Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising [2016]

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

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

Parents should note that Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising [2016] (directed and cowritten by Nicholas Stoller along with Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O'Brien, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg) is a typically rather hard-R amiable if definitely drugged-up slacker "Seth Rogan" film (with some added and probably for almost all Viewers increasingly tiresome "sex toy" humor...).  So Dear Readers, you should get the picture ... the R-rating is deserved, and I really can't imagine a circumstance why a Parent would want to take a preteen or even a 16 year old to see the film.  

That said, as typical of "Seth Rogan films," the movie is not entirely stupid.  It makes some interesting even legitimate points that would perhaps be hard to make as effectively without at last some of the "smiling / slacker haze." 

The film, a sequel, begins a few years after the original film Neighbors [2014] left-off.  In the original, mid-20s married / college educated couple, Mac and Kelly Radner (played by Seth Rogan and Rose Byrne respectively) expecting their first child, bought a house in what they expected to be a quiet somewhat upscale urban neighborhood (presumably "close to work" ...) only to find a rowdy fraternity led by Frat Bro' Forever "six pack" Teddy (played by Zach Efron) and his true if ever smarter / wiser BFF Pete (played by Dave Franco) was moving in next door.  Much over-the-top (if juvenile) hilarity involving the "über-cool" (frat) and the "wait, only a few years ago, we were quite 'cool' too" (the college graduated, married, expectant couple) ensued ... Among that which ensued was that frat brothers, including Pete, were graduating at the end of the first year of their "living as neighbors"_anyway_ ... so the problem "resolved itself" come the end of the film (graduation time).

At the beginning of the current (second) film, a few years down the road from the first, Mac and Kelly, expecting now their second child, had just successfully sold their house for a bigger one in the suburbs.   All was a go, 'cept, the house was now "in escrow."  Now WT... means "escrow"?  Still mid/late 20 something Mac and Kelly didn't fully appreciate it until the real estate agent, rolling her eyes explained to them ... again: The new buyers had 30 days to conduct inspections of the house and could still walk-away from their purchase of the house for (basically) _any reason_. 

Okay, it's something of a hassle but what could really go wrong...? ;-)  Well ... three incoming freshmen to said nearby college -- Shelby, Beth and Nora (played by Chloë Grace Moretz, Kiersey Clemons and Beanie Feldstein respectively) -- decide that they'd like to found an "off campus sorority" next door (in the old "off campus frat house" that had tormented Mac and Kelly in the first film). 

Now _why_ would the three young women want do do that (besides providing an excuse for the film's producers to create a sequel to the original film)?  Well, the three college freshmen simply found it incomprehensible that on campus sororities were _not_ allowed to hold parties.  The President of one of the on-campus sororities (played by Selena Gomez) tried to explain that "this was not a problem" as simply Frats held the parties to which the Sororities would be invited to.  But for the three (and actually to a lot of young women today) this was a problem:

(1) By holding the parties on their premises, Frats determined then what kind of parties they would be ... often very degrading to women ("Rapey" as one of the young women noted), and

(2) "Partying" need not be a particularly sexual (or sexualized) affair at all.  Indeed, one of the parties that these young women threw at their "off campus" sorority was basically a "karaoke rave-night" that yes, did involve some drugs (mostly pot and perhaps some ecstasy) but really did not involve guys or even sex of any kind at all -- just mostly happy (and free) young women singing (mostly off key) their favorite songs while the other girls just bouncing and dancing to their singing in support... It all looked like a lot of fun ;-), but something that a lot of guys would not necessarily want to attend ;-). 

So this is the first (and main point) that this film made, and perhaps more credibly than a more proper (more "Oscar worthy" ... ;-) film could not.

The other point involved a subplot involving "ever Frat boy" / "six pack" Teddy and his "liked / loved college" but was (long) moving-on BFF Paul ... Paul turns out to be gay and early in the film gets engaged (to another man).  Then Paul and his fiance ask Teddy to move-out of their flat.  What's poor Teddy to do?  Well he first serves as "a consultant" to the three young women as to how to set-up their new "partying" / off campus sorority.  But in the end, he spends some time sleeping on the floor of Mac and Kelly's kids' bedroom (he had told Paul and his fiance) that he _didn't need a lot of space_ ;-) ;-)  Sigh ...

Eventually Paul and Teddy do make up (as friends, as they were always) and Paul even asks Teddy to be his best man.  Well ... at the wedding Paul gets nervous and Teddy, in the role of the best man tries to calm him down / focus him telling him that [his fiance] is "[Paul's] best friend, his confident, who's gonna be with him through thick and thin, and always have is back ..." and at the end of Teddy's speech, Paul asks: 'You weren't talking about my fiance were you?" "No I wasn't" was Teddy's reply ;-), the point being IMHO ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING: While _never_ sexual, Paul's / Teddy's relationship was truly one of Best Friends Forever.  What then in the time of gay marriage to make of Teddy's speech?   We've heard that speech being given countless times by Best Men / Maids of Honor to their best friends getting married ... to someone of the opposite sex.  Why does it sound _so surprisingly weird_ in the context of a gay marriage?   Is the only (if significant) difference between a BFF relationship and a gay relationship the sex?  Is marriage itself, straight or gay, ultimately "just about the sex"?

Yes, this is a "dumb movie," but what an interesting / discussion provoking question it raises ;-)

In the Catholic Church, marriage is about commitment to each other, having / raising kids together (providing a stable home to do so). 

The current film asks some interesting questions about relationships in general -- those involving marriage as well as friendship.  And I found this quite interesting. 

My question would be to the film makers, was it film's crudity really necessary though to raise these question, or even to raise them with a smile?  Obviously, I don't believe that the film needed to be nearly as crude to make its point (or even again to make it with a smile).

Nevertheless, _not entirely_ a bad 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! :-) >>

Nice Guys [2016]

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

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

Nice Guys [2016] (directed and cowritten by Shane Black along with Anthony Bagarozzi) proved to me to be a mess.

While the characters themselves are well-drawn, the core of film's problems is the story:

Set in the late 1970s in Los Angeles, all kinds of people associated with a seemingly random two-bit / "indie" porn flick are being killed for a Chinatown [1974]-esque conspiratorial reason (so far so good ...) 'cept that _the violence_ in the story gets progressively so ratcheted-up that by film's end it's just absurd.  The film's climactic no holds barred shootout at a 1970s era Los Angeles Convention (if it had actually happened) would have been the equivalent of the Black September attack on the 1972 Munich Olympic Games or, frankly, 9/11, something that both _couldn't_ and _wouldn't_ be "hushed-up."  So call the film the "Jurassic World [2015] of crime stories" where even _a good / compelling premise_ has to be amped-up to absurd heights.

And it's a shame because the actors -- Russell Crowe / Ryan Gosling (playing an odd-couple pair of Private Eyes, one with a license, the other kinda "über-ing" it), Angurie Rice (playing Gosling's character's precocious 13-year-old daughter, who finds herself "growing up really fast" by _repeatedly_ "seeing things" that really _no_ thirteen year old should ever have to see), Margaret Qualley (playing a Patty Hearst meets Lyndsey Lohan-like character named Amelia who comes to be at the center of the initially quite well-spun story. She could have really had a conscience, or she could have just been out to embarrass her mother (played by Kim Basinger) a high powered U.S. District Judge) -- deserved better.  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! :-) >>

Angry Birds [2016]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (1 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (D)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars for the goofiness, 1 Star for the "left-wing" content / messaging ;-| )

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

Angry Birds [2016] (Clay Kaytis and Fergal Reilly, screenplay by Jon Vitti based on the video game) is a film that could make a lot of [Adults] angry ;-) or :-/ ... ;-).

Yes, it does _a really good job_ in explaining some of the oddities of the _really successful_ but "really odd" video game that it is based on: why does one _need_ to use a slingshot to hurl _birds_ (don't birds generally fly?) at _green colored pigs_ (why green?  why pigs?) in a battle over _eggs_ (okay, they're the birds' eggs but why did "pigs" want to steal them)?

The birds live on an isolated island presumably in the Pacific.  So in the absence of predators, as in the case of New Zealand's Kiwis, the birds have found no real reason / need to fly.  Then why "green colored pigs"?  Well, they arrive from another (far off) island, and they do seem to be, even at their best, rather ill mannered (like "pigs") and then rather greedy ("green...").   They come to the birds' island ultimately to steal their eggs ... hence producing an island full of really "angry birds" ;-).

 That all said, the film "says" more ... Strangely, bizarrely, perhaps even somewhat amusingly and certainly in part _infuriatingly_ the film becomes a pro-Communist (!? ;-) parable.  Say what? Seriously, hear me out ;-) :

The HERO of the story is a RED bird (voiced by Jason Sudaikis) marginalized and dismissed by the other birds of the island as being a rather "hot-tempered" / "angry" bird.  He is the ONLY bird who was suspicious of "the pigs" right from the moment that they arrived (on a sailing ship from their island).  Okay, when they arrived they blithely "dropped anchor" right on top of his, RED'S, house (at the edge of the birds' town) demolishing it in the process.  So right from the get go, RED was _not_ "a happy bird."

Then the birds of the island WORSHIPED a "legendary" STILL FLYING bird named "the Mighty Eagle" who supposedly lived at the top of the cliffs of a volcanic outcrop on their island.  Since the other birds NO LONGER FLEW no one's ever seen this "Mighty Eagle" for generations, but they still believed that he was there, perched on those "high cliffs" protecting their Island (really World, for they knew no other) from would be "Enemies."  That GOD-LIKE Eagle was portrayed in the film as A GREAT BALD EAGLE.  So he served as a symbol of _both_ GOD and THE UNITED STATES in this story ...

So becoming ever more suspicious of these raucous ill-behaved "pigs" (more of them arriving by the boatload each day), RED along with his "buddies" (of sorts)  from his "anger management group" (voiced by Josh Gad, Danny McBride, SEAN PEAN ;-) and led by white plumed yoga-like instructor (voiced by Maya Rudolph) decide to "climb the heights" to find said MIGHTY EAGLE to ask for his help / (divine-like) intervention.

Well when they arrive, they find said "Mighty Eagle" (voiced by Peter Dinklage ;-) decidedly UNIMPRESSIVE.  He's grown fat, lazy, arguably _flightless_ as well, still stuck-on / holding onto "past glory."

Now dear Readers CHOOSE how to interpret said (fat, lazy, still holding onto the glories of his past) "Mighty Eagle" -- Does he represent GOD or AMERICA?   Which interpretation would offend you less??

Partly to his horror "Red" realizes: "The fate of the world's gonna depend on 'idiots like us'" ;-) which I have to say is a rather _amusing_ way encapsulate some of the more memorable lines from Karl Marx' (heck "Red" even has Groucho Marx' eyebrows ;-) Communist Manifesto notably that "religion is the opiate of the people" and "workers (here 'birds') of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains."   

I have to say that it all reminds me of an (in)famous mural that leftist Mexican muralist Diego Rivera had painted to much controversy back in the 1930s.  In said piece entitled "Man at the Crossroads" originally commissioned BY THE ROCKEFELLERS for their newly constructed Rockefeller Center in New York, he painted "a worker" at the controls of a massive mechanical contraption that would decide History.  (I referred to said mural and the story behind it in a recent review of a recently released Franco-Russian film by Russian director Aleksandr Sukharov entitled Francofonia [2016] in which Sukharov might have been doing a similar thing to the French backers of his film as Rivera was trying to do to the Rockefellers).   ANYWAY, from the moment I saw said mural by Rivera, safely exhibited if "in Exile" at the Palacio de Bellas Artes in Mexico City, I immediately imagined Homer Simpson at said controls ;-).  

And I do find it amusing that the screenwriter here of the current film is Jon Vitti who actually made his mark first writing for The Simpsons [1989-] ;-) 

Anyway, "Red" as a no nonsense, angry-bird like Bernie Sanders ;-) ... "leads" the other birds in their siege of the Pigs' home island and with _late_ help of "The Mighty Eagle" helps free (liberate) the birds' eggs (hence returning to them a promising /peaceful future).


Now folks, I've spent _a lot of time_ over the past several years decrying the rather right-wing and RACIST messaging of a fair number of recent American children's animated films, notably that present in Hop [2011], Hoodwinked Too [2011] and Despicable Me 2 [2013].  What then to say about the current left-wing perhaps honestly Communist apologist film based on a FINNISH video game and sponsored by JAPANESE (Sony) money? ;-)

I suppose, honestly -- left and right -- please "Leave the kids alone."


< 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! :-) >>

Munnariyippu [2014]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmiBeat.com listing

FilmiBeat (A.Menon) review
IndiaGlitz.com review

Kerala 9 (Unni R Nair) review
New India Express (M.K. Nidheesh) review
The Hindu (S.R. Praveen) review
Times of India (TNN) review

Munnariyippu [2014] [IMDb] [FiBt] (directed and cowritten by Venu Goopaalan [IMDb] [FiBt] along with Unni R. [IMDb]) is a well written / well acted, award winning, thoughtful / reflective Shawshank Redemption [1994]-ish  Malayalam (Keralese) crime drama that serves as the third stop in my 2016 Indian Film Tour.  The film is available for rental in the United States on various internet streaming platforms (including iTunes, Amazon Instant Video and Google Play) for a reasonable price.

Set then in Kerala along the Malabar Coast of Southern India, Viewers (and Readers here) get to encounter a remarkably beautiful (and remarkably ancient) part of India.  For this lush tropical land was known already TO THE SUMERIANS (c. 3000 BC) of Mesopotamia as "the Garden of Spices." And it came to be at the very center of the sea-faring portions of the ancient trade route system known to us as "The Silk Road" that extended from the Eastern Mediterranean, the Horn of Africa / Egypt across ALL OF SOUTHERN ASIA (Arabia, Mesopotamia, Persia, India, South East Asia) and the East Indies (Indonesia) to China / Japan.

Many Readers here may ALSO find it interesting that  Kerala is also THE MOST CHRISTIAN part of India (20%,, as opposed to less than 1% across India as a whole) and has been so since ancient times.  By tradition, St. Thomas the Apostle arrived in Kerala in 52 AD where there already was a Jewish Community at the time, successfully converting several Brahmin families.  The ensuing Christian community following the Syro-Malabar Rite exists to this day.  Within my own Religious Order, the Servants of Mary, exist several congregations of Servite Sisters that have foundations now in  Kerala (and neighboring Tamil Nadu).  We Servite Friars have now a thriving Province in neighboring Tamil Nadu as well. 

I mention all this because reference to the (quite ancient) Christianity of the region appears repeatedly in the film with Catholic nuns in their habits quite frequently shown walking about town, checking things out in the market spaces, etc.  Indeed, one of the main characters in the film, a ever-smiling, _western dressed_, recently graduated / still largely freelance journalist named Anjali Arachal (played by Aparna Gopinath [IMDb] [FiBt]) is _clearly presented_ as coming from a Christian family (and reminded perhaps even nagged somewhat about her Christian duties by her more traditional Christian mother ;-).

To the film ... ;-)

At some gathering of young local journalists, above mentioned still largely freelancing, Anjali is offered a somewhat interesting / promising "ghost writing" job by one of her mentor figures: the Superintendent  of a local prison was retiring in a number of months, and was looking for "a ghost writer" to help him organize / publish "his memoirs" for the occasion.  The job apparently seemed a little beneath Anjali's established journalistic mentor, BUT for a recent graduate / "freelancer" like Anjali, this could be a valuable (and connection producing) experience.  So ... he gives the gig to Anjali and soon enough she comes over to the prison to meet with said outgoing Prison Superintendent (played by Nedumudi Venu [IMDb] [FiBt])

While talking to him, she encounters one of the staff working in his office, a soft-spoken man named Raghavan (played by Mammootty [IMDb] [FiBt]).  The Prison Superintendent tells her that he's been at the Prison now for some 20 years, first as a Prisoner (for a double murder of his wife and teenage daughter) and in these last years, as something of a "room & board" employee, as he didn't particularly want to leave.  The Superintendent tells her: "You'll find that most of the prisoners here are just like you and me.  A moment of passion / misjudgement puts them here separating them from us."  The Superintendent doesn't mind that she talk to Raghavan, indeed, wants her to quite extensively interview him (Raghavan, the former and still hanging-on prisoner) for HIS (the superintendent's) book.  So she does ...

Inevitably Raghavan becomes _more interesting_ than the Prison Superintendent, especially when it turns out that he's kept a journal over those 20 years, PHILOSOPHIZING about the meanings of Truth and Freedom while behind those bars.

Okay, Anjali first went to that jail to help THE SUPERINTENDENT write a book, and now she actually finds one of his (former) prisoners MORE INTERESTING than he was.  What to do?  Well, she rationalizes, as long as she gets the Superintendent's book done on time, why not indulge her interest in this (former) prisoner of his, and write A SIDE ARTICLE about him.  Indeed, her mentor ENCOURAGED HER to take the job precisely to "make connections" (and when she talks to him about this, he encourages her to do precisely that ... write the "side article" about the former prisoner even as she works on the Prison Superintendent's book.  She is a "free lancer" after all, and _as long as she completes her contracted task_ why not?

Well, she gets her side article about the prisoner published in a _prominent_ Time Magazine-like (English language) weekly.  And soon ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE are interested in both the Prisoner's story AND HER.

A young literary agent (played by Saiju Kurup) for a publisher in Mumbai contacts Anjali telling her that there's a book in Raghavan's story and quickly seduces her into this rather complicated project -- Raghavan's journal was in Kerala's Malayalam language, the book would be in English to reach the widest reading audience in India (hence, the publisher would be expecting the work to be a collaboration between Raghavan and Anjali, Raghavan writing the original text and Anjali translating / editing it).  The publisher would also want Raghavan to write about "juicier things" than just his "philosophical musings."  They'd want him to write about the crime that put him in jail in the first place.  Finally, well, they'd have a rather strict (and quite short ...) deadline of only a couple of months.

In the meantime, the Prison Superintendent was getting unwanted attention from all over, with many in the Press asking why Raghavan, who had completed his term in prison, was still there.

So ... Anjali finds herself having signed a contract with a publisher for a book that Raghavan was going to write ... and now has to find a place to put Raghavan to write said book UNDER A RATHER STRICT DEADLINE.

Well this was NOT going to be "EASY" ... AND IT WAS NOT.  Remember that Raghavan had "nothing but time" as he wrote his "philosophical musings" OVER THE COURSE OF TWENTY YEARS.  And he had no particular reason other than Anjali's increasing insistence to "write under pressure" now ... One even starst to wonder if Raghavan even wrote his journal at all.  After all, he was in jail for 20 years.  Perhaps somebody else wrote it, died, and he simply later claimed the journal as his own.  Then what of Anjali's original project, helping the outgoing Prison Superintendent WITH _HIS_ BOOK?

The film becomes a fascinating reflection on "Freedom" and "Incarceration" / "Slavery" ... who's actually "free" here and who's "under the gun" / "oppressed" / "facing jail" ?  ;-)

It all becomes a very interesting film, that unfolds _slowly_ but relentlessly in a part of the world that at least the older people (remember Anjali's mom...) didn't necessarily find much reason / desire to rush ... THEY (as well as Raghavan, "in his own way...") STILL ASKED / MUSED "WHY" ?

Great 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! :-) >>

Piku [2015]

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

IMDb listing
FilmiBeat.com listing

FilmiBeat.com (Suparno) review
MovieMahal.net (O. Ahmed) review
Digital Spy (P. Joshi) review
Access Bollywood (K. Gibson) review   
 
Indian Express (S. Gupta) review
Times of India (S. Mitra Das) review
Hindustan Times (A.Chopra) review
Hindustan TImes (S. Kaushal) review
Hindustan Times (N. Mishra) review  

Piku [2015] [IMDb] [FiBt] (directed by Shoojit Sircar [IMDb] [FiBt], screenplay by Juhi Chaturvedi [IMDb]) is a well written / well crafted / well acted, audience / critically acclaimed / award winning contemporary Indian "Father / (grown) Daughter relationship film" / dramedy that, smiling-from-ear-to-ear, serves as the second stop for my 2016 Indian Film Tour.  The film is available in the U.S. for a reasonable price on all kinds of streaming platforms (iTunes, Amazon Instant Video, Google Play, etc)

The title character Piku (played by Deepika Padukone [IMDb] [FiBt] who won an Indian Filmfare Award, India's closest equivalent to the Oscars for her role) is 30-ish, educated, single (in good part by choice, but "if the right guy came along"), working as a junior architect at a Dehli architectural firm also lives with / takes care of her widowed and rather hypochondriac, not particularly pleasant, stool obsessed dad Bhaskor Banerjee (played by Amitabh Bachchan [IMDb]] [FiBt]).

Yes, I do believe that a fair amount of Westerners will be initially taken aback by the amount of stool / bodily functions discussed in this film.  Yet we should remember a good part of traditional Indian medicine is concerned with "cleansing the body" and especially the colon of "toxins" (and then honestly, vegetables would tend to be "gassy").  In any case, Piku's dad seemed absolutely convinced that he was going to _die_ of constipation. "But dad, _nobody's_ ever died of constipation." "Elvis did."  "Elvis??"  "Yes, when they found him dead, they found him sitting on the toilet ..."  

Be that as it may, Piku's quite unhappy dad at home serves as a significant drag on her life.  And it's not necessarily that he's "evil."  Educated / otherwise quite liberal himself, he's often a stronger advocate for his daughter's independence than she herself is. Yes, one does wonder if that's at least in part "self-serving" on his part -- if she's single, she still has to take care of him.  On the other hand, he also does seem to be _sincere_ about his desire that his well educated daughter not simply be(come) "a slave" of whoever she'd end up marrying:

In one of the funniest scenes in a film, after Piku's aunt (played wonderfully by Moushumi Chatterjee [IMDb] [FiBt]), her revered (deceased) mother's sister, tries setting her up with some 'intellectual artist type' "back in Dehli from San Francisco" it's her dad who gives him the 4th degree.  Piku's dad: "Why would a guy like you want to get married?" Possible suitor (taken a bit aback / trying to be nice): "Well, maybe if I met a nice girl..." Piku's dad: "Well, my daughter's _not_ a virgin.  She's well educated, financially independent, sexually independent.  She _does not need_  someone like you.  Would she be the kind of 'nice girl' that you'd be looking for ..." Piku (rolling her eyes): "Thanks dad ..."  

 Well all comes to a head when Piku decides that she'd really like to take a few days off from work (really from her dad ...) and he decides that what she really means is that she'd like to take him back to their family back in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) (they are originally Bengali).  Rolling her eyes, no that's not at all what she meant.  But, then who's gonna take care of her dad while she's gone?  They've gone through 4-5 housekeepers in a couple of months, because, ever constipated, he seems to be always in such a bad mood.  So she consents.

But then, how to get her dad from Dehli to Kalkota 1500 km (1000 miles) away?  He doesn't want to fly (totally messes up one's intestines).  Doesn't want to go by train (again the constant "rocking back and forth" messes everything up inside).  Fortunately, there's now a modern limited access expressway that goes between the two cities.  So they "hire a taxi" to take them there, something that Americans or West Europeans would not necessarily do, but is not entirely uncommon in other parts of the world.  Last fall, I reviewed an Argentinian movie Road to La Paz [2015] about an elderly man hiring a taxi to drive him from Buenos Aires, Argentina to La Paz, Bolivia).

The taxi driver (actually the owner of the taxi company that the hire) is played by famed Indian actor Irrfan Khan [IMDb] [FiBt] and he has fun with this rather odd set of clients.  And the dad again isn't necessarily mean toward him, and even sympathizes with him as the taxi driver (owner of said firm) explains to him (and Piku) that he was actually an engineer and had spent a number of years working "in Saudi" but finally could not stand being "kept in his place" by people who so obviously "knew less than him," finally returning to Dehli to take over his dad's fairly successful taxi firm instead: "A lot of honest people end up like you, taking jobs like you (rather than in the fields that they were traine for)."  But then the dad's colon takes over his head again and ... they find themselves stopping _over and over_ so that he could _try_ to go to the bathroom.  So it makes for a _long_ trip ;-)

But the film keeps a humorous beat.  IMHO the funniest line in the film comes when they stop for the night at some "roadside hotel" midway between Dehli and their destination.  Handing them the keys, the clerk tells them quite matter-of-factly: "Prayer's at 5, checkout's at 8" ;-) -- ALL my American Servite colleagues who've ever been to India remember _well_ THE BLARING literally "from the roof-tops" 4:30 or 5:00 AM Muslim "call to worship" ;-) ;-)

Anyway, much family stuff has to happen, and it does.  And it all makes for a very nice contemporary movie about family life in India today.

A lovely, lovely 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! :-) >>

Last Days in the Desert [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review  



Last Days in the Desert [2016] (written and directed by Rodrigo García) is an apocryphal story invented by the writer / director and added to the end of Jesus' 40 Days of Prayer, Fasting and Temptation in the Desert [cf Mk 1:12-13, Mt 4:1-11, Lk 4:1-13].

In this story, near the end of 40 Days in the Desert, Jesus (Yeshua) (played by Ewan McGregor) encounters a small Family _living_ out there in the Desert (the father, mother and teenage son played by Ciarán Hinds, Ayelet Zurer and Tye Sheridan) and is TAUNTED by the Devil (voiced / played by Ewan McGregor again) to "resolve their problems."  And there are plenty: The Father seems to have been driven to the Desert by his own sense of Failure in life.  The Mother is ill and wasting-away / dying of some unspecified (though probably cancer-like) illness.  Finally, the Son is itching to just get away and strike-out on his own.  

So the challenge that writer / director seems to be giving his Jesus (and to believing Viewers) is to "put aside the Bible" and make him (Jesus) "relevant" to this family with "plenty of its own problems."

And I suppose, in our "focused in on ourselves" quite narcissistic time, that's a quite realistic "challenge" and one that Jesus (be he the script-writer's Jesus or any other one, including the actual One) would certainly fail.

That's because if a person is primarily focused on him/herself, _by definition_ NO ONE (not even Jesus / God) will have much "relevance" to that person. 

The Father seems to be focused on his Failures / Impotence, the Son is focused on whatever big dreams he has as soon as he "blows this Desert" and the Mom is focused on the reality that she's not going to be part of the Living much longer.

So  the writer / director's "Jesus" HAS TO FAIL ...

But do any of the three others "succeed"?  Of course not.

The mother's facing imminent extinction, the father sees that he's not going to leave a mark, and the son, okay, "for a while" can _pretend_ that HE's gonna "make a difference" ... but in 10-20-30-40-50 years, he's gonna be where his father is now ...

EVEN THE BUDDHISTS see this: NOTHING IN THIS WORLD is Eternal.  EVERYTHING IS CHANGING (and if one is honest is directed toward extinction / annihilation).

So then, where does one put one's Hopes / Treasure?

THIS IS INDEED what the BIBLICAL JESUS ACTUALLY FACED IN THE DESERT:

(1) Just make yourself some food ... but food / material well-being are not enough in so short a life.
(2) Make yourself "important" ... but what good is ruling "even the whole world" if you're gonna die and _quickly_ become _unimportant_ then ANYWAY.
(3) Give up then on life and just be a dare-devil ... you'll just die sooner.

I confess that I _don't_ much like stories that seek to _add_ (invent entirely new) episodes to Jesus' life or to the Bible.  I gave a similarly poor rating to a recent film Young Messiah [2016] that focused on "Jesus' hidden years" (as a youth). 

The _actual_ Scriptures offer SO MUCH MORE to _chew / reflect_ on ... and this is why I gave The Bible (History Channel Series) [2013] FOUR STARS while I gave the current film / Young Messiah [2016] one each.


< 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! :-) >>

Money Monster [2016]

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

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


Money Monster [2016] (directed by Jodie Foster, screenplay by Jamie Linden, Alan DiFiore and Jim Kouf, story by Alan DiFiore and Jim Kouf) is a film that at least initially may seem "to go flat" / disappoint, after what would seem to have been a CAN'T MISS / COMPELLING / EVEN SCARY "HOOK" ...

An angry and DESPERATE blue-collarish man in his mid-late 20s, named Kyle (played quite convincingly by Jack O'Connell) posing as "a delivery guy" comes onto the set of a live absurdly amped-up CNBC-like "Financial Advice" television show hosted by an as _empty_ (in oh so many ways) a "talking head" as one could imagine ... an ever smiling, well cut guy named "Lee Gates" (played close to "Las Vegas" / "circus act" perfection by George Clooney) who MAY or MAY NOT have a clue what he's talking about BUT ... you "listen TO HIM" because ... well, HE (somehow) "looks like" someone who'd know what he's talking about.

Well 20-something Kyle HAD LISTENED to that guy ... and LOST $60K, EVERYTHING THAT HE HAD, on a stock tip that Lee had IRRESPONSIBLY promoted AS A SURE THING (more reliable than gravity, more reliable than sunrise and sunset ...) before it suddenly TANKED one fine morning (before recovering) due to a "computer glitch."  That "glitch" cost that firm, IBIS (sounds vaguely "Evil" like ISIS ...)  $850 million, and ... Kyle, his $60K life savings.

So in the name of EVERY certainly naive, and perhaps simply not particularly bright, "small time investor" who's ever been F-ed by Wall Street, Kyle comes onset WITH A GUN and A COUPLE OF EXPLOSIVES LADEN VESTS -- one for Lee, the other for the a-hole CEO of IBIS -- demanding "answers."

Again, the "hook" is compelling, SCARY and perhaps even IRRESPONSIBLE.  After all, there could be ALL KINDS OF PREVIOUSLY _STEPPED-UPON_ PEOPLE watching this film, who honestly MAY be tempted now to "act out" in a similar way... 

So, of course, the film makers KNEW that they COULDN'T let Kyle get away with this.  SIMPLE MORALITY DEMANDS that we NOT take people (audience members) to the edge of contemplating something really, really stupid, without "walking them back"

But the film makers COULDN'T "walk Kyle back" from this.  So, yes, IT SIMPLY HAS TO "END BAD" FOR HIM.  But what now ...

Up to this point, the film honestly may seem like A MALE "THELMA AND LOUISE [1991]" :-) with poor, dumb, even if "right" in this case Kyle needing "to die"


BUT THIS IS WHERE THE FILM BECOMES INTERESTING.  For if one considered ONLY THE MEN, the film leads to Death / Destruction -- Kyle's death, Lee's exposition as an idiot, the CEO of IBIS's exposition as at least some kind of a fraud -- BUT ...

... there were MORE than just men in this film ;-)

The WOMEN, ALL in "SECONDARY ROLES" (often with ONE obvious exception in "behind the scenes" roles) offer ALTERNATIVES _if only_ the others (the men) would listen to them:

There's Patty Fenn (played magnificently by Julia Roberts), Lee Gates' ever calm amidst on-set chaos director managing the now UTTERLY CHAOTIC SITUATION _on her set_ with an almost "regal wisdom" of a Queen of Sheba if not Solomon, and CERTAINLY _better_ than the NYPD who seem to see only (ever crazier) shooting scenarios to bring the situation to an end;

There's Molly (played utterly unforgettably by Emily Meade), Kyle's girlfriend, who's 2-3 maybe 5 minute performance on the film UTTERLY STEALS THE SHOW as she speaks utterly unforgettable truth reminding truly EVERYONE that she's part of this story too

Finally there's Diane Lester (played by Caitriona Balfe) IBIS's "Communications Director, at least initially seeming to be "the only woman of any consequence" at The Firm, and certainly one who was being "asked to dance" (for "The Firm") in front of the cameras, "paid to explain" WHAT SHE HERSELF WAS NOT PRIVY TO ... what happened when IBIS' stock "dipped" like it did on that fateful day.  But "Dancing for Thieves / Liars" was NOT exactly what Diane grew-up wanting to do ...

All in all, this makes for a VERY INTERESTING FILM ... and NOT ONE that one would have initially expected.  On one hand, the film ends the way it had to end.  But on the other ... the film-makers remind us that IT COULD HAVE ALL GONE DIFFERENTLY ;-)

SO GOOD JOB JODIE FOSTER, VERY GOOD JOB ;-)


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