Family Member (orig. Μέλος Οικογενείας / Melos Oikoyenias) [2015]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
AltCine.com listing
CinEuropa.org listing

TheReviewer.eu (D. Floros) review*
Parathyro.com (M. Moyséos) review*

Family Member (orig. Μέλος Οικογενείας / Melos Oikoyenias) [2015] [IMDb] [AC] [CEu] (written and directed by Marinos Kartikkis [IMDb] [AC] [CEu]) is a FAMILY DRAMEDY from CYPRUS that recently played at the 19th (2016) Chicago European Union Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago.

Set in the context of the continuing European Economic Crisis, Yorgos and Sophia (played respectively by Christopher Greco [IMDb] [AC] and Yiola Klitou [IMDb] [AC]) would seem to be a typical 40-something married Cypriot couple, middle class, with two children, teenage Anna (played by Ntora Makrigianni [IMDb] [AC]) and 10 y/o Christos (played by Ioannis Melekis [IMDb]), and run a family neighborhood grocery store in one or another Cypriot town, presumably suburban Nicosia.  Living with them is also Sophia's father (played by Glafkos Georgiades [AC])

A typical middle class Cypriot family that they are, they find themselves in enormous debt.  Why?  There is no money.  Their customers routinely come to their store and plead to buy on credit, and the two, Yorgos especially, simply can't bring themselves to tell them no.  Why? Because their customers are not buying inessentials, they're basically things that they need to live on.  And all promise essentially the same thing -- "money is going to come."  When?  No one really knows, but one gets the impression that the whole economy is operating on a system of IOUs.  The problem is that while this can work on a neighborhood level where everyone knows each other, but one can't pay for water or Electricity with IOUs.

SO, when Sophia's father dies in his sleep one night, he just doesn't wake-up one morning, Sophia realizes that it was his pension that kept the roof over their heads.  What to do?  Remember this is a movie ... hence something of a "thought experiment" - where fictionalized people could be allowed to do what real people could not do (or would not do because of the obvious risk / issues involved) but perhaps (in their darker moments) at least "thought about."

SO ... Sophia comes up with a somewhat desperate scheme:  Yorgos and her would _respectfully_ take Sophia's father's body IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT ;-) "back to village" and bury him _respectfully_ (again IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT) in the family plot - where his wife, Sophia's mother is also buried - in the Christian cemetery (again, they'd _want to be respectful_ about it) BUT ... they would NOT DECLARE IT ANYWHERE ... so they could continue to accept Sophia's father's social security checks.

And they do so ... take Sophia's father's body, wrapped in a couple of thick plastic garbage bag, and with a couple shovels working, in the dead of night, they successful bury Sophia's father's body in their family plot "back in the village" without anyone apparently knowing the wiser.

BUT ... inevitable problems arise.  Sophia's father would get a social security check THAT HE'D HAVE TO GO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BANK TO CASH.  But he's dead.  Well, at least with the first check, Sophia figures that since "everybody knows them" the bank would cash at least that first check with his signature but without him present because she'd present it to the bank-manager with the excuse: "My dad's down with the flu, can you just do us the favor?" if anyone should ask. 

And it seems to work.  But already Yorgos asks, what are we going to do the next time?  Yet, a few days afterwards, the two get a phone call at the grocery store from the Social Security office that they'd like to come over to their house to speak to Sophia's dad.  Ay ... what now?

Well, they "get lucky" ... the following day, in the afternoon, an elderly man shows up at the store, and while they weren't looking, he tries to shoplift a few items.  Yorgos catches him.  The man, supremely embarrassed pleads that he'll just give back the two cans of sardines if they just not report him.

Yorgos would actually just give him the two cans of sardines, but Sophia, looking at him ... he even looked kinda like her father (and is played at minimum by Glafkos Georgiades's [AC] brother Fivos Georgiades [IMDb]) only with a mustache ... decides to ask him a favor ...

The rest of the story, with various twists ensues ...

It's a comedy so it has to end well, but it's also a story that _hopefully_ would discourage real people from doing the same.   It's just too hard and morally taxing to try to pull this off for real.

As such, an interesting and often quite (darkly) fun film about something that the vast majority of us would never ever do.


* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using 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! :-) >>

10 Cloverfield Lane [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  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 (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (AA. Dowd) review  

10 Cloverfield Lane [2016] (directed by Dan Trachtenberg, story and screenplay cowritten by Josh Campbell and Matthew Stuecken along with Damien Chazelle) is a suspenseful and thoroughly  minimalist (in its own way) offshoot to the wildly successful "found footage" b-scifi/horror film Cloverfield [2008] though the connection with the first film appears to have been solely that the two films' stories play out concurrently though in widely different parts of the country: the original film plays-out in New York City while the current film plays-out simply "somewhere in Louisiana."

This current film begins with a twenty-something young woman, we later find-out her name's Michelle (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead), packing a suitcase with some of her things from her and her soon-to-be ex's apartment, throwing it into her car and leaving.

We catch her next driving in her car on some country road somewhere and it's getting dark.  She notices a message on her iPhone, begins listening to it -- it's her boyfriend pleading that she come home, to give them a chance to "work" (whatever it it is) "out -- there's some reference on the radio to "power black-outs" occurring along the Eastern Seaboard, and BANG ... SOMETHING JUST SMASHES INTO THE SIDE OF HER CAR, hurling it off the road, AND ... the opening credits _begin_ to roll ... ;-) ;-)

She wakes up, with an IV in her arm, and ... quite impressively thick CHAIN AROUND HER THIGH in some BUNKER somewhere.  We soon find out that this bunker was built by some ex-Navy man, since survivalist nutjob, named Howard (played absolutely wonderfully, cards ever, ever, ever close to the vest, by John Goodman) who informs her that "outside" there was "an attack" by "maybe the Russians, maybe Extraterrestrials ..." but in any case, the air's contaminated and they are going to be "stuck" for ... oh, maybe A YEAR OR TWO ... in said bunker until the air clears up and/or HE figures-out what to do (next).  In any case though, FORTUNATELY he's "made provision" for EXACTLY THIS KIND OF SCENARIO, with FOOD FOR TWO (maybe three) for EXACTLY "ONE or TWO YEARS."

Wow ... how creepy ... and the bulk of the rest of the film involves her and a third person --an "Emmett" (played by John Gallagher, Jr), a "local" twenty-something "contractor" who had helped Howard build this bunker on Howard's farm somewhere in (presumably) Louisiana and who apparently ran straight for the bunker when "whatever happened outside" began "happening" -- trying to figure-out JUST HOW CRAZY "Howard" was.   

It was clear that Howard did not want any of them to go outside, for ... apparently "the duration" of whatever "event" was taking place.  But Michelle NEVER SAW said "event" playing-out, outside.  And all SHE gets is tantalizing, if admittedly frightening indications that SOMETHING AWFUL really did take place, the strongest of which being a woman who seemed to have chemical burns on her skin, and coming to said bunker begs to come in. 

Okay, Howard, wasn't completely nuts, _something_ quite awful really did happen outside, but he clearly wasn't _sane_ either.

What would YOU do if YOU found yourself in this "Room [2015]"-like circumstance (with PERHAPS "Aleins" or "something ELSE that was AWFUL" outside)?

The rest of the story ensues ... ;-)

It's a crazy, improbable, claustrophobic story and clearly "not for everybody" but IMHO it works in a paranoid "what would you do?" sort of way.  At least TBTG this "sequel of sorts" has chosen to take a different path to tell its story _without_ resorting to the tired "lost footage" of the original.

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! :-) >>

Forbidden Films (orig. Verbotene Filme) [2014]

MPAA (UR)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing

Jerusalem Post [H. Brown] review
Critic.de [M. Lahde] review*
EPD-film.de [R. Worschech] review*
FilmGazette.de [D. Kuhlbrodt] review*

NPR.org (M. Jenkins) review
NY Times (N.Rapold) review
Slant Magazine (O. Ivanov) review
The Hollywood Reporter (F. Scheck) review
The New Yorker (R. Brody) review


Forbidden Films (orig. Verbotene Filme) [2014] (written and directed by Felix Moeller) is a quite thought / discussion provoking GERMAN DOCUMENTARY about the 40 Nazi era films that are banned to this day from normal public viewing in Germany (of 1200 made during the Nazi era and 300 of which were banned initially by the Allies after the War).  The film played recently at the 19th (2016) Chicago European Union Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago.

At issue were films that were openly anti-Semitic, anti-Polish, anti-British, pro-Euthanasia and so forth.  The concern has been that these films could confuse an un(der)educated populace into believing the flagrant propaganda present in them.  And at least one example of this was given where a contemporary German viewer after the screening (for this film) of the German Nazi-Era wartime movie The Homecoming (orig. Heimkehr) [1941] dramatizing the purported discrimination suffered by ethnic Germans in Poland before the War left the film declaring that "Germany was right to invade Poland" (the immediate action which started WW II ...).

Sigh ... but that was _not_ a particularly common response.  Indeed, Israeli audiences of viciously  anti-Semitic films (among those 40 Nazi Era films banned in Germany) like Jud Süß [1940] and The Eternal Jew (orig. Der Ewige Jude) [1940] found the films _laughable_ and at least one audience member suggested that they should be made _required viewing_ for Israeli school-children so that they would better understand what both the Holocaust and the post-War founding of the modern state of Israel were about.

The documentary also noted that many of the films initially banned by the Allies after the War were subsequently "denazified' by literally "painting over" / "cutting out" the overt scenes with Swastikas or with Adolf Hitler, etc.  However, as Felix Moeller, the director of the documentary, appeared to be something of a "purist," this alternative was portrayed as violating or even "butchering" the integrity of the original films.


I came to this film with perspective of someone of Czech descent, hence from a family which knew well both 6 years of Nazi occupation and 41 years of subsequent Communist domination and I would insist that many of the same questions / issues raised in the current film could be raised with regards to films made in the Soviet Union during the Soviet Era (70+ years - 1918-1991) and in the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War (40+ years - 1945 or so - 1989).

Indeed, deciding what to do with films made during various epochs during those Communist years have _not_ been "idle questions" for _any_ of the countries / successor countries involved:

Following Stalin's death, during the de-Stalinization period in the Soviet bloc, classic (often still propaganda) films had Stalin erased from them in various ways.

And many of the Communist Era films are also _laughable_ today.  Cossacks of the Kuban (orig. Kubanskie kazaki) [1950] is a particularly appalling "inversion of reality" Soviet Era propaganda film, especially since the Kuban Cossacks were absolutely _decimated_ by Stalin's forced collectivization campaign in the 1920s and then most of the remaining ones were wiped-out for collaborating (for tragic if _obvious_ reasons) with the Nazis during the Caucasus / Stalingrad campaign in 1942.  Stalin's regime could have left the dead Cossacks be, accused as they had been of being (1) Supporters of the Czar, then (2) Counter Revolutionaries, then (3) Kulaks ("rich" land owners) and finally (4) Collaborators with the Nazis.  Instead, perversely after killing the vast, vast majority of them, Stalin's regime still "found the need" to show them _smiling_ "happily working" on the collective farms of their home/traditional region.

But even less appalling Communist Era films suffered from obvious ideological constraints.  And pretty much _anyone_ from the former Soviet bloc could _almost effortlessly_ (with the "back of one's hand") point-out the ideology that lurked within and limited _every single film_ that was made in those countries during those years.  (And analogously one could similarly identify the obvious ideological limits present in Iranian cinema today).

What's perhaps interesting in the context of the current film about the Nazi Era films still banned in Germany today, is that almost all of the post-Communist states have chosen to let the films from their Communist pasts remain available ... if _perhaps_ still "De-Stalinized."

Why?  Obviously for various reasons, some not particularly good -- It's more or less obvious, for example, that Vladimir Putin is seeking to run Russia today in a manner of "Stalin light," hence his regime does not find his nation's Communist and even Stalinist legacies particularly embarrassing.  Imagining the rise of a similar situation in Germany _could_ concern viewers of the current film here.

However, (1) MOST OF THE POST-COMMUNIST STATES of the former Soviet bloc, _don't_ feel particularly threatened by the Communist past as the films of that time are obviously dated (as are all films of the past) and the ideological constraints present are _pretty much obvious_ to all viewers from those countries; and (2) as was brought out in Mueller's film here about the Nazi Era films but EVEN MORE TRUE IN THE CASE OF THE COMMUNIST ERA CINEMAS OF THE FORMER SOVIET BLOC COUNTRIES, _it's really hard to talk about the artists, film-makers, actors of the time_ WITHOUT reference to their films.

The Nazi Era thankfully lasted for "only 12 years."  In contrast, the Communist Era in Soviet Russa lasted for 70+ years and in the rest of the Soviet Bloc for 40+ years, hence FOR GENERATIONS.  Indeed, it'd be IMPOSSIBLE for a Russian viewer TO WATCH ANYTHING RUSSIAN without WATCHING AT LEAST SOME SOVIET-ERA FILMS.  After all, THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE MADE IN RUSSIA for _most_ of the history of cinema.

And as is always the case, DESPITE IDEOLOGY, a fair number of films made under ANY CONTEXT / REGIME are GOING TO BE GOOD, POPULAR AND MEMORABLE and FOR GOOD REASON ... they would be high quality products made by talented professionals. 

So how then to end here?  I'd say that director Mueller makes a quite compelling case here to at least DISCUSS the virtue / value of releasing (in Germany, they're already available elsewhere anyway) these 40 Nazi Era films which have been banned there to this day.

And I would tend to support releasing them if _perhaps_ with a simple label -- NAZI (to allow potential viewers to immediately understand that they were made during the Nazi Era).  I think that would MORE THAN ENOUGH for most people, even in Germany (discussed in this film), to immediately put these films in context.

And I agree with that Israeli viewer -- one need only to let every schoolchild in Israel to see a few of those films and one would never ever have to fear them again.  THEY themselves (informed by their parents / grandparents) would be more than capable to both soberly and devastatingly refute any ideology present within them.

As for the lunatic fringe?  There will always be loonies who'll tattoo swastikas to their foreheads, for any number of reasons, no matter what the rest of us do.  But we don't have to compromise our values (or fear the value of our Truth) on account of them.

Fascinating / thought provoking film!


< 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! :-) >>

Zootopia [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review  

Zootopia [2016] (directed by Byron Howard, Rich Moore and Jared Bush, screenplay Jared Bush and Phil Johnston, all of whom contributed to the story along with Jennifer Lee, Josie Trinidad, Jim Reardon and Dan Fogelman) is a quite good (if still imperfect) children's animated film about a metropolis inhabited by all kinds of mammals (though apparently iguanas, parakeets and bumble bees -- and more to the point, snakes, buzzards and roaches -- still need not apply ...) where said mammals (formerly predators and prey) have learned to live together in peace.

Yes, there are still some prejudices in the countryside where foxes and rabbits still don't really trust each other / get along.  and (it turns out) that some of these prejudices still lurk somewhat beneath the surface even in the city.  

But the basic thrust of the film is clear -- can one (especially children) imagine a world where even  the Lion (voiced by J.K. Simmons), he's the city's mayor, and the Sheep (voiced by Jenny Slate) his assistant / running mate, can work together (cf  Is. 11:6)?  Or a rabbit Judy Hopps (voiced by Jinnifer Goodwin) Zootopia's first rabbit to make it through the Police Academy to become a cop, come to work with street-"hustling" fox named Nick Wilde (voiced by Jason Bateman)?

And to the story's credit, the film-makers show us that it's not easy: Judy's lovely simple "carrot farming parents" (voiced by Don Lake and Bonnie Hunt) give Judy a can of mace-like "Fox Away" to "protect her" as she goes off to the "wild city" where she could find herself in all kinds of "danger."

And quite surprisingly a good part latter part of the film is driven by the consequences of an _inadvertent comment_ at a press conference by the otherwise happy / bubbling / optimistic Judy (remember she was a cop on a case...), where she clumsily suggests that "deep down, predators may be _biologically_ predisposed to violence" throwing the whole balance / peace of the city into chaos -- as all the city's sheep, rabbits, deer, chipmunks, gazelles, etc suddenly become newly frightened "of all the predators" in their midst.

Anyway, it's a generally fun story.  I just wish that a few non-mammals were added to the mix because in a country like ours, the message still could be mixed -- basically still allowing Viewers to leave the film with the interpretation: "Okay, white people from the non Anglo/Germanic sections of Europe are (now) okay ("we" basically hold that now ...) , but people of color still may not be ("okay") ... especially when they have customs like wearing head scarves (or turbans), grew-up liking Cumbia / Merengue or Tejano / Mariachi music or celebrate Kwanzaa, Divali or Ramadan."

Unfortunately, in a country such as ours today, we simply have to underline that inclusion means _everybody_ because otherwise there will always be people looking to keep at least one or another group "on the bubble" / "nervous" or "out" ...


< 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! :-) >>

Ingrid Bergman In her Own Words (orig. Jag är Ingrid) [2015]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing

Cinematographe (M. Bordino) review*
ComingSoon.it (D. Catelli) review*
The Hollywood Reporter (D. Young) review


Ingrid Bergman In her Own Words (orig. Jag är Ingrid) [2015] (directed and cowritten by Stig Björkman along with Dominika Daubenbüchel and Stina Gardel) is a quite fascinating and surprisingly intimate SWEDISH DOCUMENTARY about the life of world-renowned Swedish-born actress / screen legend Ingrid Bergman (1915-1982) [wikip] [IMDb].  The film played recently at the 19th (2016) Chicago European Union Film Festival held here at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago.

Making extensive use of Ingrid Bergman's own diaries, correspondence, HOME MOVIES (apparently _she loved making home movies_) and extensive interviews with her four children Pia Lindström, Roberto Ingmar Rossellini,  Isabella Rossellini and Isotta Ingrid Rossellini as well as various friends, the film offers a remarkable view into the life of the actress who was both renown even beloved for her work, but at times quite shocking / notorious in her time in her personal life:

Her marriage to her first husband Petter Lindström (a Swedish doctor who during the war years had moved with their first child to the States to follow/support her in her career) ended in divorce in 1950 after she got pregnant in the midst of an affair with Italian director Roberto Rossellini [wikip] [IMDb] while filming in Europe.   Her second marriage, to Rossellini, which produced her other three children ended in divorce in 1957 after several not-particularly-successful movie projects together, and Rossellini entering into an affair with an Indian screenwriter Sonali Das Gupta while he was filming in India.  Bergman married a third time to Lars Schmidt, a Swedish theatrical producer, who seemed to be something of a Godsend with the Rossellini kids, and with whom she remained married for nearly 2 decades prior to divorcing in 1975.  Bergman died in 1982.

It is on her quite complex personal history that this film is mostly about, though her many films serve as markers in time to help us the audience better appreciate when what was happening in her life at the time.  It's an interesting choice -- to focus more on her personal / family life rather than on her storied career.  It it also makes her more relateable because while very few of us will ever have the professional success that Ingrid Bergman experienced, all of us have experience with managing challenges, temptations, disappointments and failings at home.  

It appeared that pretty much all four of her children have fond memories of both her and their fathers though they also were aware that their circumstances both not necessarily ideal at times and yet still certainly more fortunate than most others who'd find themselves in similar situations.  For example, there was a time in their lives when the three Rosselini children actually lived in Italy in essentially "a kinderhouse" (run by a number of caretakers and equipped with just about everything that a group of kids could want ... while BOTH parents - Ingrid and Roberto - worked on professional projects "far away" -- Ingrid in Paris (so she could "drop by" at least once a month) and Roberto way out in India (so his visits "home" would come far less frequently).

Again, all admitted that this was not exactly an ideal situation, but all her children, including Pia from Ingrid's first marriage remembered their mother as being someone who was fun / outgoing (with them) to have around, someone who was more "a friend" than perhaps a traditional mother.

A lot of us hearing this would both "cringe a bit", and yet also understand (somewhat) as well.  Many, many parents in divorce situations try to do the same.

In any case, the film offers a quite _fascinating glimpse_ into the life of a _very successful (professionally) professional woman_ and does offer Viewers the opportunity to reflect on the choices that she made (and that _we all make_) in managing our relationships and careers.

Hence this proves a quite excellent and thoughtful film.


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

The Young Messiah [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)   Fr. Dennis (0 Stars with below Expl)

IMDb listing

CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
EWTN (R. Arroyo) interview w. director

The Young Messiah [2016] (directed and cowritten by Cyrus Nowrasteh along with Betsy Giffen Nowrasteh based on the novel Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Anne Rice [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) promised from the get-go to be a rather odd concoction.

The Louisiana/New Orleans-born novelist Anne Rice on whose (necessarily) speculative novel the film is based has been "all over the map" in her "spiritual journey" -- born Catholic, then agnostic, then apparently at least partly returning to her faith for a number of years, then withdrawing again, now completely, "from organized religion" and currently labeling herself a secular humanist.  Further, while she's written two novels about Jesus' life, though "about his hidden years" (the current one, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt [GR] and Christ the Lord: Road to Cana [GR]) where let's face it _one could write anything_,  she's actually best known for her Vampire Chronicles [GR] and The Lives of the Mayfair Witches [GR] series.  Finally her page GoodReads.com notes that she's even written / published _erotica_ and _S&M literature_ under pseudonyms.  Sigh, "Louisiana voodoo ..."

Then director Cyrus Nowrasteh though American born is of Iranian descent.  Now in his interview with EWTN he does identify himself as a Christian and certainly could pass as a smiling and _sincere_ "born again" as he came by basically the Catholic version of the 700-Club, there _aren't_ (and have never have been) a lot of Iranian Christians.  So it comes to me as something of a surprise that he and his American wife would be the ones to take-up _this project_. 

Yet, I suppose if not them, who?  Still I have to say that I did leave the theater _with a rather bad aftertaste_ understanding that at least Rice, whose wikipedia page trumpets that she's sold over 100 million books (though mostly about witches and vampires) stands to profit quite significantly here on a book on "Christ the Lord" in whom _she does not even believe_ anymore ...

What of the story itself?  Call it a story about Jesus for a Narcissistic Age, focusing on a period of Jesus' life where one _could truly write anything_ and "produce drama" that ISN'T NEEDED _if one were to just STICK TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT_.

So "the story" here assumes that since in the Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 2), Herod the Great, wished to kill the child Jesus in infancy (and hence why the Gospel of Matthew has the Holy Family flee to Egypt for the first seven years of Jesus' life), AFTER SAID ELDER HEROD'S DEATH, HIS SON WOULD HAVE WANTED TO DO THE SAME as the Holy Family came back home (to Nazareth).

So the film here has a very creepy looking Herod's son (played by Jonathan Bailey), basically a younger version of creepy looking conception of Herod's son of Jesus Christ Superstar [1973]) ordering a Roman Centurion (played by Sean Bean) -- Roman centurions have had a quite busy Lent this year ... "witness" the film Risen [2016] released a few weeks ago -- to go out and find the seven year old, about whom "rumors were spreading" of the little miracles that were occurring all around him, and to ... "put an end to him."  The Roman Centurion understands that order one way, Herod it turns out, may have meant it another, but "one could understand" the Roman Centurion's confusion ...

In the meantime, the seven year old Jesus (played by Adam Graves-Neal) "has questions" about his increasingly apparent "specialness" while the Holy Family, Mary (played by Sara Lazzaro) and Joseph (played by Vincent Walsh) along with an Uncle named Cleopas (played by Christian McCay) and cousins named James (played and Salome (played respectively by Finn Ireland and Lois Ellington) each have different attitudes / opinions of "how to break the news" to him.

Ah, yes, to be "born special" ... a dilemma that "all of us" in "our very special age" face.  And Viewers are invited to reflect on "when did you discover that you were 'special' as well...?"

So the whole story basically deteriorates into a "Twilight Saga ... with Jesus ... (and no Vampires)" ;-) though Herod the Great's son looked pretty creepy as did a demonic figure (played by a hooded Rory Keenan) to help give the film a certain, er, "gothic look ..."  Indeed, ever since Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ [2004], the Devil's been "pretty busy" in films about Jesus as well ...

How then to conclude here?  For one, I do think that the USCCB Media Office could consider apologizing to Martin Scorsese for its denunciation of his Last Temptation of Christ [1988] because both that film and the book by Nikos Kazantzakis on which it was based were _more faithful_ than this film to the received tradition and whatever sins the two, Scorsese and Kazantzakis, may have committed in their personal lives, the two would seem to me more respectful and perhaps even more faithful to the Christian faith than "made her millions writing about witches and vampires" Anne Rice. 

Hope the millions she makes here, will be put to good use ...


< 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! :-) >>

Marshland (orig. La Isla Mínima) [2014]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CinEuropa.org listing
FilmAffinity.com/es listing*

CinEuropa.org (A. Rivera) review

APUM.com (J. Martín) review*
CineParaLeer.com (J.A. Planes Pedreño) review*

The Hollywood  Reporter (J. Holland) review
Variety (J. Weissberg) review

EyeForFilm.co.uk (A. Wilkinson) review
PopOptiq (E. Chaput) review


Marshland (orig. La Isla Mínima) [2014] [IMDb] [CEu] [FAes]*(directed and cowritten by Alberto Rodríguez [IMDb] [FAes]* along with Rafael Cobos [IMDb]*) is a 10 Goya Award winning CRIME DRAMA from SPAIN (the Goya Awards are Spain's equivalent to the Oscars) that played recently at the 19th (2016) Chicago European Union Film Festival held here at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago.  The film is also available in the U.S. for viewing for a reasonable fee via various internet streaming services, including Amazon Instant Video.

Playing out in the coastal Guadalquivir Marshlands of Andalucía [IMDb-loc] in southern Spain (Florida Everglades-like marshlands not necessarily being what one thinks of when one thinks of Spain...) in 1980, hence in the years just after Gen. Franco's death and Spain's transition from Fascism to Democracy, the film is in good part about that Transition* (from Fascism to Democracy) and about how not necessarily certain / precarious it was.

Two federal police detectives, Pedro (played by Raúl Arévalo [IMDb] [FAes]*) and Juan (played by Javier Gutiérrez [IMDb] [FAes]*), are sent down from Madrid to the marshlands of southern Andalucía to investigate the disappearance of two teenage girls in an out-of-the-way hamlet there.  It's not exactly a promotion ... The older, middle aged, Juan reminds his younger partner Pedro as the younger one is looking for a phone to call his wife that they had arrived: "You may think that you live in a democracy now, but when you (stupidly/needlessly) criticize a General, this is what you (we...) get.  You're (we're ...) going to get slapped ..."

But the two have been sent to investigate a case, and Pedro's certainly convinced that if they just do a good job they'll be going back to Madrid soon.

When the two arrive the bodies of the two young girls had not yet been found, so there is still the faint hope that the two may have just "left town."  Why?  Well, when the two detectives talk to some of the teenage girls' classmates, it's clear that EVERYBODY (or at least every young person ...) just wanted to "get out of this swamp."

Where to?  How?  Among the possessions of one of the girls, the two find a brochure promising jobs at a resort hotel somewhere presumably some distance from said (and quite despised "swamp" (where the only jobs available seemed to be fishing and rice cultivation ...).

How'd one of the girls get in possession of said brochure promising a far brighter / more exciting future for young ladies than trudging through wetlands in galoshes under a baking hot sun to help with the rice harvest, or spend one's days. knife-in-hand, gutting fish on a Forrest Gump-like fishing trawler?

Well "there'd be guys" from out-of-town passing through this hamlet, often "on Feast Days" (when the town'd be partying) promising "the Moon" to these quite desperate and quite naive girls.  And, if one didn't want to wait "for a Feast Day" to meet a gent "with a car and some money," a good-looking girl could "make contact" with such an out-of-towner just by (literally) _walking_ the quite misty road at the edge of town at night.   Yes, an "out-of-towner" with a car and a few bills could find _all kinds_ of "comfort / recreation" just driving-out to such hinterlands "on a hot and steamy night..."  and then, there were _a lot_ of such nights in the hinterlands of Southern Andalucia ...

Okay, one so need not "go to the city" to find "a den of inequity" ... but what kind OF A PSYCHO would be _killing_ these young women, teenagers, who clearly were just looking to "better their circumstances"?

That's of course the rest of this NEO-NOIRISH film (Noir films generally being precisely about "unspeakable secrets" being kept down / quiet by multiple layers of corruption).

An arguably more interesting question becomes who of these two cops will be the one who solves this crime: the younger cop, the still somewhat naive "boyscoutish" Pedro (who even finds further support for his "boy scoutishness" by the recent transition from Franco's Dictatorship to still fledgling Democracy), or the _older one_ Juan, who entered said FEDERAL POLICE _DURING FRANCO'S TIME_ and had "learned to operate" under "a different set of SOPs."

Indeed, throughout the film, Juan remains ever impatient, _wanting_ to _just hit people_ who could help the two in their investigation ;-).

So we watch this rather odd team -- "the boy scout" and "the Nazi" -- both arguably "being punished by Madrid" seeking to (sort of) work together to solve this crime "out in the middle of a swamp."   And yet said crime becomes actually quite emblematic of exactly what was / had been going on in the larger society (people of power / means were able to get away with just about anything).

So the film becomes quite fascinating and with the U.S. going through a wave of scandals involving use of force by police, this becomes actually quite a fascinating film for Americans to watch in our day:  There can be advantages to "shaking the trees" (quite hard) BUT ... is it worth the other costs?

So this becomes another excellent and quite thought-provoking film ...


< 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! :-) >>