The Boss [2016]

MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (O)  ChicagoTribune (1 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (1 1/2 stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars w. Expl)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


The Boss [2016] (directed screenplay cowritten by Ben Falcone along with Melissa McCarthy and Steve Mallory) is, PARENTS NOTE, above all AN ADULT ORIENTED (if at times surprisingly insightful) COMEDY. 

The film is R-rated for reasons that become obvious as the story / jokes progress.  REPEATEDLY there appear situations that most Viewers would considered WILDLY INAPPROPRIATE for younger members of one's family.  To go into greater detail would both enter into spoiler territory and frankly into territory that would _make me blush_ as I am trying to maintain my blog here as a Catholic one ;-).  So at minimum PARENTS - PLEASE SEE THIS FILM ON YOUR OWN _before_ "letting the kids see it."  I would add though that I simply _can not_ think of ANY _credible_ reason why a minor would "need" to see this particular film prior to turning 17 (and thus being able to see it legitimately ...)

Okay, so why then review a film such as this, much less consider it favorably?  Well, Dear Readers, IMHO there are situations in this film that are IMHO authentically funny, and in their goofy way the film-makers here offer us Viewers a quite interesting and even _insightful_ "snapshot" into our culture / society today.

For Melissa McCarthy's character Michelle Darnelle, a cross between Leona Helmsley and Martha Stewart PRACTICALLY _CHANNELS_ Donald Trump HERE and NOT (!!) in a slanted or particularly negative way. 

Instead, we're introduced to McCarthy's Michelle Darnelle as a hard-nosed but _successful_ businesswoman who _did have to overcome_ some very difficult obstacles in her life:  We see in the film's opening sequence that she was an orphan, abandoned by her parents, and then abandoned _repeatedly_ by a whole slew of foster / adoptive parents until, as a teenager SHE DECLARES: "I don't need ANYBODY, I'm just going to BECOME RICH."  and, well, ... SHE DOES ... become WILDLY, UNBELIEVABLY SUCCESSFUL / RICH.

The next scene in the movie has her speaking at (presumably) a "$50-100 a pop" motivational seminar AT a SOLD OUT United Center here in Chicago where she's assuring tens of thousands ADORING FANS: "Follow me, follow my example, and I'll make you SO RICH you won't believe it." Yes, Dear Readers, I told you that she practically channels Donald Trump in this movie, and again, NOT in a bad way.  Her adoring seminar attendees believe her.  MORE TO THE POINT, it would seem THAT SHE BELIEVES HER PROMISES AS WELL.

Well, of course, there's a "Fall from Grace."  A jilted fellow billionaire / former lover of hers, Renault (his actual name is Ronald ... which, come to think of it is just one letter from Donald ;-) played by a PERFECTLY CAST Peter Drinklage), rats on her to the Feds and ... soon Ms Darnelle finds herself doing 4 months (! ;-) of "hard time" in a "Club Fed"-like prison for ... pampered financial criminals.

But ... the damage has been done.  When she gets out of the (very classy) joint, quite tan from all the tennis she had been playing ;-) ... she finds that she's lost everything on the outside in the meantime and needs to crash at the flat of her former, formerly put-upon "personal assistant" Claire (played again quite excellently throughout by Kristen Bell). 

But one can't keep a driven, formerly spectacularly successful person like Michelle Darnelle down for long.  So after trying to make herself useful (remember, she has no job, nor any money anymore) by picking up Claire's kid Rachel (played wonderfully by Ella Anderson) after school and taking her to Girl Scout-like "Sunflower" meeting, Ms Darnelle has an honestly quite hilarious if certainly subversive "Epiphany" to get her "back into the game":

It turns out that the "Sunflowers" (like America's Girl Scouts) sell cookies.  "Why?  What do these 'Sunflower girls' GET out of selling those cookies?" asks Darnelle.  (Honestly, a spectacularly interesting / iconoclastic question ;-) ;-). 

"Well nothing," answers Claire, "The money that they make goes back into programs offered by the Sunflowers."

"Well, Rachel, what are some of those 'programs'?" asks Michelle.  Rachel honestly doesn't know, can't answer the question effectively.  AND ... as a result an IDEA is born:

Michelle creates an alternate Black Panther (!)-like (denim uniforms, red berets on their head, fist high in the air as their salute) "Counter Group" to "The Sunflowers" which she calls "Darnelle's Darlings," who then sell chocolate brownies (made by Claire) to (often _indimidated_ ;-) passerbys in competition to the Sunflowers' cookies. 

An interesting difference between the two groups becomes that "Darnelle's Darlings" would directly get a 15% cut (commission) from their sales and another 15% would be deposited into "a college fund" created for each of the girls.  Okay, so where would the other 70% go?  Well, to Michelle (and Claire ... Claire's baking all the brownies after all...).  Michelle makes _no bones_ about this being a FOR-PROFIT enterprise.  Indeed, she sees _this_ as _her_ way to "make it back to the top" ;-).

Much then ensues ... ;-)

Now back to the film's crudity.  One could certainly imagine that this story could be told in a _much less_ crude and _far more_ child friendly way than Melissa McCarthy and her director husband Ben Falcone chose to do.  Yet, it is clear that the two _chose_ to make the film in this way. 

The question is of course "why" and the answer may be again similar to the reasons given by Donald Trump's Presidential Campaign for _his_ rather outlandish / provocative antics: "to get people's attention." (It may be _also_ a question of talent / ability.  McCarthy / Falcone and then Trump may honestly not be able to do better.  They MAY honestly be simply rather crude people.  But then another question arises: Should one _immediately_ disqualify someone or someone's ideas simply because the person expressing them is "rather crude?") 

It is clear though that in both cases -- McCarthy / Falcone and then Trump -- they succeed, and like-it-or-not, in both cases McCarthy here and Trump in his campaign, say and do things that shock but also challenge / take down sacred cows.

So like it or not, this is actually a _quite interesting_ (and insightful) film ;-).

Good job!  Sort of ... ;-) ... but again PARENTS do keep the kids away from this one.


 << 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 Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun (orig. La dame dans l'auto avec des lunettes et un fusil) [2015]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Fr. Dennis (1 3/4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Allociné.fr listing*

APUM.com (L. Forero) review*
aVoir-aLire.fr (P. Vedral) review*

The Hollywood Reporter (J. Mintzer) review
Variety (P. DeBruge) review


The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun (orig. La dame dans l'auto avec des lunettes et un fusil) [2015] [IMDb] [AC.fr]* (directed by Joann Sfar [IMDb] [AC.fr]*, screenplay by Gilles Marchand [IMDb] [AC.fr]* and Patrick Godeau [IMDb] [AC.fr]* based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Sébastien Japrisot [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) is a FRENCH retro "NEO-NOIR" flick that played recently at the 19th (2016) Chicago European Union Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago.

While certainly stylish, sigh ... this is honestly a film where the trailer and even the poster (above, right) are far better than the actual film.  And, further sigh ... one's almost certain that it need not have turned out that way.

The story centers on a random, be-speckled and rather heavily be-freckled, redheaded, 20-something, previously largely invisible, presumably Parisian secretary named Dany (played by Freya Mavor [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) who one day was visited upon by a rich / good-looking (presumably previously "way out of her league") former crush of hers named Michel (played by Benjamin Bolay [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) who asks her if she could come over to his quite opulent home to type-up the last part of a manuscript that he'd been working on.

She says ... "Sure!" After all, he was a former crush of hers.  It also would give her a chance to reconnect with _his wife_ Anita (played by Stacy Martin [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) a former friend of hers who she hasn't seen in ages, since perhaps Anita ran-off with Dany's secret crush Michel and had gotten married.

After setting-up Dany, dutifully in front of a typewriter, Michel and Anita apparently go off to some party.  Oh yes, they leave Dany to babysit their daughter.  They come back late, and wake-up Dany, fallen-asleep by the typewriter, quite early in the morning with a rather odd request: Could she now drive the them, Michel, Anita and their little daughter, in their quite stylish 60s era American sports car to the airport: "It'd be cheaper than a taxi ..." they say, "Just bring the car back (to their home) afterwards." 

Dany agrees, drives them to the airport and ... then decides, "Hey, I'm in a really cool 60s era sports car!  My friends tell me that they're not coming back for a couple of days anyway.  I've NEVER seen the sea before ... Who's gonna know?"

And that's when the film really begins ... As she's off on what would seem to be a random if quite innocent joy ride, she is _repeatedly_ surprised to find that "everybody seems to know her."  HOW CAN THAT BE?

The rest of the movie ensues ... and from the title of the film, it can't go particularly well.


There is SO MUCH that, of course, COULD HAPPEN in a story WITH SUCH AN EVOCATIVE INTRO and STYLISTICALLY the film is TOPNOTCH throughout.  HOWEVER, sigh ... (I can't say more ...).



* 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! :-) >>

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller-Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice [2016] (directed by Zach Snyder, screenplay by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer, Batman [wikip] [DC] [IMDb] created by Bob Kane [wikip] [IMDb] and Bill Finger [wikip] [IMDb], Superman [wikip] [DC] [IMDb] created by Jerry Siegel [wikip] [IMDb] and Joe Shuster [wikip] [IMDb]) is a very DARK film.  There.  Understand or accept this point of departure and you'll understand where this film is coming from -- Christopher Nolan's [wikip] [IMDb] bleak if commercially successful "Dark Knight" interpretation of DC Comics' Batman [wikip] [DC] [IMDb] canon -- even as at least some PARENTS will wonder (rightly, I do believe) if this film (and really _a lot_ of the DC Comics inspired films of the last 10 years) are really "good for their kids."  Honestly, I would have rated the film R and apparently an "R-rated" version of the film will come-out with the film's future release on DVD.

The film begins where Snyder's / Goyer's Superman reboot Man of Steel [2013] left-off with Superman [wikip] [DC] [IMDb] (played by Henry Cavill) battling renegade Kryptonian General Zod's spacecraft over the skies of the Superman [wikip] [DC] [IMDb] canon's "Big City" Metropolis [wikip] ... 'CEPT we the Viewers see the action from the horrified "man on the street" perspective of Bruce Wayne / Batman [wikip] [DC] [IMDb] (played by Ben Affleck) who only sees the flying Superman battling Zod's craft, PERHAPS saving a human passerby or two, but nonetheless allowing (or at least NOT PREVENTING) wholesale 9/11+ style damage to the city including to (billionaire...) Wayne's own office Tower, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people including many of Wayne's own employees.

AS SUCH ... Wayne does not see Superman as much of a hero.  Sure Superman eventually defeats Zod's spacecraft BUT (1) through _super-powers_ that NO HUMAN BEING HAD, and (2) at the cost of lots-and-lots, indeed, THOUSANDS of HUMAN INNOCENTS.  Thus Wayne wonders if someone like Superman could really be trusted.  Sure, he's good ... NOW, _but_ "what about 50 years from now ..." and he adds "if there's even a 1% chance that he'd turn against us, we'd be better off assuming that the 1% chance was A CERTAINTY."

Wayne's not alone ... others from Lex Luthor [wikip] [DC] [IMDb] (imagined here as a "super-rich if unstable/arguably evil wiz kid" played by Jesse Eisenberg) to a sincere "no one should be above the law" Senator Finch [IMDb] (played by Holly Hunter) to Clark Kent / Superman's [wikip] [DC] [IMDb] own boss at The Daily Planet Perry White [wikip] [IMDb] (played by Laurence Fishburne) believe that Superman, with his _super powers_ is a potentially _very dangerous_ man.

'Course, Clark Kent / Superman doesn't exactly see the masked / caped armed-to-the-teeth vigilante Batman from the notoriously corrupt city of Gotham as exactly a "man of virtue" much less "hero."  Indeed, his (having grown-up in) Smallville, Kansas sensibility would militate against that. 

So in this (thankfully fictionalized) world where NO ONE seems to trust anybody, 'cept of course OTHERWISE "hard-hitting" / cynical reporter Lois Lane [wikip] [DC] [IMDb] (played by Amy Adams) who by the end of Man of Steel [2013] who had come to trust, even fall in love with Clark Kent / Superman [wikip] [DC] [IMDb].  Instead, EVERYONE comes to suspect that EVERYONE else is in cahoots "with the bad guys" (assorted generally _darker skinned_ / _accented_ Slavic / Islamic / Chechen arms dealers / terrorists) who are shown to exist in that fictionalized world as well.

So who's actually "good" in this story?  Well, there's Clark Kent / Superman's adoptive parents Martha and Jonathan Kent [wikip] [IMDb] (played by Diane Lane and at least in a flashback/dream sequence by Kevin Costner) arguably Lois and ... (different Viewers will have differing opinions).

And this then is A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM that I'm increasingly having with DC Comics' (as opposed to Marvel Comics') film adaptations: DC's are NEEDLESSLY / UNHEALTHILY BLEAK.

So at minimum, I would say that the DC Comics' based films are GENERALLY _NOT_ FOR KIDS and even if they TECHNICALLY manage a "PG-13" rating, they're still, at least IN SPIRIT, "R-Rated" productions and PARENTS SHOULD TREAT THEM AS SUCH.

Understand that is not a bad film, but it is certainly _not_ a cheerful one, and I would definitely not recommend it to anyone who is not at least in their upper teens.  It's just too dark, too depressing and _even the film's portrayal_ of "the Evil doers" is not particularly healthy or useful to an uncritical audience:

I SAW THIS FILM IN A PREDOMINANTLY AFRICAN-AMERICAN FREQUENTED THEATER and SEVERAL TIMES, when "the bad guys" were portrayed as being DARK SKINNED or OUTRIGHT BLACK, MANY of the audience members VISIBLY / AUDIBLY WINCED.

So, bottom line, this is _not_ a good film for kids and may not be all that great for adults as well.


 << 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! :-) >>

My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (1 Star)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (4+ Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review  


My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 [2016] (directed by Kirk Jones, screenplay by Nia Vardolos), while somewhat uneven in its dialogue at the film's beginning, it more than regains its footing by the middle, so that by film's end most Viewers who loved the first My Big Fat Greek Wedding [2002] (also a surprise hit -- the critics of officialdom, fellow Chicagoan Roger Ebert excluded, tended to pan the original as well) will leave the theater happy with the second.   Yes, I'm a fan ... ;-)

How could I not be?  I'm a son of Czech immigrants, with a huge extended family, and I too grew-up believing that most everything, everything "of substance" anyway ;-), was "invented by Czechs" as well. ;-).   Further, I saw the original while serving at a predominantly Puerto Rican/Colombian with a Haitian community mixed-in Parish, St. Catherine of Siena, in Kissimmee, FL -- EVERYBODY got it and just about EVERYBODY LOVED IT (I honestly can't recall ANYBODY who did not).  Why?  The accents may vary from-group-to-group but almost everyone could point to an aunt, uncle or dad who were JUST LIKE the characters in Nia Vardolos' portrayal of her fictionalized Greek family in both the original and in the current film here.

Since then, I've served for 12 years at a Slavic / Hispanic Parish, Annunciata, on Chicago's South East Side and I still use "the baptism scene" in the original to help explain the one of the anointings of those (usually children) about to be baptized in the Rite of Baptism ;-).  When I ask, "How many of you have seen 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' and recall that scene?" people still shake their heads up-and-down and smile in recognition, remembering that scene.  Again, it does not matter if one's Grandparents came from Poland or one's Parents from Durango / San Juan or Michuacan the characters and situations remain very similar to Vardolos'.

So what then is the story in the current film?  Well it takes place some 17 years after the original.  "Greek-American" Toula and "Anglo-American" Ian (played by Nia Vardolos and John Corbett respectively) remain happily married if distracted by their various obligations, still to (largely her) family, to their 17-year old daughter Paris (played _wonderfully_ by Elena Kampouris) and to (largely his) work:

Toula's back working at her parents (played again, and wonderfully by Michael Constantine and Lainie Kazan) restaurant "Dancing Zorba" in Chicago's Greek Town, though, family restaurant that it is, she actually spends more time shuttling her increasingly "no longer a spring chicken" father, Gus, from one doctor's appointment to another.

Paris too, spends her "after school afternoons", eyes-rolling, "on garlic toast duty" at "the restaurant" ;-).

Since Ian is now the Principal at (once again, exasperated) Paris's High School -- "Oh dad, (he's ever smiling, she's rolling her eyes again) _please_ don't (!) come up to me to talk to me (so much) at school.  I swear EVERYONE thinks I'm 'a narc'" ;-) -- one gets the sense that neither Toula nor Paris really "needed to work" at the restaurant (for the money).  It's just that it's family, and the parents needed the day-to-day help.  (And what else would one do?  Sit at home while one's aging parents ran that restaurant (that perhaps they too didn't need to run anymore)?  OF COURSE YOU HELP.  That's what FAMILY does).

Anyway, already among those five characters - Toula / Ian, their daughter Paris and Voula's parents - there are countless possibilities for stories.  Throw in the smiling / ever sincere but always (and preposterously) "over sharing" Aunt Toula (played by Andrea Martin) ... everybody has _somebody_ like this in the family ;-) ... smiling sex bomb, still at 40, hairdresser Nikki (played by Gia Ciades) who DOES help keep that family looking good; brother or cousin Nick (played by Louis Mandylor) or Angelo (played by Joey Fatone) struggling if he should come out "officially" as gay (everybody of course knows ... and is okay with it.  Why? In such a loving family, how can one possibly go against one's kin?  Indeed IN MY MINISTRY, I have _not_ known a single Catholic family that has rejected their kid for coming out gay.  Yes, it may be upsetting -- for the first 24 hours (!) -- to the parents, but afterwards, "it's our kid") and finally grandma "Mana-Yiayia" (played by Bess Meisler) "from the Old Country" ;-).  One of the "nosey neighbors" remarks: "Isn't she like 120 by now?" But how could one imagine this family _without her_ ;-)

Much ensues, and obviously much that ensues involves "a wedding", in this case, _validating the nearly 50 year old marriage_ between Maria and Gus, the documents of which, "got screwed-up" back "in the village ..."  ("Oh, how could _that_ have happened?"  asks me, a priest now with nearly 20 years experience of "life in a rectory" ;-) ;-).

It's just wonderful.  The ONLY THING THAT I DIDN'T LIKE was that HOLLYWOOD _chose_ to release this film during our (Catholic) Holy Week (not the Orthodox Holy week which will come later but ours).  But that's NOT the film's fault, THAT'S HOLLYWOOD'S FAULT and while a shame (and will inevitably hurt ticket sales somewhat on its first weekend), and one gets the sense that this film will be around FOR A WHILE.

IT'S EXCELLENT FOLKS.  GO SEE IT ;-)


 < 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 Divergent Series: Allegiant [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review  


The Divergent Series: Allegiant [2016] (directed by Robert Schwentke screenplay by Noah Oppenheim, Adam Cooper and Bill Collage, based on the first half of the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Veronica Roth [wikip] [GR] [IMDb]) is the third cinematic installment (of four) of the Post-Apocalyptic "Hunger Games-like" teen-oriented Divergent Trilogy.  It follows the release of Divergent [2014] and The Divergent Series: Insurgent [2015] and before the promised release of the finale The Divergent Series: Ascendant [2017] next year.

The film illustrates some of the problems (from the POV of the Reader/Viewer) of a film franchise based on a book series model: One of the things that I've really liked about movies (as opposed to books or TV series) has been that no matter what they're about "after 2-3 hours one's done." If one wants to write a review or reflection on the film viewed that could take another couple of hours.  However, and in any case, one could complete the task of seeing/reviewing the film rather quickly and be able to move on to something else.

In the case of a TV series (or a film series based on a book series) while certainly benefiting the makers of such materials (because the project becomes "an extended" rather than "a one-off gig"), the viewer is roped-in for an extended commitment. And the RE-viewer's job is made even harder because he/she can't really render final judgement on the whole project until the series' end.

And this can become a problem, as it begins to become here, as this third episode in this four part series begins to enter somewhat problematically into the realm of "religious allegory" and perhaps more negatively than the Viewer / Reader of the book series would have initially expected or imagined.

The second episode of this series (about a quite rigidly organized society in a mysteriously sealed off-post apocalyptic Chicago) ended with the society's "Factionless" misfits (those could not find a place among any of the society's five officially recognized castes or Factions) had successfully overthrown that old Order.

What now? Well inevitably some of the younger members of that society, led by the series' heroine Tris (played by Shailene Woodley) and her SO named Four (played by Theo James) wanted to breakdown (or at least "break past") the last remaining Wall in this society - the one isolating their city from the rest of the world beyond.

When they day do "break past" said wall, they initially find a poisoned post-apocalyptic wasteland.  So their teachers / elders were apparently at least partly telling them the truth as it becomes crystal clear that their society had been born out of / in response to some awful catastrophe.

But as they go further out into this poisoned desert (somewhat amusingly, for a Chicagoan anyway ... out to the remains of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport ;-), they encounter something new - an outpost of a society technologically far more advanced than theirs that has actually been monitoring the happenings / progress OF THE EXPERIMENT that this more advanced society had made OUT OF THE REMAINS OF CHICAGO.

Now going into detail as to what kind of experiment this more advanced society was conducting in (sealed off) Chicago certainly gets into SPOILER TERRITORY but it's sufficient to say that many of the problems that Tris / Four had known "back in Chicago" also existed in the larger world and had brought that larger world to ruin. Indeed, THE HOPE of "The Chicago Experiment" was to prove with "a relatively small controlled sample" (like one conducted in a sealed off city) that _over time_ the problems existent in the society could "breed themselves out"

What kind of problems could breed themselves out?  Well obviously genetic problems...

We're told by The Chicago Experiment's (current) "God like" / dispassionate Supervisor named David (played by Jeff Daniels) -- Reader's note the Biblical name -- that at some point in the 21st Century scientists began to genetically enhance humans so that they could perform their functions better -- make them braver, so that they could become super soldiers; make them smarter, so that they could becomes super-scientist; make them more insightful / honest, so that they could become super-judges and super law-makers; make them more self-less / caring, so that they could become super social workers; make them just simply more optimistic, so that they could become super-workers.

ALL these castes actually existed in that post-Apocalyptic Chicago.  HOWEVER, it turns out that the experiment was to see if these "enhancements" would "breed themselves out of the society" over time.  AND OF COURSE, IF ANYTHING, THE SOCIETY IN CHICAGO HAD ORGANIZED ITSELF TO RIGIDLY PRESERVE THESE ENHANCEMENTS ... until, of course, now.

So Tris / Four as well as a couple of their other "friends" / characters in the story -- notably Peter (played by Miles Teller), note again the New Testament name, who's actually been (quite unfortunately) "a Snake" throughout the story ... -- come quite traumatized to that Base out there on the remains of O'Hare Airport.  There they encounter the "God-like" / dispassionate David and his generally "all clothed in white" (lab-coats...) assistants there, and progressively find to their horror that David, et al, ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING to help the people in Chicago in a time of great turmoil.  INSTEAD, they're "just monitoring" what's going on, watching everything play out, and MAY ONLY INTERVENE TO JUST DESTROY THE PLACE ("end the experiment") if it goes out of hand.

Hmmm... what an awful Religious Allegory that's becoming ... ;-)

It does, sort of, make for "an interesting story" ... though not exactly a religiously friendly (much less Catholic friendly) one.  Indeed, all they needed to do is paint horns and a tail on Peter here ... 

Anyway, three of four installments into the story, I'll probably see the next one as well ... but certainly not particularly enthusiastically ... sigh.


<< 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! :-) >>

Hello, My Name is Doris [2016]

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

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


Hello, My Name is Doris [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Michael Showalter along with Laura Terruso based on her short film Doris & the Intern [2011]) is a generally well-meaning / fun "fantasy" about 60-something, never-been-married-'cause-she-stayed-to-take-care-of-her-mother Doris (played marvelously by Sally Field) who falls for a very attractive 20-something young man John (played by Max Greenfield) at her job. 

And yes, the obvious question / double-standard arises: WHY would the possibility of a relationship between 60-something Doris Miller and 20-something John Fremont be "a fantasy" / preposterous, WHILE a relationship between Sean Connery's 60-something character and Catherine Zeta-Jones' late-20/early 30-something character in Entrapment [1999] somehow be "plausible"?

But then this would then seem to be a good part of the point of the film: why said double standard?  The other point of the film would be, perhaps, nicer -- a reminder that, as an old Servite friar reminded me a number years ago, "Yes, we may age, but we also never forget completely what it's like to be 21 ..."   

Anyway, frumpy sixty-something Doris from Staten Island, who works in a cubicle in some not particularly large advertising firm in Manhattan falls for "the hot new guy" who comes over to work at the firm as some of an "art design manager" and much ensues ...

AGAIN, THIS IS A GENERALLY VERY NICE AND FUN MOVIE ... even as it asks us uncomfortable questions: (1) Why would such a "romance" be "impossible"?  and (2) why would such a "romance" be "necessary" to begin with?  Why can't we just come to accept our age with grace? Yes, do we have to be 21 (or 35) forever?

Fun 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! :-) >>

Miracles from Heaven [2016]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)   RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 3/4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review

People Magazine (D. Atlas) article about making of film 


Miracles from Heaven [2016] (directed by Patricia Riggen, adaptation by Randy Brown based on the memoir [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Christy Beam [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is BY FAR the BEST RELIGIOUS BASED OFFERING to come out in theaters in the United States this Lent. 

The book / film tell the story of Annabel Beam (played in the film by Kylie Rogers), the 9 year old middle daughter of Christy and Kevin Beam (played in film by Jennifer Garner and Martin Henderson), Annabel's two sisters being 12-13 y.o. Abbie and 6 y.o Adelynn (played by Brighton Sharbino and Courtney Fansler).  The acting of all of them is truly of top-quality.

At eight, Annabel quite suddenly had fallen ill with pseudo-obstruction motility disorder, an extremely rare illness in which the nerves that tell the intestine to push food down itself stop firing properly thereby making it impossible for food to digest properly and causing de facto obstructions of undigested food in the intestinal tract.  Due to the rarity of the incidence of this illness, the doctors at the local hospitals (in and around Dallas, TX outside of which the family lived) initially didn't understand what was happening to Annabel.  So they kept misdiagnosing her incessant vomiting / inability to keep food down, to more common (if perhaps particularly manifestations of) conditions like lactose intolerance and/or acid reflux disorder.  Eventually, the doctors figured out what was going on with Annabel.  However, due to the rarity of the disorder, the acknowledged expert on this disorder was a Dr. Nurko (played by Eugenio Derbez) who practiced out of Boston Children's Hospital nearly 1000 miles away. 

So the family had to figure out a way to get their sick child to Boston, first for once every six weeks visits and later (as she was _not_ getting better) for increasingly extended periods there.  The family portrayed lived on a small ranch, so it was _not_ poor.  However, any adult watching the film would _quickly appreciate_ the mounting and eventually back-breaking expenses involved.

Since this was a family story, some of the _best scenes_ involve the children, notably:

(1) When the family still believed that Annabel could be suffering for some sort of extreme case of lactose intolerance, older sister Abbie volunteered to not eat pizza anymore in solidarity with Annabel.  Mom and dad quickly followed suit.  Poor six year old Adelynn WHO HAD JUST STARTED TO KNOW / AND _REALLY LIKE_ PIZZA initially didn't really want to go along.  "Why mommy?  It's good." (and couldn't slightly older sis Annabel just eat something else ;-).  But eventually, she reluctantly "went along" AND ONE JUST WANTED TO CRY.  _I_ honestly can't imagine childhood here _without pizza_.  Yes, it's such "a small thing" but _also_ such a big one as well.

(2) After dad took a second job to help pay for mom's and Annabel's stays / travel expenses in Boston, he forgot one time to take older daughtr Abbie to some soccer exposition (involving apparently several members of the U.S. National Women's team passing through Dallas).  Yes, on one level it may seem "trivial" but to a 13 year old _with her own dreams_ it mattered.  Again, ONE JUST WANTS TO CRY.

Eventually with Annabel NOT getting better and herself _getting tired of being sick and getting worse_ the decision is made to just bring her back home to Dallas (for a de facto hospice like situation).  It's then when she had that incident with the tree -- falling 30 feet down from said tree, hitting her head and "not dying, not becoming paralyzed but instead (quite miraculously or "miraculously" DOESN'T MATTER) becoming healed" -- those nerves to her intestines that were misfiring SUDDENLY started firing correctly again.

Yes, she had an out-of-body / near-death experience in which she said she met God who told her that she'll be fine from now but that she needed to go back.  Again, Viewers can interpret this however they want, STILL, REMEMBER, SHE GOT BETTER... after that _crazy_ fall.

And the film is actually _extremely_ good in acknowledging the obvious: Many, many kids / other people SUFFERING TERRIBLY _DON'T_ GET BETTER.

But the message here is OF HOPE -- that LIFE DOES NOT END HERE ... that there is a vivid paradise that awaits us on the other side, and that ABOVE ALL THAT WE ARE NOT ALONE, that God _does care_ and is indeed with us and is there, on other side, awaiting us.

 It's just a very, very nice and hopeful film and a story that deserves to be shared.

GOOD JOB!


ADDENDUM -

The _only_ reason why I am not giving this film a four star rating is on account of a single scene involving Queen Latifah, who plays a Boston area waitress named Angela.  In the film, Angela befriends Annabel and mom Christy and offers to show the two around her beloved Boston with a personal tour.  Christy first did not want to accept the offer but on insistence of Annabel agreed.  Christy becomes more skeptical when Angela comes to pick them up in a _really broken down car_with all sorts of stuff in the back seat, etc. 

I FOUND THAT SCENE UNFORTUNATE for the same reason as I found similar scenes in another nominally Christian film called War Room [2015] unfortunate.

Even though in the case here, Queen Latifah herself (a fairly known / powerful actress) clearly chose to play the car scene the way it played, I SIMPLY CAN'T BELIEVE THAT A WHITE ACTRESS WOULD ALLOW HERSELF TO BE PORTRAYED IN SUCH A SLOPPY WAY. 

A _lot of white viewers_ (nominally Christian or non) will view that car scene and see it as confirming stereotypes of African Americans as somehow being "less clean" than white people. 

AND I CAN ABSOLUTELY ATTEST THAT THIS IS SIMPLY _NOT_ THE CASE.  I HAVE KNOWN BOTH AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HAITIANS AS WELL AS JAMAICANS whose dress, houses and cars are EVER in _immaculate order_, while there are plenty of whites who are slobs.

 I don't want to belabor the point except to say that I found that scene _unfortunate_ and that is the reason why I did not give the film a four star rating, which I otherwise would have given it.


<< 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! :-) >>