The Abandoned [2015]

MPAA (R)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing

Best-Horror-Movies.com (M. Klug) review

The Abandoned [2015] (directed by Eytan Rockaway [wikip] [IMDb], screenplay by Ido Fluk [IMDb]) is an excellent small well-constructed indie horror film of the Twilight Zone [1959-1964] [wikip] [IMDb] vein that played recently at the 2015 (51st Annual) Chicago International Film Festival.

We're introduced to Streak (played by Louisa Krause) a woman in her early 20s talking to her mother on the cell-phone as she walks down a rather empty "concrete and steel" urban district on a grey (overcast) late afternoon to a "job interview" for a "security job" in one of said "concrete and steel" grey buildings.  She's not particularly excited about the job, but her mother reminds her that she needs to get this job or child services will come to take her, Streak's little girl, Clara, away.

Now being a security guard does not necessarily require a particularly large skill set, but it's DEFINITELY NOT for everybody, and it becomes rather quickly clear that Streak may not be necessarily the best candidate for that job.  There's clearly a reason why "child services" is threatening to take her kid away, and when at the first sign of creepiness while walking, flashlight in hand, through a big, dark and largely abandoned building, she starts reaching for her "anti-anxiety meds," one gets the message.  But there she is, SHE NEEDS A JOB.

Her presumed future boss is clearly not picky.  He's there long enough to (1) give her "a whistle and a flashlight" (okay, also a uniform and presumably a taser); (2) introduce her to her soon-to-be partner, Cooper (played by Jason Patric), who's been working there long enough to quickly tell her that SHE'S going to be "doing the walk arounds" while HE "holds fort, 'manning' the screens;" and (3) tell her _something_ of the large building that she and "Cooper" would be protecting each evening.  That building was clearly once intended to be opulent, but, alas, thanks to the 2008 Financial Crash, was now "still born" / "on life support" UNFINISHED, BARRICADED / CLOSED, EMPTY and yet, still around because its owners (represented by the "boss" referred to above) were not entirely sure about what to do next.

Oh yes, and those clouds casting a late afternoon pall over the city as Streak was walking to her interview / new job, were coalescing into a storm.  So it LITERALLY becomes a "dark and stormy night ..." ;-)

Okay, we're given a very good, indeed, quite classic "scary story" set up.  And it could go all sorts of ways from there, from Steven King's The Shining [wikip 1] [2] [IMDb], to Quentin Tarantino's From Dusk to Dawn [wikip] [IMDb], to a less "monster-y" more "psychological thriller-like" Twilight Zone [1959-1964] [wikip] [IMDb] direction.  The path chosen by the film makers here was the latter and the film's a reminder that a lot of great special effects are not necessary to make a movie that can make one's skin crawl.  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! :-) >>

Bridge of Spies [2015]

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

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


Bridge of Spies [2015] (directed by Steven Spielberg [Wikip] [IMDb], screenplay by Matt Chapman [IMDb] and Ethan and Joel Coen [wikip] [IMDb [1] [2]) may not set out to tell the best known of Cold War stories, but it certainly tells it well as a poignant multi-leveled parable with obvious resonances with today.

The film's also a reminder that spies need not be flashy (Ian Fleming's James Bond), tough (Liam Neeson's Bryan Mills) or even super-smart (Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan).  An excellent spy can simply be "all but invisible."

So it was then with Rudolf Abel (played in the film by Mark Rylance).  Born in 1903 in England of anti-Czarist Russian emigré parents, he returned to Soviet Russia after the Revolution in 1920 bearing an invaluable set of skills -- he knew the customs of Britain / the West and spoke perfect English.  So it was perhaps inevitable that he would be recruited into the Soviet spy services (in their various incarnations).  And shortly after WW II, he was sent with a mundane British / American cover as a quite innocuous small time "photographer / artist" to Brooklyn, NY to _manage_ the Soviet nuclear spy ring in the U.S. that extended from the Soviet diplomatic missions in Washington and New York to LOS ALAMOS (the Rosenbergs, etc).  The small time "photographer / artist" cover allowed him to hold odd hours and even leave New York for fairly extended periods of time without arousing suspicion.  In terms of income, his Brooklyn living quarters were very modest (very simple / "bohemian"...), and he lived in good part on a small stipend that he received from the Soviet government.  This was a guy who honestly _no one would notice_ unless _told_ by someone to _notice him_.

Yet, eventually the FBI was informed to take note of him, and so in the beginning sequence of the film here, we're shown how this utterly innocuous man was apprehended as a "Master Spy" / "ring leader."

Great, we got him.  What now?  This was the 1950s.  The Rosenbergs (American citizens) were given the chair for their betraying the country and _giving the Soviets_ America's Manhattan Project earned nuclear secrets (putting the U.S. into previously unfathomable danger of nuclear annihilation) .

Rudolf Abel however was different.  He _wasn't_ an American citizen.  Yes, he was a spy, but he was a SOVIET spy, who DIDN'T betray his country.  Instead, as a _kind of soldier_ he did what _his country_ had sent him to do ... to spy on us.  As such, he was afforded some pragmatic sympathy by this country, or at least by our nation's "powers that be."

First, he was given a proper trial with a quite reasonably good defense.  The defense lawyer that he was given was James B. Donovan (played magnificently in the film by Tom Hanks).  Not only was Donovan an A-list lawyer, the Soviets would have known him as he served as part of the U.S. Prosecuting team at Nuremburg.

Of course, Abel was found guilty.  After all, he was a spy.  However, pointedly he was _not_ given the chair (as the Rosenbergs had).   Again, the U.S. government _chose_ to make a distinction between him and the Rosenbergs (according to the film at Donovan's own suggestion).  The Rosenbergs were traitors, while Abel was arguably "a soldier" and hence the U.S. government chose to look at him as a kind of "a prisoner or war" / "an insurance policy" to keep in hand in case an American spy would someday be captured by the Soviets.

That proved to be a very smart move as only a few years later U.S. U-2 pilot Gary Powers (played in the film by Austin Stowell) was shot down over the Soviet Union and subsequently captured.

This set up then the rest of the story portrayed in the film, where James B. Donovan was sent by the U.S. government "as a private citizen" to Berlin (even as the world was reeling from the recent construction by the Soviets / East Germans of the Berlin Wall) to negotiate a prisoner swap of Abel for Powers.  Of course no one trusted each other and even the relatively "lowly" East German Government proved to have its own agenda.  But Donovan who had experience in not just trial law, but commercial (insurance) law proved to be able to "get the job done" and indeed more. 

It all proved to be one fascinating story, and one can remind us of the value of having some pragmatism as we seek to confront / manage the various foreign policy challenges of our day.

A VERY GOOD FILM, made by ARGUABLY AMERICA'S HOLLYWOOD "A-TEAM" (Spielberg, the Coen Brothers and Tom Hanks...) and would probably offer a very interesting message for those who would have "eyes to see and ears to hear ..."


* 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! :-) >>

Goosebumps [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (G.Kenny) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


I have to admit that I went quite skeptically to Goosebumps [2015] (directed by Rob Letterman [wikip] [IMDb], screenplay by Daren Lemke [IMDb], screen story by Scott Alexander [IMDb] and Larry Karaszewski [IMDb] based on the wildly popular children's books [GR] [Amzn] of R.L. Stein [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]).

And the first 10-15 minutes which setup the film were NOT great:

Teenager Zach (played by Dylan Minnette) and his mom, Gale (played by Amy Ryan) move back to Gale's small hometown back in Delaware (from NYC...) a year after her husband's / Zach's dad's death.  Zach, pulled out from his high school to a new one, has to make new friends in a new, "quainter" environment.  It turns out that there's a teenage girl named Hannah (played by Odeya Rush), who lives next door, 'cept he's still not gonna know anyone when he starts school there (in the middle of the school year) 'cause she's being "home schooled." 

Things IMHO got decidedly creepier when it becomes clear she's being homeschooled by her rather intense / "off" dad (played by Jack Black), (where's her mom?) who he seems to spend a lot of time "protecting her" by yelling at her and whoever (by chance) would come close her (like Zach).

Once when the yelling coming from Hannah / her dad's house seems particularly bad, Zach even calls the police.  When the two Mayberry-like cops do show up, this sets up (for me) the most problematic line in the whole film:  Hannah's dad, explains to the two rather clueless cops responding to the call that he was simply playing a tape quite loudly on his sound-system, and asks them: "Are you here to harass me simply because I'm an audiophile?"  Yes, one of the cops hears pedophile and tries to arrest him but she's stopped by the other cop who heard him "correctly."  STILL I FOUND THIS EXCHANGE UNBELIEVABLY CREEPY ... and CERTAINLY NOT WORTH any "joke" to be found there...

HOWEVER, that STUPID / PROFOUNDLY CREEPY (!) EXCHANGE aside ... the story SOON DID GET MUCH BETTER ...

It turns out that Hannah's dad is R.L. Stein or perhaps "R.L. Stein" (a fictionalized version of himself) who, like the actual R.L. Stein [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb], was a wildly successful "children's scary book writer."

Stein explains to Zach as well as Zach's nerdy tag-along friend named "Champ" (played by Ryan Lee) who Zach's made in these first few days at his new high school, that when he (Stein) was young, he himself was very, very nerdy, and eventually closed in on himself and started to write, BUT he got to be SUCH A GOOD WRITER that the MONSTERS that he created STARTED TO BECOME "REAL" ... So he had to keep them, these "Demons" of his, "under lock and key" (locked inside his books).

Well, Stein's introversion "issues" begin to explain why Stein had no wife (and why Hannah had no mother ...) and perhaps even his behavior towards Hannah his daughter.  He really was closed in on himself, even if apparently quite successful as a writer.  (I still found all this worrisome, but at least it began to be understandable now ...).

BUT as one STARTS TO "understand" the dad, a new problem occurs:

Some of his "demons" / "monsters" that have been "locked-up in his books," are accidently "set free" by the inadvertent actions of Zach and his friend.  SO ... soon the entire previously "sleepy little town" is being assaulted by a truly _remarkably diverse_ set of monsters (coming from R.L. Stein's books), led by an truly inspired and now _goofily_ creepy / evil ventriloquist's dummy named "Slappy" (voiced again by Jack Black).  Honestly, "SLAPPY" "STEALS" THE FILM and one REALLY wants to ... ;-).

Anyway, much ensues as Zach, Hannah, "Champ" and Hannah's dad try to round-up and put all those "monsters" / "demons" back into their books.  Much of this is indeed very funny / quite inspired.

There is however a creepiness in the film's first 15 minutes that's hard to let go of.  I did, finally, and did enjoy much of the film.  But is it an excuse for domestic violence, or ... even worse?  I do hope not, but I do raise the question ...   


<< 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! :-) >>

Daughter (orig. Dukhtar) [2014]

MPAA (UR would be R)   Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing

The Hollywood Reporter (D. Young) review
Variety (J. Weissberg) review

Daughter (orig. Dukhtar) [2014] (written and directed by Afia Nathaniel [wikip] [IMDb]) was Pakistan's official entry for Best Foreign Language Film to the 2014 (87th Academy) Academy Awards.  The film played recently at the 2015 (6th Annual) Chicago South Asian Film Festival.

Beautifully shot and set largely in the Federally Administered Tribal Region of Pakistan, it tells the story of a Pakistani mother Allah Rakhi (played by Samiya Mumtaz [wikip] [IMDb]) seeking to protect her 10 year old daughter Zainab (played by Saleha Aref [IMDb]) from being married-off by her husband / tribal leader Daulat Khan (played by Asif Khan [IMDb]) as an "alliance building / peace offering" to a rival tribal leader Tor Gul (played by Abdullah Jan [IMDb]). 

Allah Rakhi herself, though raised already in Lahore (Pakistan's second largest city) had been married-off at 15 by her (perhaps first generation city-residing) family to the much older Khan and _didn't want_ her daughter to suffer the same fate. 

To be totally fair, even Khan wasn't exactly happy with Gul's offer -- "peace" / a tribal alliance in exchange for your 10 year old daughter -- BUT ... "What's a tribal leader to do?"  Many people of both Khan's / Gul's clans "stood to die" if "peace" was not (re)established between them.

If this all sounds like both a Greek tragedy (think honestly of Iphigenia ...) and positively medieval (where kings, sultans and emperors married off their daughters all the time to make peace with one or another rival king, sultan or emperor...), well THAT'S THE FILM'S POINT (!).

Angry that she herself never saw her own mother after being married off to Khan, Allah Rakhi (whose name means "Allah protects") packs up her daughter and makes a run for it from the Tribal Region toward Lahore, in hopes of first finding and then being (again she hopes...) protected by her family there.  On the way, she receives the help of a sympathetic truck driver Sohail (played by Mohib Mirza [wikip] [IMDb]).  Much of course ensues in this very simple yet profoundly personalist thriller ...

Excellent and again BEAUTIFULLY SHOT 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! :-) >>

Labyrinth of Lies (orig. Im Labyrinth des Schweigens) [2014]

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

IMDb listing
Film-Zeit.de listing*

Der Spiegel (K. Heinrich) review*
Die Zeit  (L. Greven) review*
Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung (A. Haneke) review / coverage*

Hollywood Reporter (B. von Hoeij) review
Slant Magazine (O. Ivanov) review  
Variety (J. Leydon) review

Chicago Tribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (B. Mercer) review

Labyrinth of Lies (orig. Im Labyrinth des Schweigens) [2014] [IMDb] [FZ.de]* (directed by Giulio Ricciarelli [IMDb] [FZ.de]*, screenplay by Elisabeth Bartel [IMDb] [FZ.de]* and Giulio Ricciarelli [IMDb] [FZ.de]*, screen story by Elisabeth Bartel [IMDb] [FZ.de]*, with collaboration by Amelie Syberberg [IMDb]) is Germany's submission for Best Foreign Language Film to the 2015 (88th Annual) Academy Awards.

It tells the story of the 1963 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials [en.wikip] (Die Auschwitzprozesse) [de.wikip].*

Today it would seem _hard to believe_ that people ANYWHERE (both inside / outside of Germany/Austria) would not know of the horrors that took place in Auschwitz during World War II.  Yet in the late 1950s, West Germany -- SO HAPPY even TRULY SURPRISED that it was getting back on its feet (with assistance of its former enemies on the West) and SO GRATEFUL that it was NOT being _crushingly punished_ by them (as it had been, perhaps then unfairly, after World War I) -- was TRYING REALLY HARD to put "the Past" behind it.  So in W. Germany "the young" really didn't know what their dads and grand-dads did "during the War," and "the old" (said dads / grand dads) REALLY DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT.

Yet, even as West Germany was trying, desperately, to become "a normal country" HOW DOES ONE DO THAT WITHOUT CONFRONTING SAID PAST?  That is then what this film is about.

A seemingly random incident in 1958 sets the story in motion:  Simon Kirsch (played by Johannes Krisch [IMDb] [FZ.de]*), lifelong Frankfurt residing (except when he, Jewish, was deported with all his family to Auschwitz...) artist, one fine day, ran into a high school teacher who he immediately recognized as Alois Schultz (played by Hartmut Volle [IMDb]), a former SS-guard.  Herr Schultz was doing, there on the play ground, what he had been doing in Auschwitz, dividing his charges (now a class of somewhat bored eye-rolling teenagers... instead of ...) into ... groups.  Disturbed by what he inadvertently had seen, Simon tells the story to a 30-something crusading journalist Thomas Gnielka [de.wikip]* (played in the film by André Szymanski [IMDb] [FZ.de]*) who writes a scathing article about it: How is it that 13 years after the War, a former Waffen SS-man was TEACHING at a GERMAN PUBLIC SCHOOL?  This was against the post-War Germany's Denazification Laws, wasn't it?

Well, when Gnielka, his crisp/scathing article in hand, goes over to Frankfurt's Prosecutor's office demanding that something be done, he's ridiculed: "Oh, you found a former two-bit Nazi working in a two-bit public service job, AND ..."

But he does catch the attention of a young junior prosecutor (fictionalized) named Johann Radmann (played by Alexander Fehling [IMDb] [FZ.de]*), who tired of being assigned to "traffic court" cases, decides to check Kirsch / Gnielka's story out.  It wasn't easy.  Frankfurt's archives didn't seem to have a lot of Nazi Era files ... and he's directed to "go to the Americans."

When he gets there, presumably the giant Rhine-Main Airbase outside of town, U.S. Military Archivist Major Parker (played by Tim Williams [IMDb]) laughs at him as well: "Oh, you're looking for a Nazi.  You were ALL NAZIS.  Then after the War NONE OF YOU WERE NAZIS.  And now IN THE EAST, YOU'RE ALL COMMUNISTS.  Just let it go, and pretend like everybody else here that you're now a DEMOCRAT and you'll make everybody happy ..."  "But we weren't ALL Nazis" "Oh, yes you were, EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU." "My DAD WASN'T A NAZI." "If that's what you believe, fine, suit yourself, but you _really were_ ALL NAZIS.  But, okay, what is it that you want?   Ah yes, what specific Nazi do you want to look up...?"

Well young, driven, still quite naive Johann Radmann looks up his Nazi, Alois Schultz, and finds, that yes, the story checks out.  He really was part of the Waffen SS and he really spent time as a guard at a camp called Auschwitz.

Now at the time AUSCHWITZ rang no bell for him.  Indeed, he was reminded by one of his 50 y/o superiors at the Frankfurt Prosecutor's Office that he himself, after "distinguishing himself in the U-boat fleet" during the War "spent a year after the War in a French concentration camp" before being sent back to Germany, adding dismissively, "Don't tell my wife this, but the food there was better than hers ..."  Indeed, Radmann's (sainted "non-Nazi") dad was "15 years missing from the Russian Front" and would have PRESUMABLY BEEN AT LEAST INITIALLY HELD in some Soviet concentration camp (gulag...) as well.

So ... Auschwitz, what's in a name? ... Well Radmann soon finds out.  Why?  Well DESPITE THE SARCASM and LACK OF SUPPORT on the part of all kinds of his colleagues and minor superiors, he catches the eye of Frankfurt's Attorney General / Chief Prosecutor Fritz Bauer [en.wikip] [de.wikip]* (played in the film by Gert Voss [IMDb]) who, perhaps since Radmann was so young (and hence "clean"), saw him as someone who could pursue the case.

The German reviews that I cite above note that though Radmann was fictionalized, THE REAL  Fritz Bauer [en.wikip] [de.wikip]* REALLY DID ENLIST YOUNG PROSECUTORS -- perhaps in Capone Era Eliot Ness / "Untouchables" [wikip] [IMDb] fashion -- to pursue this case that expanded into the 1960s era Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials [en.wikip] (Die Auschwitzprozesse) [de.wikip].*

Much ensued ... including a sizable side-plot of trying to capture / bring to trial Joseph Mengele, who did, in fact, get away.  But a lot of the "smaller fish" did not.  And this changed forever the way Germans came to understand the war. 

So then ... had the Germans ALL been Nazis as the American major told the young Johann Radmann at the beginning of his journey into his country's Nazi past?  Folks, this is a remarkable film and ONE THAT GERMANY OF TODAY CAN HONESTLY BE PROUD OF.   Honestly, this is one heck of a film.


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

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

Ladrones [2015]

MPAA (PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IDDb listing
FA.es listing*

Telemundo.com artículo*
Univision.com artículo
Vivelohoy.com artículo*

Variety (A.M. de la Fuente) article

Austin Chronicle (M. Baumgarten) review


Ladrones [2015] [IMDb] [FA.es]* (directed by Joe Menendez [Wikip] [IMDb] [FA.es]*, screenplay by Jon Molerio [IMDb]) is a (North) American-made completely bilingual (mostly in Spanish but fully subtitled in both English / Spanish) Oceans-11 / Robin Hood / Zorro-like sequel to the similar caper-comedy Ladrón que roba otro Ladrón [2007].

Former conman turned polite / sneaky avenger Alejandro Toledo (played by Fernando Colunga [IMDb] [FA.es]*) is asked by a long suffering Tejana mother-daughter pair, Josefa and Jackie Rodriguez (played by Carmen Beato [IMDb] [FA.es]* and Cristina Rodlo [IMDb] [FA.es]* respectively), to help them recover the recently discovered deed to their family's long-lost Texas "ranchito" which was quickly stolen back by the henchman Rex (played by Frank Perozo [IMDb] [FA.es]*) of the Evil "gringa heiress" Miranda Kilroy (played by Jessica Lindsey [IMDb] [FA.es]*) whose family had stolen the Rodriguez family's ranchito along with those of the other Mexican families' nearby after Texas had become part of the United States following first the Texas War for Independence and then the Mexican American War.

Under terms of the peace that following that decade of chaos, the new (North) American administration of Texas was willing to recognize the land titles of the previous Mexican administration, ASSUMING THAT THE ORIGINAL TITLES COULD BE PRODUCED.  The Rodriguez' great-great-great grandfather had tried to protect their land title along with those of the other Mexican rancheros by burying the deeds secretly in a box _somewhere_ on their land.  However, during the ensuing land dispute, he was shot by the Kilroy family's patriarch, so the location of the original deeds died with him.

Fast forward to the present day... 40-y/o widowed Josefa Rodriguez, a gardener, accidentally found the box with the original deeds, while randomly planting something quite random on her family's since very diminished property.  The discovery of the old deeds called into question the Kilroy family's ownership of all its lands in the area, hence why they sent their trusted "Evil henchman" Rex "to fetch" (steal back) the deeds in question.  And he quickly succeeds in retrieving the inconvenient deeds, which Miranda inexplicably RATHER THAN JUST BURNING THEM ... placed under "under lock and key" in her Bond Villain-lite worthy Penthouse suite at the top of her family's swanky beachfront hotel on "North Padre Island" on the Texas coast.

Hearing of Alejandro Toledo's Robin Hood / Zorro like exploits "on Univision" ;-),  the Rodriguez' turn to him to recover their deed ... and the rest of the story ensues ...

It is a generally quite funny movie:  A fair number of the characters are well drawn.  Toledo tries first to hook-up with his former partner, Emilio Sánchez (played by Miguel Veroni [IMDb] [FA.es]*), from the first movie.  But Sánchez is now working for the FBI, so he can't do this kind of work anymore.  BUT he _refers him_ to "someone who can" ;-) a Santiago Guzman (played by Eduardo Yáñez [IMDb] [FA.es]*).  But Santiago's now married and also doesn't want to take on more than a "consulting job" in this matter.

So what to do?  So Toledo and Guzman hold a Three Amigos [1986]-like "audition" in Rodriguez' hometown to see who they could recruit in organizing their planned Oceans 11 [2001] like heist to steal the deeds back from the "Evil Gringa Miranda" (who actually comports herself quite "normally" enjoying her yoga, her view from her beachside penthouse, etc, etc.  It's good to be "on top of the heap" ;-).

Among the people they recruit was a hairdresser named Magda (played by Michelle González [IMDb]) who could predict the weather by the "frizziness" of her hair, a espiritista named Mirabel (played by Evelyna Rodriguez [IMDb] [FA.es]*) and a heart-of-gold but awful Cuban immigrant "method actor" named Miguelito (played by Oscar Torre [IMDb] [FA.es]*).  And then Jackie's heart-throb but dumb-as-a-doornail boyfriend / novio Ray (played by Vadhir Derbez [IMDb] [FA.es]*) really wants "to help" as well.  The story plays out from there ...

Again, it's a generally funny film, and ... can you guess "who wins"?  ;-)


* 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! :-) >> 

Pan [2015]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (L)  ChicagoTribune (1 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (1 Star)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (1/2 Star)

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


I found Pan [2015] (directed by Joe Wright [wikip] [IMDb], screenplay by Jason Fuchs [wikip] [IMDb] based on the characters from the Peter Pan [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] books of J.M. Barrie [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) to be one awful -- misguided, misrated, poorly cast, needlessly / gratuitously / stupidly anti-Catholic (say what? yup...) -- prequel to a beloved children's story.  Indeed it appears that the story of Peter Pan [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film Levi Miller) itself was abducted in this film by contemporary corporate pirates ;-).

Oh, there are _so many_ things wrong with this film.  Let's begin by noting that though the film seeks to tell the "origin story" of  Peter Pan [wikip] [IMDb].  Yet the 10 y.o. Peter Pan of the story is placed in a London based Catholic run orphanage (more on this below ... ;-) during the 1940 London Blitz (during WW II), some 30 years after J.M. Barrie first published his book (1911) and three years after he died (1937).  Huh?  Why?

As best as I can see, it's to place him in a Catholic orphanage (run by a congregation the film-makers sarcastically named "The Sisters of Eternal Prudence").  Now Readers mind you, the English haven't exactly been stellar in the "kind, gentle orphanage department" -- think JANE EYRE (placed in an orphanage run by Protestant sadists, and OLIVER TWIST (placed in a work house run by "old school" Capitalist ones ...).  But it seemed important to the film makers here, EVEN AT THE EXPENSE OF WARPING THE PETER PAN STORY'S TIMELINE, to place the 10 y.o. Peter Pan into the hands of Irish accented daughters and granddaughters of the Irish Potato Famine (where the "Enlightened" / Protestant Brits watched and waited while the lowly / Catholic Irish starved ... "If only they had converted ... then we would have given them the bowl of soup...").

IMHO, the British simply have no right at all that make Catholics, especially Irish Catholics, look Evil after what the Brits did (and mostly DID NOT DO...) during that Famine.   None.  It's akin to American film makers insisting on _continuing_ to portray Native Americans as "savages" (after having largely wiped them out and stolen their land ...).  Decency requires at least respect for the killed.  It's a whole other matter for the Irish (or really anyone) criticize themselves.  But the historically powerful have _no right_ to continue to lampoon the people they let die / arguably murdered.

Further even the image of the "sadistic nun" (popular nowadays in many, often non/anti-Catholic circles) is at best an awful and generally unfair stereotype:

I myself knew a woman from our Servite parish in Denver (interestingly enough called "Our Lady of Mount Carmel"  There's "another story" there ;-) whose mother and two aunts grew-up in a Catholic orphanage run by SAINT Frances Cabrini in Denver and she / her whole family were proud as punch of this noting that the two aunts were even present at a relatively famous miracle that took place at what became the Cabrini Shrine outside of Denver noting that Mother Cabrini had gone out to this then rather desert location ("gifts" given to the Church aren't often "the best" ...).  But "Mother Cabrini took her cane, hit it against the ground, and a spring came up" (which gushes to this day).

Then, many of our younger women parishioners at Annunciata Parish here in Chicago, would be amused to be told that Sr. Catherine McAuley, foundress of the Mercy Sisters that founded MOTHER McCAULEY HIGH SCHOOL here in Chicago, a high school that has produced GENERATIONS OF WOMEN who've held ALL KINDS OF POWERFUL POSITIONS (as doctors, lawyers, judges, teachers and nurses) throughout this fair city, COULD HAVE BEEN "ONE OF THOSE EVIL NUNS" like the ones portrayed in the film ... Hmmm... Are powerful, competent women especially when they are CATHOLIC ... "EVIL" ... ?

Then, there's Blessed Maria Magdalena della Passione (Constanza Starace), OSM*, who founded the Compassionist Servite Sisters (related to us as I'm a Servite Friar) out in Castellamare outside of Naples, Italy in the late 1800s.  Now granted, part of her story was that she "may have been possessed" for something like 30 years ;-).  But she was known for also running lovely orphanages "for the bambini" and at least in Italy, everyone's hearts continue to melt when one thinks of the "nuns who took care of the orphans."

Finally, I even knew a "Madre Flora"* who ran a small congregation founded in Pesaro, Italy that still ran orphanages in Peru.  (We used to go out to her facility for our annual "programation retreat" while I was in the Seminary at the Servite Int'l College in Rome).   A lot of those kids would be brought back to Italy where they'd be adopted by Italian parents, who'd again cut themselves up to have "a bambino" of their own.

And I'd add one story more actually.  Each week I say Mass, early in the morning for a smiling community of Mexican "Hijas de Maria Inmaculada de Guadalupe" who help run a school at Immaculate Conception Church in South Chicago, IL which without them WOULD NOT HAVE ONE because the neighborhood is so poor.  It's simply IMPOSSIBLE for me to see those lovely, ever smiling nuns as "EVIL..."

So the portrayal of "nuns as Evil" is really awful / unfair (Evil in itself...) especially when it comes to the British who themselves (1) have a historically TERRIBLE REPUTATION of dealing with orphans (again think Jane Eyre / Oliver Twist), and then even worse reputation with dealing with Catholics (again think the Irish Potato Famine).

But ...

... STUPIDLY ADDED, anachronous "Evil" London Residing / Irish Accented Catholic Nuns ASIDE ;-) ... how was the rest of the film? ;-) ;-)

Well ... IMHO it wasn't much better ;-)

... In the film after the EVIL Irish Accented Nuns hoisted a large "Jolly Roger" Pirate Flag on top of their Convent (DURING A NAZI AIR RAID...) an airborne pirate ship arrives.  Its pirates PROCEED TO ABDUCT the 10 y/o Peter Pan along with most of his other orphan friends, taking them upward, beyond the clouds, indeed beyond the solar system, to "Neverland."

Now DESPITE this film being rated for kids ("PG"), much of the rest of the story plays out in a Hellish mine resembling the one featured recently in the very R-rated Mad Max: Fury Road [2015].  Said mine is run by Captain Blackbeard [wikip] [IMDb] (played by Hugh Jackman) who has his slaves, including the 10 y/o Peter Pan and a young future Captain Hook [wikip] [IMDb] (played by a terribly miscast Garrett Hedlund. Don't get me wrong, he's a talented actor - Country Strong [2010] / On the Road [2012] - but this was NOT the role for him.  It'd be akin to having John Wayne play the role ...) mining for "Pixum" (pixie dust) which, Blackbeard thought could "keep him young."

Blackbeard and his pirates believe that the fairies who had previously produced said "Pixum" are extinct.  Instead, we find that are being protected by an aboriginal (part Native American, part Native Australian, part Avatar [2009]-like) tribe of which Tiger Lily [wikip] [IMDb] (played by a much better cast Rooney Mara) was a princess.
  
Anyway, if the nuns were cut, and the film was rated PG-13 and perhaps Garett Hedlund was not cast in this film as Captain Hook, the film would have been okay.  As it is ... what a mess.



* 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! :-) >>