers WILL NEVER SEE" ;-). "Yes, thank you very much (Mr. Interviewer from Hell), I'm peddling old books that will be irrelevant to most of my prospective readers." "Any new projects on the horizon?" "No, I've been basically retired now for a fair number of years. Spending time with my family has been my focus for some time now." "Okay, then (why are you here?) thank you very much Bill Bryson do please (not) come back..." ;-) or :-/
So then, is Bill's future basically just ... waiting to die? It turns out that passing behind Bill Bryson's nice New Hampshire home is the Appalachian Trail. And after mulling over this interview in which he was treated like a living corpse, he decides, at 60 or even 70, to try to hike it.
His age appropriate English wife, Catherine (played by Emma Thompson), who Bill met and married during above-mentioned "European days" years long past, is aghast. She quickly prints-out a whole series of news articles for him that she found on the internet about people dying, getting severely injured, frozen, murdered and even ATTACKED BY BEARS ... on the Appalachian Trail. And so she begs him, "at least DON'T go alone."
Okay, but who to ask? He picks up his Rolodex and calls every friend he has, and ... ALL SAY NO ;-). But he does get a call from a very old acquaintance, former (Iowa) hometown high school buddy of his, Stephen Katz (played by Nick Nolte), who he's _long discounted_ (and removed from his above mentioned "Rolodex of friends") who ... tells him that he heard from another acquaintance that he's looking for someone who'd go with him on this trip and ... well, he'd be willing to go. There was of course, "the matter of the $600" (!) that he still owed Bill, "from 20 years back" (! ;-). But if he'd be willing to let "bygones be bygones" and besides he _still_ "intends to pay him," he'd be happy go ;-).
Bill, again, not wanting to just wait-out his days for Death to arrive, and not wanting his wife to simply go crazy with worry, decides to accept Stephen's offer. And much, much ensues ... ;-)
I do love films like this, because even though Stephen's (character) is _exactly_ like one would imagine, HE IS _exactly_ like one would imagine him ;-). Yes, he definitely "has issues" but he's ALSO MORE than JUST "his issues." And ultimately both he and the previously far more successful Bill Bryson, are ... "walking the same path."
An awesome, fun and well spun tale ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (T. Robinson) review
A Walk in the Woods [2015] (directed by Ken Kwapis , screenplay by Rick Kerb and Bill Holderman based on the book [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Bill Bryson [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a quite fun film for us approaching "a certain age" that feels like a cross between the similarly themed comedy Last Vegas [2013] and Robert Redford's film of a few years back, All Is Lost [2013], which was certainly more direct and more somber in tone than the current film but had the same subtext in which a character, "no longer a spring chicken," had to face the realization that he was not going to be around for ever.
And so it is here, _previously_ successful travel writer author Bill Bryson [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] (played in the film by Robert Redford) finds himself realizing he's _becoming_ a living "has been" ;-).
In the first scene of the film, he's shown plugging "a box set" of his previously successful travel books on a local Boston area morning news/talk show, where the interviewer notes: "So you're here NOT plugging anything new..." The 'interviewer from hell' continues by reminding Bill that in his entire career (in that boxed set) he's written about traveling in Europe, Asia, etc but NEVER about traveling in the U.S. "So you're peddling a set of OLD books about TRAVEL to PLACES that most of your readers WILL NEVER SEE" ;-). "Yes, thank you very much (Mr. Interviewer from Hell), I'm peddling old books that will be irrelevant to most of my prospective readers." "Any new projects on the horizon?" "No, I've been basically retired now for a fair number of years. Spending time with my family has been my focus for some time now." "Okay, then (why are you here?) thank you very much Bill Bryson do please (not) come back..." ;-) or :-/
So then, is Bill's future basically just ... waiting to die? It turns out that passing behind Bill Bryson's nice New Hampshire home is the Appalachian Trail. And after mulling over this interview in which he was treated like a living corpse, he decides, at 60 or even 70, to try to hike it.
His age appropriate English wife, Catherine (played by Emma Thompson), who Bill met and married during above-mentioned "European days" years long past, is aghast. She quickly prints-out a whole series of news articles for him that she found on the internet about people dying, getting severely injured, frozen, murdered and even ATTACKED BY BEARS ... on the Appalachian Trail. And so she begs him, "at least DON'T go alone."
Okay, but who to ask? He picks up his Rolodex and calls every friend he has, and ... ALL SAY NO ;-). But he does get a call from a very old acquaintance, former (Iowa) hometown high school buddy of his, Stephen Katz (played by Nick Nolte), who he's _long discounted_ (and removed from his above mentioned "Rolodex of friends") who ... tells him that he heard from another acquaintance that he's looking for someone who'd go with him on this trip and ... well, he'd be willing to go. There was of course, "the matter of the $600" (!) that he still owed Bill, "from 20 years back" (! ;-). But if he'd be willing to let "bygones be bygones" and besides he _still_ "intends to pay him," he'd be happy go ;-).
Bill, again, not wanting to just wait-out his days for Death to arrive, and not wanting his wife to simply go crazy with worry, decides to accept Stephen's offer. And much, much ensues ... ;-)
I do love films like this, because even though Stephen's (character) is _exactly_ like one would imagine, HE IS _exactly_ like one would imagine him ;-). Yes, he definitely "has issues" but he's ALSO MORE than JUST "his issues." And ultimately both he and the previously far more successful Bill Bryson, are ... "walking the same path."
An awesome, fun and well spun tale ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
Friday, September 4, 2015
Un Gallo con Muchos Huevos [2015]
MPAA (PG-13) CPMx (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
FA.es listing*
Telemundo.com news / noticias*
Univision.com news / noticias*
Official Website / Sitio Oficial*
Austin Chronicle (M. Savlov) review
CinePremiere.com.mx (J. Chavarría) review*
El Universal (J. Mérida) review*
Excelsior.com () review*
Un Gallo con Muchos Huevos [2015][IMDb] [FA.es]* (written and directed by Gabriel Riva Palacio Alatriste [IMDb] [FA.es]*) is an high quality (available in 3D) Spanish language (English subtitled) children's oriented "screwball comedy" / animated film that comes from Mexico that tells the story of Toto (voiced by Bruno Bichir) a young rooster (a "gallito") who has to "step-up" to defend his farm in a (cock fighting...) ring or else the farm and all who/that he loves would be sold-off to pay-off the kindly but over-her-head widowed farmowner's (viejita's) debts.
Of course, initially Toto is not anywhere near up to the task. But with help of the other feathered (and shelled ;-) friends on the farm and its environs -- his coach becomes an orphaned bling wearing "duck egg" named Patín Patán (voiced by Omar Chaparro) -- he (mild spoiler alert) rises to the challenge, ;-)
Of course, there's a love interest, bespeckled Dí (voiced by Maite Perroni) whose father (voiced by ) was, "back in the day", the farm's champion rooster (hence someone that Toto needs to impress prior to "walking off into the sunset" with Dí).
There's also "temptation" namely, a peahen named "Chiquis" (voiced by Ninel Conde) who the kinder (but less exotic) Dí finds herself competing with: "Can't you see that she's 'genetically engineered'?" Dí exclaims to Toto at one point in frustration. But Chiquis' real beau is the regional champion rooster Bankivoide (voiced by Sergio Sendel) who Toto is setup by a ring of bald ;-) but strangely (painted on) goatied "mafia eggs" led by a Brando-like "padrino" egg of few but ever consequential words ;-).
Much, of course, ensues ... ;-) It's a remarkable work of, often frenetic, creativity ;-).
To be honest, some / many Anglo-American viewers may be put off, at least initially, by the film's central dramatic metaphor -- cock fighting presented here as the chicken/rooster equivalent to "boxing." But after about 10 minutes of feeling rather uncomfortable with it, I let it go. The roosters in the film wore "boxing gloves" as they went into the ring ;-). (Note that in the second Rio [2014] film, the (Brazilian) parrots played a kind of "soccer" / "football" ;-)
My favorite characters in the current film were the cool "rapping" ducks, including "Snoop Duck" as well as another really cool, almost zen-like "samurai" duck named Jean Claude van (guess ;-) and then a couple of "country bumpkin" possums who find themselves continually surprised by all the traffic, back and forth, between farm and city of farm animals that they themselves would "kinda want to eat" if only they would _just slow down_ for a little while ;-). "Who would have guessed that _chickens_ and even _eggs_ can move so fast!" one of the poor increasingly frustrated (and hungry) possums complains ;-)
Anyway, if one can get past / accept the cock-fighting metaphor, it's a pretty fun and certainly very creative 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
FA.es listing*
Telemundo.com news / noticias*
Univision.com news / noticias*
Official Website / Sitio Oficial*
Austin Chronicle (M. Savlov) review
CinePremiere.com.mx (J. Chavarría) review*
El Universal (J. Mérida) review*
Excelsior.com () review*
Un Gallo con Muchos Huevos [2015][IMDb] [FA.es]* (written and directed by Gabriel Riva Palacio Alatriste [IMDb] [FA.es]*) is an high quality (available in 3D) Spanish language (English subtitled) children's oriented "screwball comedy" / animated film that comes from Mexico that tells the story of Toto (voiced by Bruno Bichir) a young rooster (a "gallito") who has to "step-up" to defend his farm in a (cock fighting...) ring or else the farm and all who/that he loves would be sold-off to pay-off the kindly but over-her-head widowed farmowner's (viejita's) debts.
Of course, initially Toto is not anywhere near up to the task. But with help of the other feathered (and shelled ;-) friends on the farm and its environs -- his coach becomes an orphaned bling wearing "duck egg" named Patín Patán (voiced by Omar Chaparro) -- he (mild spoiler alert) rises to the challenge, ;-)
Of course, there's a love interest, bespeckled Dí (voiced by Maite Perroni) whose father (voiced by ) was, "back in the day", the farm's champion rooster (hence someone that Toto needs to impress prior to "walking off into the sunset" with Dí).
There's also "temptation" namely, a peahen named "Chiquis" (voiced by Ninel Conde) who the kinder (but less exotic) Dí finds herself competing with: "Can't you see that she's 'genetically engineered'?" Dí exclaims to Toto at one point in frustration. But Chiquis' real beau is the regional champion rooster Bankivoide (voiced by Sergio Sendel) who Toto is setup by a ring of bald ;-) but strangely (painted on) goatied "mafia eggs" led by a Brando-like "padrino" egg of few but ever consequential words ;-).
Much, of course, ensues ... ;-) It's a remarkable work of, often frenetic, creativity ;-).
To be honest, some / many Anglo-American viewers may be put off, at least initially, by the film's central dramatic metaphor -- cock fighting presented here as the chicken/rooster equivalent to "boxing." But after about 10 minutes of feeling rather uncomfortable with it, I let it go. The roosters in the film wore "boxing gloves" as they went into the ring ;-). (Note that in the second Rio [2014] film, the (Brazilian) parrots played a kind of "soccer" / "football" ;-)
My favorite characters in the current film were the cool "rapping" ducks, including "Snoop Duck" as well as another really cool, almost zen-like "samurai" duck named Jean Claude van (guess ;-) and then a couple of "country bumpkin" possums who find themselves continually surprised by all the traffic, back and forth, between farm and city of farm animals that they themselves would "kinda want to eat" if only they would _just slow down_ for a little while ;-). "Who would have guessed that _chickens_ and even _eggs_ can move so fast!" one of the poor increasingly frustrated (and hungry) possums complains ;-)
Anyway, if one can get past / accept the cock-fighting metaphor, it's a pretty fun and certainly very creative 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! :-) >>
Friday, August 28, 2015
War Room [2015]
MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
CFDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
War Room [2015] [IMDb] [CFDb] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Alex Kendrick [IMDb] [CFDb] along with Stephen Kendrick [IMDb] [CFDb]) is a Christian based family drama made by the same people who made Fireproof [2008] [IMDb] [CFDb] and Courageous [2011] [FrDatM] [IMDb] [CFDb].
To be honest, I found aspects of it quite disappointing. I do understand a fair number of difficulties faced by contemporary Christian film makers, beginning with the reality that even today 83% of the population in the United States would self-identify themselves as Christians. That would include a vast number of people (again, even in the United States alone) of a vast number of ages, races, ethnicities, backgrounds and experiences -- "After this I had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands." (Rev 7:9) -- So to make _any_ Christian film that would work for all / most of them would be a challenge (though not an impossible one, witness the general acclaim given to the History Channel's recent The Bible [2013] series / Son of God [2014] film, and to very nice / clever recent Christian films like The Song [2014] and even the current film makers' Courageous [2011])
Still I do believe that some of the particular choices made by the film-makers here needlessly pose obstacles (Acts 15:22ff) to a fair number otherwise Christians today.
The film is ostensibly about an African American couple, Tony (played by T.C. Stallings [IMDb] [CFDb]) and Elizabeth Jordan (played by Priscilla C. Shirer [IMDb] [CFDb]) who along with their cute as a button 10 y.o. daughter Danielle (played by Alena Pitts [IMDb] [CFDb]) are (at least on the surface) "living the [American] dream." They they have a big house in the suburbs with lots of stuff paid for by two high paying jobs -- his as a pharmaceutical salesman still paying 4x as much as hers as a real estate agent, but hers no longer insignificant either. They have all the things that they could ever want, but at the beginning of the story find themselves tired, distant and unhappy.
Great entre ... what could go wrong with the story? Well, the two, Tony and Elizabeth find themselves fighting a lot. Thus Elizabeth confesses to a new friend / client, an older woman, Miss Clara (played by Karen Abercrombie [IMDb] [CFDb]), also African American, that: "It's hard to submit to a man like that" (cf. Eph 5:21ff) Say what?
Now let's understand Miss Clara is presented as an old-time Christian grandmotherly figure. Perhaps even here _some_ may complain that her portrayal strays too close-for-comfort to the "Aunt Jemima" African American stereotype. However, I _don't_ have issue with her character because I'VE KNOWN a fair number of Miss Clara-like parishioners over the course of my life / ministry / work, as probably MANY Readers here.
However, I simply find Elizabeth's line using the word "submit" as NEEDLESSLY crossing a significant line from credibility to right-wing ideology that puts the credibility of the whole film in jeopardy. More than a few GOOD CHRISTIAN WOMEN will hear that line and say: "Ah huh," and KNOW EXACTLY THE INTENT OF THOSE WORDS (as an attempt to _re-impose_ a particular view of Christian marriage -- the Man on top, the Woman as his servant -- that has been roundly rejected and CERTAINLY QUALIFIED by Christian theologians of pretty much all stripes, let alone ROUNDLY REJECTED IN PRACTICE) and STOP LISTENING TO THE FILM RIGHT THEN AND THERE. And that _would be a shame_ because there are some very good points made in the story. BUT that's the NEEDLESSLY TENDENTIOUS / STUPID RISK taken by the film makers here.
Then there's an (initially) _odd_ focus on the mother, Elizabeth's, feet (!?) through much of the story: As a real estate agent, presumably standing on her feet a lot, in the Southern U.S., where presumably it's very hot, she (and her daughter) complain about her (Elizabeth's) feet, that they hurt and THEY SMELL. I can't imagine ANY WHITE ACTRESS OF ANY CALIBER FINDING IT ACCEPTABLE TO HAVE SO MUCH REFERENCE _TO HER FEET_ (and then HER FEET SMELLING (!!!)) as the African American actress playing Elizabeth's role had to accept in playing it.
NOW THERE'S A PURPOSE TO THE REFERENCES TO ELIZABETH'S ACHING (and unfortunately "smelly") FEET: Near the end of the movie, when Elizabeth's and Tony's relationship has improved, TONY has Elizabeth sit down on the couch one day after work, gives her an ice cream sundae that he prepared for her and then PROCEEDS TO WASH HER FEET / GIVE HER A FOOT MASSAGE. That scene's actually _a lovely interpretation_ of Jesus washing of the feet of his disciples in John's Gospel (John 13:1ff) something that we Catholic's remember each year on Holy Thursday (on the Feast of the Last Supper), the First Night of the Easter Triduum, the night before we commemorate Christ's Passion and Death on Good Friday. However was there REALLY NEED to focus on Elizabeth's feet "smelling" and, once again WOULD THERE BE A WHITE ACTRESS ANYWHERE WHO WOULD ACCEPT HER FEET BEING PRESENTED AS "SMELLING BAD"? I simply _can not_ imagine that ...
Finally (with regards to the negatives to the story) the WHOLE film is premised with the view of considering Prayer to be "combat." Miss Clara has converted a closet in her house into a prayer room, which she calls a "war room" and invites Elizabeth to do so as well. MY OBJECTION IS NOT IN CREATING A PRAYER SPACE LIKE THIS. Indeed, decades ago, Catherine De Hueck Doherty a contemporary of Dorothy Day had written a lovely spiritual book called Poustinia [Amzn] which proposed to readers to create a similar space called in Russian Orthodox tradition a "Poustinia" (or "Desert Room") which would be simple, free of distractions, where one could pray. EVEN CONCEDING (though NOT WITHOUT RESERVATIONS) the metaphor of "Prayer as Spiritual Combat" (cf. Psalm 149, Eph 6:10ff) a metaphor that let's face it IS VERY CLOSE to Islam's Jihad..., MY OBJECTION IS, WHY DID THIS SPACE _NEED TO BE_ "MILITARIZED"? If the RUSSIAN ORTHODOX can call _the same space_ a Desert Space (ALSO an apt metaphor for a prayer space, free of distractions [Mt 4:1ff]) why can't we...? Then the military introduction (imagery from Vietnam) "may not sell particularly well outside the U.S." as _some_ of the civilians being napalmed by U.S. forces at the time would have actually been Catholic (Vietnam and especially the South having been, next to the Philippines, the most Catholic / Christian country in Asia at the time ... and most of us would have to admit that it _wouldn't_ exactly be "better" to napalm Buddhist or Communist civilians either ...).
ALL THIS SAID ... wow, how could one recommend the movie after all that? ... I AM DOING EXACTLY THAT... RECOMMENDING THE MOVIE TO READERS HERE ANYWAY. I do call the Baptist film makers to task on the film's sexism, racism and militarism (I honestly do believe they can do better next time -- because I do believe that they are sincere and that they too would understand/appreciate that the Gospel is _not_ about male superiority, white superiority or American superiority ... it is about JESUS, something that the character of "Miss Clara" already points to and simply recalling in one's mind the image of a nice smiling Haitian or Jamaican Christian woman can drive home completely). HOWEVER THERE ARE SOME TRULY EXCELLENT POINTS portrayed in the film as well:
First, the FUNDAMENTAL ADVICE THAT MISS CLARA GIVES ELIZABETH IS GOOD. Now Readers do understand that there was no violence involved in Tony and Elizabeth's household. The two just didn't see each other a lot / argued a lot. Clara tells Elizabeth to not bother arguing with Tony anymore but JUST PRAY FOR HIM. (THAT'S NOT BAD ADVICE because generally arguments _don't_ resolve much). Then creating the prayer space (EMPTYING a CLOSET ... PREVIOUSLY "FULL OF STUFF") is actually AGAIN a very interesting and POWERFUL _resetting_ of priorities: One's "inner room" becomes a space for Jesus, and NOT for stuff (which become our idols ...).
Then Elizabeth and Tony's 10-y.o. daughter Danielle and her BFF Jennifer (played by Jadin Harris [IMDb] [CFDb]), white, were joys. One of the nastier things that Danielle's father, Tony, does in the film is to initially make fun of Danielle still wanting to be part of a "jump roping squad." He tells her that she's getting "too old for that sort of thing" and that she should really take basketball (a real sport) more seriously. BUT ... Danielle and Jennifer just loved "jumping rope" ;-). And later in the movie, as Tony does progressively change, HE discovers that he, an athlete still capable of doing backflips, etc, "kinda likes it too" ;-). THIS IS A GREAT COUNTER-ACTION to the PRESSURE that parents often put on kids to "perform" in "real sports." But what is sport FUNDAMENTALLY FOR? To HAVE FUN. ANYTHING MORE begins to become a kind of idolatry again.
SOOO ... despite the critical reservations I give above -- I consider them serious, I don't want to see them again -- I do think that there are some very nice things in this film that need to be underlined as well. And I do think that many / most adult Christians in the U.S. will understand.
So basically good job folks. Just lets keep the focus on JESUS and keep away from ideology that can pose needless obstacles to the sensibilities of our time. If the Apostles could learn to not put "unnecessary burdens" on the Greek converts of their time (Acts 15:22ff), so can we in ours.
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CFDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
War Room [2015] [IMDb] [CFDb] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Alex Kendrick [IMDb] [CFDb] along with Stephen Kendrick [IMDb] [CFDb]) is a Christian based family drama made by the same people who made Fireproof [2008] [IMDb] [CFDb] and Courageous [2011] [FrDatM] [IMDb] [CFDb].
To be honest, I found aspects of it quite disappointing. I do understand a fair number of difficulties faced by contemporary Christian film makers, beginning with the reality that even today 83% of the population in the United States would self-identify themselves as Christians. That would include a vast number of people (again, even in the United States alone) of a vast number of ages, races, ethnicities, backgrounds and experiences -- "After this I had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands." (Rev 7:9) -- So to make _any_ Christian film that would work for all / most of them would be a challenge (though not an impossible one, witness the general acclaim given to the History Channel's recent The Bible [2013] series / Son of God [2014] film, and to very nice / clever recent Christian films like The Song [2014] and even the current film makers' Courageous [2011])
Still I do believe that some of the particular choices made by the film-makers here needlessly pose obstacles (Acts 15:22ff) to a fair number otherwise Christians today.
The film is ostensibly about an African American couple, Tony (played by T.C. Stallings [IMDb] [CFDb]) and Elizabeth Jordan (played by Priscilla C. Shirer [IMDb] [CFDb]) who along with their cute as a button 10 y.o. daughter Danielle (played by Alena Pitts [IMDb] [CFDb]) are (at least on the surface) "living the [American] dream." They they have a big house in the suburbs with lots of stuff paid for by two high paying jobs -- his as a pharmaceutical salesman still paying 4x as much as hers as a real estate agent, but hers no longer insignificant either. They have all the things that they could ever want, but at the beginning of the story find themselves tired, distant and unhappy.
Great entre ... what could go wrong with the story? Well, the two, Tony and Elizabeth find themselves fighting a lot. Thus Elizabeth confesses to a new friend / client, an older woman, Miss Clara (played by Karen Abercrombie [IMDb] [CFDb]), also African American, that: "It's hard to submit to a man like that" (cf. Eph 5:21ff) Say what?
Now let's understand Miss Clara is presented as an old-time Christian grandmotherly figure. Perhaps even here _some_ may complain that her portrayal strays too close-for-comfort to the "Aunt Jemima" African American stereotype. However, I _don't_ have issue with her character because I'VE KNOWN a fair number of Miss Clara-like parishioners over the course of my life / ministry / work, as probably MANY Readers here.
However, I simply find Elizabeth's line using the word "submit" as NEEDLESSLY crossing a significant line from credibility to right-wing ideology that puts the credibility of the whole film in jeopardy. More than a few GOOD CHRISTIAN WOMEN will hear that line and say: "Ah huh," and KNOW EXACTLY THE INTENT OF THOSE WORDS (as an attempt to _re-impose_ a particular view of Christian marriage -- the Man on top, the Woman as his servant -- that has been roundly rejected and CERTAINLY QUALIFIED by Christian theologians of pretty much all stripes, let alone ROUNDLY REJECTED IN PRACTICE) and STOP LISTENING TO THE FILM RIGHT THEN AND THERE. And that _would be a shame_ because there are some very good points made in the story. BUT that's the NEEDLESSLY TENDENTIOUS / STUPID RISK taken by the film makers here.
Then there's an (initially) _odd_ focus on the mother, Elizabeth's, feet (!?) through much of the story: As a real estate agent, presumably standing on her feet a lot, in the Southern U.S., where presumably it's very hot, she (and her daughter) complain about her (Elizabeth's) feet, that they hurt and THEY SMELL. I can't imagine ANY WHITE ACTRESS OF ANY CALIBER FINDING IT ACCEPTABLE TO HAVE SO MUCH REFERENCE _TO HER FEET_ (and then HER FEET SMELLING (!!!)) as the African American actress playing Elizabeth's role had to accept in playing it.
NOW THERE'S A PURPOSE TO THE REFERENCES TO ELIZABETH'S ACHING (and unfortunately "smelly") FEET: Near the end of the movie, when Elizabeth's and Tony's relationship has improved, TONY has Elizabeth sit down on the couch one day after work, gives her an ice cream sundae that he prepared for her and then PROCEEDS TO WASH HER FEET / GIVE HER A FOOT MASSAGE. That scene's actually _a lovely interpretation_ of Jesus washing of the feet of his disciples in John's Gospel (John 13:1ff) something that we Catholic's remember each year on Holy Thursday (on the Feast of the Last Supper), the First Night of the Easter Triduum, the night before we commemorate Christ's Passion and Death on Good Friday. However was there REALLY NEED to focus on Elizabeth's feet "smelling" and, once again WOULD THERE BE A WHITE ACTRESS ANYWHERE WHO WOULD ACCEPT HER FEET BEING PRESENTED AS "SMELLING BAD"? I simply _can not_ imagine that ...
Finally (with regards to the negatives to the story) the WHOLE film is premised with the view of considering Prayer to be "combat." Miss Clara has converted a closet in her house into a prayer room, which she calls a "war room" and invites Elizabeth to do so as well. MY OBJECTION IS NOT IN CREATING A PRAYER SPACE LIKE THIS. Indeed, decades ago, Catherine De Hueck Doherty a contemporary of Dorothy Day had written a lovely spiritual book called Poustinia [Amzn] which proposed to readers to create a similar space called in Russian Orthodox tradition a "Poustinia" (or "Desert Room") which would be simple, free of distractions, where one could pray. EVEN CONCEDING (though NOT WITHOUT RESERVATIONS) the metaphor of "Prayer as Spiritual Combat" (cf. Psalm 149, Eph 6:10ff) a metaphor that let's face it IS VERY CLOSE to Islam's Jihad..., MY OBJECTION IS, WHY DID THIS SPACE _NEED TO BE_ "MILITARIZED"? If the RUSSIAN ORTHODOX can call _the same space_ a Desert Space (ALSO an apt metaphor for a prayer space, free of distractions [Mt 4:1ff]) why can't we...? Then the military introduction (imagery from Vietnam) "may not sell particularly well outside the U.S." as _some_ of the civilians being napalmed by U.S. forces at the time would have actually been Catholic (Vietnam and especially the South having been, next to the Philippines, the most Catholic / Christian country in Asia at the time ... and most of us would have to admit that it _wouldn't_ exactly be "better" to napalm Buddhist or Communist civilians either ...).
ALL THIS SAID ... wow, how could one recommend the movie after all that? ... I AM DOING EXACTLY THAT... RECOMMENDING THE MOVIE TO READERS HERE ANYWAY. I do call the Baptist film makers to task on the film's sexism, racism and militarism (I honestly do believe they can do better next time -- because I do believe that they are sincere and that they too would understand/appreciate that the Gospel is _not_ about male superiority, white superiority or American superiority ... it is about JESUS, something that the character of "Miss Clara" already points to and simply recalling in one's mind the image of a nice smiling Haitian or Jamaican Christian woman can drive home completely). HOWEVER THERE ARE SOME TRULY EXCELLENT POINTS portrayed in the film as well:
First, the FUNDAMENTAL ADVICE THAT MISS CLARA GIVES ELIZABETH IS GOOD. Now Readers do understand that there was no violence involved in Tony and Elizabeth's household. The two just didn't see each other a lot / argued a lot. Clara tells Elizabeth to not bother arguing with Tony anymore but JUST PRAY FOR HIM. (THAT'S NOT BAD ADVICE because generally arguments _don't_ resolve much). Then creating the prayer space (EMPTYING a CLOSET ... PREVIOUSLY "FULL OF STUFF") is actually AGAIN a very interesting and POWERFUL _resetting_ of priorities: One's "inner room" becomes a space for Jesus, and NOT for stuff (which become our idols ...).
Then Elizabeth and Tony's 10-y.o. daughter Danielle and her BFF Jennifer (played by Jadin Harris [IMDb] [CFDb]), white, were joys. One of the nastier things that Danielle's father, Tony, does in the film is to initially make fun of Danielle still wanting to be part of a "jump roping squad." He tells her that she's getting "too old for that sort of thing" and that she should really take basketball (a real sport) more seriously. BUT ... Danielle and Jennifer just loved "jumping rope" ;-). And later in the movie, as Tony does progressively change, HE discovers that he, an athlete still capable of doing backflips, etc, "kinda likes it too" ;-). THIS IS A GREAT COUNTER-ACTION to the PRESSURE that parents often put on kids to "perform" in "real sports." But what is sport FUNDAMENTALLY FOR? To HAVE FUN. ANYTHING MORE begins to become a kind of idolatry again.
SOOO ... despite the critical reservations I give above -- I consider them serious, I don't want to see them again -- I do think that there are some very nice things in this film that need to be underlined as well. And I do think that many / most adult Christians in the U.S. will understand.
So basically good job folks. Just lets keep the focus on JESUS and keep away from ideology that can pose needless obstacles to the sensibilities of our time. If the Apostles could learn to not put "unnecessary burdens" on the Greek converts of their time (Acts 15:22ff), so can we in ours.
<< 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! :-) >>
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Digging for Fire [2015]
MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB () ChicagoTribune (2 Stars) RogerEbert.com (3 Stars) AVClub (C+) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review
Digging for Fire [2015] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Joe Swanberg along with Jake Johnson) is an initially rather slow-moving (but ultimately quite thought provoking) summer indie about a 30-something couple "in a rut" a few years after having their (first) child together. He, Tim (played by Jake Johnson) is a Los Angeles area public school teacher. She, Lee (played by Rosemary DeWitt) is a yoga instructor and together they have a three year old boy named Jude (played by the director's 3 y/o son Jude Swanberg) who's now old enough to go to preschool.
That preschool becomes actually an occasion to disagree, even fight, and exposes a few other dynamics going on: Even if Tim and Lee probably had grown up in roughly the same economic class (lower middle to middle middle), Lee's mother (played by Judith Light) after apparently divorcing Lee's father, re-married significantly up (Lee's mother's second husband played by Sam Elliott). So Lee's mother and second husband want to put their 3 y/o grandson Jude into a $10,000/yr preschool -- "some studies now say that choice of PRESCHOOL is more important than choice of COLLEGE in determining future 'success' ..." -- something that Tim and Lee self-evidently CAN'T AFFORD (and Tim, a _public school teacher_ after all considers something of a betrayal). BUT "no matter" Lee's mother / second husband "have offered to pay" ...
As a yoga instructor in L.A., Lee also has opportunity to enter socioeconomic circles that Tim (did I mention he's a public school teacher?) generally does not. SOOO... the film plays out LARGELY at the lovely "Laural Canyon" home (complete with a lovely pool) of a couple of Lee's yoga clients, who apparently trust her enough to let her and her family (husband Tim and 3 y/o Jude) "house-sit" for them while _they_ go on vacation.
So Tim, Lee and 3 y/o Jude go up there, putz around for a while, ARGUE a bit, and Lee decides that she'd just prefer to leave Tim up there (in the swanky house that she's taken him) and go down with her 3 y/o to see her parents / friends for the weekend. Tim is nominally left "to do their (presumably back) taxes." Perhaps the taxes of Lee, as a presumably small studio operating and certainly partly freelancing yoga instructor, would be somewhat complicated, but MOST OF US would probably suspect that Tim's taxes could be quite simply knocked-off using a 1040-EZ form ...
So what does 30 something Tim do? He calls a bunch of friends -- Phil, Ray and Billy T (played by Mike Birbiglia, Sam Rockwell and Chris Messina respectively). One or another calls up a couple of girls, Max and Alicia (played by Brie Larsen and Anna Kendrick), and soon they're having a party.
Lee in contrast spends her first night down with her mother, where she's reminded of all the things that she never had (but now is supposed to appreciate/strive for, since her mother remarried rich) and is lectured again on "how important" it is to put her kid "in the best PRESCHOOL (!) possible" (which mom and stepdad would "happily bankroll" "if only she would let them...").
After a night of mom, she goes to see her sister and her husband (sister played by Melanie Lynskey) who're happy to have her over (for a couple of hours), but they too seem to be living "better off" than Lee / Tim and are also about to go off on vacation somewhere, so ... "It's great seeing you sis, but we've got to keep this short ..." "But I was hoping we, two, could perhaps even go out tonight." "I'd love to but we're packing / going ... and besides ... you can actually go on your own."
So Lee, 30 something, married, with a kid (left at grandma's), finds herself going to a bar, Saturday night, on her own ...
So, of course, both Tim and Lee find themselves "with opportunity" to ... cheat. The rest of the movie follows.
Well, do they? I'm not going to tell you. But it's not necessarily a bad movie for couples BOTH BEFORE and AFTER GETTING MARRIED who may not be "the richest people they know." It's a conversation worth having: "How are we going to approach things when we find that mom, dad, friends, may have significantly more money / stuff than we have?"
It's NOT, NOT, NOT (did I say, NOT?) the "end of the world," and there will ALWAYS be SOMEONE with more fun, stuff, experiences than we have. But in a competitive / consumerist world, it makes for a thought provoking film nonetheless.
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review
Digging for Fire [2015] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Joe Swanberg along with Jake Johnson) is an initially rather slow-moving (but ultimately quite thought provoking) summer indie about a 30-something couple "in a rut" a few years after having their (first) child together. He, Tim (played by Jake Johnson) is a Los Angeles area public school teacher. She, Lee (played by Rosemary DeWitt) is a yoga instructor and together they have a three year old boy named Jude (played by the director's 3 y/o son Jude Swanberg) who's now old enough to go to preschool.
That preschool becomes actually an occasion to disagree, even fight, and exposes a few other dynamics going on: Even if Tim and Lee probably had grown up in roughly the same economic class (lower middle to middle middle), Lee's mother (played by Judith Light) after apparently divorcing Lee's father, re-married significantly up (Lee's mother's second husband played by Sam Elliott). So Lee's mother and second husband want to put their 3 y/o grandson Jude into a $10,000/yr preschool -- "some studies now say that choice of PRESCHOOL is more important than choice of COLLEGE in determining future 'success' ..." -- something that Tim and Lee self-evidently CAN'T AFFORD (and Tim, a _public school teacher_ after all considers something of a betrayal). BUT "no matter" Lee's mother / second husband "have offered to pay" ...
As a yoga instructor in L.A., Lee also has opportunity to enter socioeconomic circles that Tim (did I mention he's a public school teacher?) generally does not. SOOO... the film plays out LARGELY at the lovely "Laural Canyon" home (complete with a lovely pool) of a couple of Lee's yoga clients, who apparently trust her enough to let her and her family (husband Tim and 3 y/o Jude) "house-sit" for them while _they_ go on vacation.
So Tim, Lee and 3 y/o Jude go up there, putz around for a while, ARGUE a bit, and Lee decides that she'd just prefer to leave Tim up there (in the swanky house that she's taken him) and go down with her 3 y/o to see her parents / friends for the weekend. Tim is nominally left "to do their (presumably back) taxes." Perhaps the taxes of Lee, as a presumably small studio operating and certainly partly freelancing yoga instructor, would be somewhat complicated, but MOST OF US would probably suspect that Tim's taxes could be quite simply knocked-off using a 1040-EZ form ...
So what does 30 something Tim do? He calls a bunch of friends -- Phil, Ray and Billy T (played by Mike Birbiglia, Sam Rockwell and Chris Messina respectively). One or another calls up a couple of girls, Max and Alicia (played by Brie Larsen and Anna Kendrick), and soon they're having a party.
Lee in contrast spends her first night down with her mother, where she's reminded of all the things that she never had (but now is supposed to appreciate/strive for, since her mother remarried rich) and is lectured again on "how important" it is to put her kid "in the best PRESCHOOL (!) possible" (which mom and stepdad would "happily bankroll" "if only she would let them...").
After a night of mom, she goes to see her sister and her husband (sister played by Melanie Lynskey) who're happy to have her over (for a couple of hours), but they too seem to be living "better off" than Lee / Tim and are also about to go off on vacation somewhere, so ... "It's great seeing you sis, but we've got to keep this short ..." "But I was hoping we, two, could perhaps even go out tonight." "I'd love to but we're packing / going ... and besides ... you can actually go on your own."
So Lee, 30 something, married, with a kid (left at grandma's), finds herself going to a bar, Saturday night, on her own ...
So, of course, both Tim and Lee find themselves "with opportunity" to ... cheat. The rest of the movie follows.
Well, do they? I'm not going to tell you. But it's not necessarily a bad movie for couples BOTH BEFORE and AFTER GETTING MARRIED who may not be "the richest people they know." It's a conversation worth having: "How are we going to approach things when we find that mom, dad, friends, may have significantly more money / stuff than we have?"
It's NOT, NOT, NOT (did I say, NOT?) the "end of the world," and there will ALWAYS be SOMEONE with more fun, stuff, experiences than we have. But in a competitive / consumerist world, it makes for a thought provoking film nonetheless.
<< 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! :-) >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)