Me Before You [2016]

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

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


Readers here should know that Me Before You [2016] (directed by Thea Sharrock, screenplay by Jojo Moyes [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] based on her novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]) is in the first place _about_ Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia.  (As such, though nominally rated PG-13 it probably should be R...  It's not a "light story").

In the opening minutes of the film, we are introduced to Will Traynor (played by Sam Claflin) a dashing (and super-rich) young man, a stock broker / investment banker of some sort (with a family that _literally_ "owns the castle" in the middle of their town somewhere in provincial England) and ... we watch him about to get hit by a motor scooter in a rain storm as he's crossing the street in front of his London place of business.  We hear the screech, we hear the bang ...

... The next sequence set some two years later, introduces us to Luisa ("Lou") Clark (played by Amelia Clarke) a cheerful / bubbly early-20-something y.o. woman about to lose her job (through no fault of her own, the business was simply closing) at a bakery/pastry shop in the "tourist section" of the lovely/picturesque provincial town from which Will had hailed (and, again, whose castle in the center of town Will's family literally owned).

It would seem therefore that Will's family had been "rich" for generations, since at least the middle ages and arguably since the beginning of recorded history ... In contrast, Lou, we find out as she's walking home (after having lost her job of 6 years...) lives with her parents (played by Samantha Spiro and Brendan Coyle), her sister Katrina ("Treena") (played by Jenna Coleman) and grandad (played by Alan Breck) in a blue collar "row house" section of town more toward its edge.  (One family seemed to have had it made, for generations, while the other had struggled, seemingly for ever ...).

With few jobs available and not a heck of a lot of skills, the jobs counselor at the local (gov't run?) employment agency suggests she take a stab at a "care taker" opening advertised it turns out by Will's parents (played by Janet McTeer and Charles Dance) to help take care of ... Will (who's become a paraplegic - confined to a bed / motorized wheelchair, unable to walk, indeed unable to use even his hands since his accident).

She interviews and despite being intimidated at first by Will's mom who did the interviewing (and let's face it, not a lot of experience in the matter of care taking) she gets the job.  Why?  Well, the "heavy lifting" (literally) was being done by an amiable physical therapist named Nathan (played by Stephen Peacocke).  Lou's job was to basically make sure that Will took his various meds and, well, to lift his spirits / give him someone to talk to.  Here Lou's cheerful disposition was in fact a useful indeed necessary qualification for the job (and cheerfulness / optimism has never been determined by one's socioeconomic class ...).

Much often predictable ensues...

Obviously, Will is quite depressed even if he had learned to fake a smile in his parents' presence as necessary.  He's also angry, angry among other things _at God_.

Will's anger at God / Religion  is made clear by a really quite awful (and seemingly off-hand)  comment about a recent French film Of Men and Gods (orig. Des Hommes et des Dieux) [2010] which in my review, I had called possibly _the best_ film about contemporary Catholic Religious Life _ever made_ (and I'm _not_ alone in that characterization, priests / religious across the U.S. have _loved_ the film and have used even it in vocation promotion ;-), which Will instead dismissively introduced to Lou as "French gay porn." There is NO SEX or even HINT OF SEX in that film ... Instead the film is about a community of French Benedictine monks in Algeria that despite increasing risk to their lives, decided to continue in their 100 year old mission there of both _praying for_ and _serving_ the people (mostly Muslim) of their town up onto _their martyrdom_.

Indeed, in that simple offhand / dismissive comment about "Of Men and Gods" is in fact "the true Crux" of the current one:  In that film, a community of Benedictine monks had rededicated themselves TO GOD / EACH OTHER and TO THE SERVICE OF OTHERS ... ONTO DEATH.  Yet in the current story, we had an angry rich young man (certainly angry with _some_ reason) who was REPEATEDLY CHOOSING to put HIMSELF ("Me") BEFORE OTHERS (his parents and ultimately in front of Lou, "You") in deciding to do with the future of his life.

IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT I'VE CHOSEN ABOVE TO CHARACTERIZE THE FILM AS _ABOUT_ Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia (that's what Will, despite the love of his parents and later of Lou ... pursues) and NOT "A CASE _FOR_ ASSISTED SUICIDE / EUTHANASIA."

The film is sympathetic to Will's plight.  As a quadriplegic, he found himself unable to do MUCH of what he had LOVED TO DO prior to his accident (and there was _little prospect_ that this was going to change in his lifetime).  He was one who LOVED "doing things" ALL KINDS OF THINGS before his accident.  Now he could not _do_ most of them.

Yet the film is at least as sympathetic and arguably pleads the case of those around Will.  His parents and especially his mother LOVED HIM.  Lou also came to LOVE HIM and would have done basically anything (even SACRIFICE HER OWN DESIRES / FUTURE) to HELP MAKE HIM HAPPY.

But the film is about "Me" and "You" and who do WE _choose_ to put first.  And WILL (!) seemed dead set on focusing _on himself_ ... 

So this is a very intelligent story that does remind us that though we are always (and perhaps always have the right to be) "the Masters of our Lives" WE _ARE_ ALSO ALWAYS _MORE_ THAN WHAT WE "DO" (and that the Others around us ... Count as well).

Good / excellent 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! :-) >>

The Knife (orig. Kaththi) [2014]

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

IMDb listing
FilmiBeat.com listing**

New India Express coverage**

FilmiBeat.com (B. Bhat) review**
iFlickz.com (Sai Shyam G) review**
IndiaGlitz review**
KollyTalk.com review**
OnlyKollywood.com review**

Hindustan Times (H. Pudipeddi) review**
The Hindu (B. Rangan) review**
Times of India (M. Suganth) review**

The Knife (orig. Kaththi [2014]) [IMDb] [FiBt] (screenplay and directed by A.R. Murugadoss [IMDb] [FiBt]) is the fifth stop on my 2016 Indian Film Tour.   In the U.S., the film is available on a number of mainstream streaming platforms including Google Play and YouTube for a reasonable price.

Staring Vijay [wikip] [IMDb] a famous Tamil actor and pop-singer, the film was released in autumn 2014 in time for India's annual Diwali Holiday amidst a good deal of multilevel controversy due to:

(1) alleged links of the film's production company Lyca to Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa (hated by many in Tamil Nadu for presiding over the brutal crushing of a Tamil insurgency in his neighboring island nation), with Lyca in turn accusing its accusers of forging the photographs allegedly linking them to Rajapaksa and his family [1]** [2]**

(2) specific accusations made in the film of high level corruption in India (in it's giving out of 2G spectrum cell-phone contracts)**

and even (3) accusations of plagiarism [1]** [2]**

The film became the highest grossing Tamil language film of 2014 and subsequently won three 2015 FilmFare (South) awards (India's closest equivalent of the Oscars) for Best (Tamil Language) Film, Best Director (of a Tamil Language Film) and Best Choreography (in a South Indian Film).  A Hindi language remake** of the film is scheduled to be made as well.

So what then is this film about?  Well, the film could be called "a typical Bollywood / Kollywood film" but with a social conscience.   Indeed, it's _almost two films_.

We're introduced to the main character Kathiresan (played by Vijay [wikip] [IMDb] [FiBt]) in jail with a reputation of being both a con-artist (that's why he's in jail) and an escape-artist (why we find him initially locked-up way up by Kolkata (in West Bengal) as opposed to his hometown of Chennai (Tamil Nadu).  As luck would have it, the film begins with another prisoner attempting to escape the (apparently somewhat more imposing prison by Kolkata than closer to home).  The guards, knowing that Kathiresan (or Kaththy, "Knife" for short) ask him (as one who's tried to escape many times before) for help in apprehending him, and ... Kaththy uses the opportunity to escape himself ;-)

The next scene has him back in Chennai, showing-up at his brother Dannu (played by Sathish [IMDb] [FiBt]) also a criminal though more of a small-time if more focused/disciplined pick-pocket.  Indeed, after Kaththy first asks him for money to "take the next plane out to Bangkok" and _then_
 because he falls in ... desire (big Bollywood Dance number there ;-) ... for a sweet young woman named Ankitha (played by Samantha Ruth Prabhu [IMDb] [FiBt]) that he mets at the airport TEARS UP HIS TICKET AND STAYS in Chennai, Dannu complains: "Kaththi, you simply don't know the value of money.  DO YOU KNOW how many OLD LADIES' PURSES I HAVE TO STEAL to pay for that ticket to Bangkok?  I'm NOT getting you another one." ;-)

Well, as they're going back home across some random overpass in Chennai, they spot some kind of  "a hit" take place below them.  Running then to the scene (to see if there'd be anything to take ... ;-) Kaththi is SHOCKED to see that the person who was shot _looked just like him_.

The two take the wounded man to the hospital and Kaththi uses the opportunity to change identities, taking the wounded man's papers as his own and asking his brother to fill out the hospital admission papers as if the wounded man were him.  He figures that whether the wounded man lives or dies, by the time the authorities figure out who he is, he'll be long out of the country (in Bangkok...) anyway.

Well the next day, as he's walking the street there in Chennai, he's picked-up by someone who knows, well, the wounded man.  Who was he?   A man named Jeevanantham, who turns out to have been an activist in the countryside _outside of Chennai_ defending the water rights of a small rural village named Thanoothu from a predatory multinational corporation that wanted to use the region's scarce water resources to feed a cola (soft-drink) plant.

Initially, both he / his brother could care less.  Indeed, they're even quite excited when a local government official appeared offering him an absurdly high sum of money (2 million rupees) to just "go away" which he had no problem doing because ... initially he had NO IDEA AT ALL what all the fuss was about.

But as he learns what's going on, Kaththi increasingly gets a conscience.  Taken "out there" (to the boonies) by someone, perhaps that government official promising him the money, he finds out that 6 men from the local "old folks home" (run by Mother Theresa's congregation) had actually committed suicide (slit their own throats) in a feed reservoir to the Cola bottling plant telling the guards, "Now you'll have to drink our blood mixed with the soft drink water if you proceed."  

And so Kaththi started to understand that even the money he was being offered "to just go away" was essentially "blood money" as well.  And so, he decides to help these poor villagers (whose Elders were in that "old folks home") defend their water, ... using the "skill-set" that he had ;-)

Now mind you, Kaththi, like almost all Indians, "knew something about Gandhi," but he ALSO knew a "heck of a lot about (petty) crime" ;-) ... So let's just say that his defense of the village and its rights was "a rather interesting mix" -- call it "Gandhi meets Jackie Chan [IMDb]" ;-)

Of course somewhere in the story, the young woman that he met at the airport becomes involved (Dear Readers, I'm not going to tell you how ;-).  And of course, "the good side" wins in the end.

What perhaps will interest Readers here (and _should_ indeed interest them) is that the battle over water rights in rural India (especially in the South, like in Tamil Nadu) is REAL.

Yes this movie has a generally quite flippant tone.  Yet, in a speech that Kaththi gives to the media (who all believe that he's still the social activist Jeevanantham) he actually articulates the problems of Rural India:

(1) In the last 30 years across India 12,456 lakes, 27,000 ponds, 7 rivers have been dried to support non agricultural uses;

(2) Nine elderly Indian activists actually did commit suicide to protest the destruction of their rural way of life;

(3) Indeed, for the last 10 years every 30 minutes a farmer in India commits suicide because he can no longer support his family, while more than 1 million farmers have abandoned their generations old livelihood in search of better paying (but often backbreaking) work in the cities, this in a country where

(4) 5,000 children die each day of malnutrition;

(5) Indeed, as in other parts of the world, what food is produced is often not used to feed people, but rather to make soaps (out of milk), "whitening creams" (from eggs, fish and carrots) and cosmetics (out of tomatoes, oranges and almonds).

Anyway, it all made for a very interesting twist to a film that at least initially seemed to be largely a "song and dance puff piece."  And perhaps this is _why_ all the various accusations (unfounded) were made against it in the months leading up to its release and why it ended up winning all the awards (back in India) that it.
 
A very interesting film indeed, and one that deserves to be more widely known about.  Good job! ;-)


** To load Websites from South and East Asia in a timely fashion, installation of ad-blocking software is often required.

<< 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! :-) >>

A Bigger Splash [2015]

MPAA (R)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review  

A Bigger Splash [2015] (directed by Luca Guadagnino, screenplay by David Kajganich story by Alain Page [wikip-fr]*[IMDb] is essentially an updated remake of the classic French / Italian 1960s erotic thriller La Piscine [1969] (directed and screenplay cowritten then by Jacques Deray along with Jean-Claude Carrière, story by Alain Page [wikip-fr]*[IMDb]).

In the current film, Janis Joplin-esque euro-rock star diva Marianne Lane (played by Tilda Swinton) and her perhaps a few years younger photographer-turned-lover of six years Paul de Smedt (played by Matthias Schoenaerts) have successfully ditched the paparazzi to "hole themselves up" _in a drop-dead gorgeous_ "up in the hills" multi-acred / multi-leveled / terraced villa in the Sicilian countryside with, of course, an ocean view worthy of the Gods and a mosaic-tiled pool worthy of an Emperor.  Oh how they suffered so ... They were there in good part so that Marianne could rest her voice, which 15-20-25 years into her career was clearly wearing.

While out there in this Elysian retreat in Paradise, they're visited by (perhaps) a Snake / perhaps two (actually quite a few, the presence of _actual snakes_ seem to be a day-to-day nuisance there ;-) in the form of a record producer named Henry Hawkes (played devilishly annoyingly well by Ralph Fiennes) and his bored but gorgeous young adult (late teen - early 20s) daughter Penelope (played with _quiet_ "yes, I'm hot, but you're all old, so I'll take my time to mess with all of you as I wish and on my own timetable ;-)" perfection by Dakota Johnson).

Henry had been a former lover of Marianne's and past more business acquaintance than friend but also sort-of friend to Paul.  Indeed some 6-7 years previous, Henry had "bequeathed" Marianne to him (usually not a particularly good idea but he had been getting tired of Marianne and Paul, perhaps at least at the time, hadn't seemed that much of a threat to him...).  No one had really known of Penelope (not even Henry until a few years back).  But a few years after her mother had reconnected with Henry (perhaps _just_ to inform him that he had a daughter by her ... and ask for some money) they came to this (rather odd / awkward...) arrangement that during this particular summer, he'd "take her around with him" while he was traveling in Europe.

So there they were Henry and Penelope ... visiting (or perhaps "crashing in on") Henry's old friends Marianne and Paul, both of whom probably would not have wanted to see him.  (Honestly as I write this, I find myself having more sympathy for Henry that I thought I'd ever have...).

And while Henry was perhaps arriving with all kinds of regrets, there was also Penelope, bored, left to ... just look _great_ in a bikini, listening to "stuff" on her ipod, flipping through "stuff" in a bunch of glossy (Italian?) magazines, _perhaps_ journaling "more stuff" in her notebook as she sunned herself by the pool, while her "dad" (again, she met him a few years ago...) met up with people who didn't really want to see him.

So this couldn't possibly go well ... and ... you could probably guess ...

It makes for an interesting "coming-up to summer" movie and reminds me to perhaps start making a list of "summer vacations from hell" films ;-)

But teens, above all, _please_ be nice.  Try to remember that ONE DAY you'll be "like the old folks" too ... ;-)


* 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! :-) >>

Maggie's Plan [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  

Maggie's Plan [2015] (directed and cowritten by Rebecca Miller along with Karen Rinaldi) continues a string of "next generation Woody Allen-esque" films that ever smiling / ever bumbling (how does she get herself into these convoluted Laurel & Hardy-like "fine messes"?) actress Greta Gerwig (playing here the lead of role of Maggie) is associated with.

Over the years of my blog, I've honestly _loved_ Greta Gerwig in her roles since first seeing her in the LOL (! ;-) _funny_ DEFINITELY _not_ "in distress" role of a hardworking / _earnest_ (but if need be _ruthless_ "one must keep the proper order of things...") leader of a thoroughly _random_ girls' clique at some random "small Liberal Arts College" somewhere in the North East in Damsels in Distress [2011].  In subsequent roles -- Lola Versus [2012], Frances Ha [2014], Mistress America [2015] (America's fun / lively, wonderful even _super-heroic_ "girl on the side ..." ;-) -- she's played "Woody Allen" roles (if one could imagine Woody Allen as an ever smiling, somewhat curvy (_not_ "fat" but definitely _not_ "anorexic" either) 20 or 30-something, generally blonde, young woman), who's _always_ studying for / has a degree in some _absurdly specialized field_ at/from some NYC based college / university.

In the current film, Gerwig's Maggie is a late 20-early 30-something adjunct professor at the City College of New York with a Masters in / teaching "Arts Marketing" and is introduced to us explaining her relational / reproductive dilemma to Tony (played by Bill Hader) who's half of the only VBFFs she has in the world -- Tony's wife Felicia (played by Maya Rudolph) is the other half of her _tiny_ circle of friends.  Her dilemma is this: Approaching 30, she's realized that she hasn't been involved in a single serious relationship that's lasted more than six months, and yet she'd really like to have a kid.  Not trusting the veracity of the CVs left by the donors at a typical sperm bank, she's literally found "A Guy" a former acquaintance named _Guy_ (played wonderfully throughout by Travis Fimmel) -- a bearded "granola-people" looking hipster who gave up on studying for a doctorate in mathematics to start a business making / selling "craft pickles" ;-) -- who's "fine with" leaving her "a load" (of his sperm) in a specimen cup for said purpose (of creating a kid) ESPECIALLY (to his relief) after she explained to him that she'd be fine with, even PREFER, him NOT having ANY RESPONSIBILITY for the child produced afterwards.  Why would a "slacker" former PhD Mathematics student turned "craft pickle entrepreneur" be "the perfect father" for her chid?  Well, at least she "really knows" who he is and comes with no (further) surprises ;-).

So that's "the plan" ... what could possibly go wrong? ;-)

Well, for starters, even as she's putting this relatively simple plan into motion ... Guy loses the first specimen cup ... she runs into and contrary to her best judgement gets progressively involved with "John" (played by Ethan Hawke) another adjunct professor at said CCNY campus, in "Ficto-Critical Anthropology" (yes, the field actually exists but it's "Postmodernist" boundaries are so vaporous that it's a field that one could study / write about apparently next to _anything_ -- from fiction to non, from poetry to critical essays).   When John appears on the scene, he's married to (as he describes her) a true "icy queen" named Georgette (played wonderfully by Julianne Moore) from some random Nordic/Germanic land (who amusingly proves absolutely incompetent at almost every winter sport / outdoor activity).  In actuality, if certainly quite "socially challenged," she's a far more successful (and tenured) Professor (of Ethnology at Columbia University) than either John or Maggie.  For a brew of unspoken if obvious reasons (insecurity, professional jealousy, etc), John latches onto the amiable / less threatening Maggie and ... just as he's about to inseminate herself with her Guy's sperm (provided by him "just offsite" in a second specimen cup that she provided him with ... John shows up at her apartment, proclaiming his love for her ... and ...

... three years later, we find her ... married to John, with a cute as a button 2-something year old daughter and ... getting kinda tired of John ;-).  John's, of course, divorced Georgette to "do the right thing" / marry Maggie.   His two older kids (with Georgette) are still rather confused / resentful about it all.  The ever very socially limited Georgette has of course taken the opportunity to write a characteristically hugely successful (both academically and commercially) if absolutely scathing "scholarly critique" of marriage (_her_ former marriage) and more specifically _husbands_ / her former husband) as a result ;-).  Yet at the end of the day both John and Georgette have taken to using the younger Maggie as a "go to" / de facto nanny for (all) the(ir) kids.

"Too bad you can't just give John back to his first wife..." says, offhandedly, Maggie's friend Felicia, the other half of her BBF couple introduced above, and ... that's where Maggie gets into her head the second half of "her plan."  A few years wiser now, "What could go wrong (again)?"  The rest of the film ensues ... ;-) 

Yes, to many / most readers of my blog, Catholic after all, the moral choices of these 20-30 something characters seem almost "extra-terrestrial."  And yet, actually, the story becomes almost a defense of (and certainly an invitation to a second look at) traditional morality.  Look at the veritable Pandora's Box that one opens when one starts "messing with the rules." ;-)

Anyway, PLEASE DON'T LIVE LIKE THIS but certainly it's a fun and even insightful movie to watch / reflect on ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Love & Friendship [2016]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB ()  ChicagoTribune (3.5 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3.5 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review

The Guardian (P. Bradshaw) review

ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review  

Love & Friendship [2016] (screenplay and directed by Whit Stillman based on the novel Lady Susan [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Jane Austen [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) should delight almost EVERY Jane Austen fan and ought to certainly earn Kate Beckensale an Oscar nomination for her utterly _spot-on_ / inspired lead role performance as the breathlessly shrewd, recently widowed (but _not_ exactly mourning... ;-) later-30 something "original desperate housewife" Lady Susan Vernon [wikip] [IMDb].

Interestingly enough, though Lady Susan was one of Jane Austen's EARLIEST WORKS (written between 1793-95) it was published ONLY LONG AFTER HER DEATH (Jane Austen died in 1817 while Lady Susan was published only in 1871 ;-).  And I _honestly_ "understand" ;-) as Lady Susan was such a delightfully / _devilishly_ subversive character capable of just cutting through "polite society" of the time like "a hot knife through butter" while disarmingly / infuriatingly smiling throughout.

I would also add that anyone familiar with some of Whit Stillman's previous films (he hasn't made many, only five over nearly 20 years) -- I've seen two The Last Days of Disco [1997] and Damsels in Distress [2011] (the former I remember to this day and the latter being one of my all time favorite films since I began my blog five years ago) --  would appreciate that probably NO ONE could have adapted the Austen's original material here as well as he could.  Honestly folks, this could be THE FUNNIEST JANE AUSTEN ADAPTATION in a generation (or, honestly, perhaps EVER ;-).

Okay, with SUCH A BUILDUP, what's the story about?

It's about Lady Susan (played again exquisitely, indeed inspiringly by Kate Beckensale) being "on a mission."  Recently widowed with only a mid-to-late teenage daughter, Frederica (played again wonderfully / naively by Morfydd Clark), she's realized that she needs to get her daughter and then _herself_ married-off to a couple of _very rich men_ VERY FAST.   And though she is breathlessly "Machiavellian (in a corset ;-)" about this, she also proves very _pragmatic_ and even _kind_ about it as well:

When Susan realizes that her still, let's face it, _teenage daughter_ really didn't appreciate the gravity of their situations (women in Jane Austen's time still couldn't inherit property ... hence if they didn't get married / remarried _quickly_ they were doomed...) and therefore Frederica "was holding her nose" at the prospect of marrying the man that Susan had initially lined-up for her, a certain kind / rich if dimwitted ("rattle of a man") Sir James (played once more wonderfully by Tom Bennett), SHE (Susan) proves willing to set her daughter up with the (again super-rich, pedigreed) guy that Susan herself was gunning for, a Sir Reginald DuCourcy (played by Xavier Samuel), while settling for the dimwitted (but rich) Sir James herself.  (But then Susan had already learned something that Frederica did not yet understand, that, as per the / Jane Austen's time, "first things first" a woman needed a rich husband to "provide for her / her children."  "Happiness" is really / merely "a secondary concern" that can be "arranged for" (in J.A. speak "procured") "by other means" ...

A desperate situation called for desperate measures and while the rest of quite polite society was, of course, "scandalized" by her machinations, Lady Susan was _not_ I repeat _not_ going to "end up poor" in her old age if she could help it.

So much ensues, and though one generally "needs a score card" to keep track of all of the characters in a typical Jane Austen story, writer/director Stillman amusingly PROVIDES VIEWERS WITH ONE (OF SORTS) right at the beginning of the film as he provides a caption by each of the characters as they are introduced, giving their name, their relation to the other characters, and then, most amusingly, the principal trait by which we should remember them.  The device works beautifully and immediately sets the tone of the marvelously, often laugh-out-loud, whimsical story that follows.

Honestly, this is almost certainly one of the best / funniest English language films of 2016 (and it's only May ;-).

A great, great (if also on another level, still distressing ...) 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! :-) >>

X-Men: Apocalypse [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB ()  ChicagoTribune (2.5 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (1 Star)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (A.J. Bastien) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  

If nothing else, X-Men: Apocalypse [2016] (directed by Bryan Singer, screenplay by Simon Kinberg, story byBryan Singer, Simon Kinberg, Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris) has produced some _excellent_ critical analysis (in the best sense of both words).  Honestly, Dear Readers, take a look at the reviews of both Bastien (of RogerEbert.com) and Vishnevesky (of the A.V. Club) for this film.

Pretty much the whole "critics-sphere" has zeroed-in by now on the (quite large) Achilles Heel of the whole Super Hero genre -- the wanton and massive collateral destruction inflicted on humanity (us) by said "Super Heroes" even as they "save us" from "Super Villains" that somehow arise -- in this case an Ancient Egyptian Super-Mutant named En Sabah Nur a.k.a. Apocalypse [Mrvl] [IMDb] (played IMHO quite well / with appropriate regal panache "I am A GOD, wait, why aren't you worshiping me?" ;-) by a well-cast Oscar Isaac) literally buried _for Millennia_ under "The Sands of Time" -- with each installment.   Talk about a "love / hate" relationship ;-) ...

... And while I simply LOVE Magneto [Mrvl] [IMDb] (played since X-men: First Class [2011] by Michael Fassbender) -- I picked him as the Most Compelling (Male) Hero / Villain in my first, 2011, "Denny Awards" -- I wonder if Magneto would understand that he'd be really his own worst enemy.  Yes, one _totally gets_ his super-tragic back-story (In X-men: First Class [2011] he's _introduced_ to us as a survivor of Auschwitz and in the current episode, set in the early 1980s, he even tries to "put aside his super-powers" and "play it straight" by hiding as a humble "Lech Walesa-like" worker at a small Communist era Polish steel mill - only to _tragically_ lose his wife and daughter to a fearful bunch of "apparatchiks" / coworkers _anyway_).  BUT THERE'S SIMPLY NO WAY that humanity could put up with a man / mutant of his Power (moving / throwing about _anything metal_ ... from simple coins, to rockets / planes [in the first film], to buildings [in the second one], to the earth itself [in the current one]... at his whim) wreaking untold destruction on everyone around whenever he got (even _legitimately_) angry ...

So why the _need_ to "blow things up"? (or even the need to blow _so many things_ up?)

Well, we live in a post-9/11 world where we watched (at least those of us who were alive at the time), LIVE, at least two enormous skyscrapers be _blown up_ with _thousands of people_ killed still inside.  Then Auschwitz turned Pogroms (Evil already in their own right) into a horrifically-efficient _industrial_ slaughterhouse / crematorium operation (2015 Oscar winning "best foreign language film" Son of Saul [2015] portrays the _banging_ / clanging / _burning_ horror of the "day to day" operation of Auschwitz with truly infernal magnificence).   Jews (along with Gypsies) were shipped there to their deaths because they were considered "different from the norm" (religiously / ethnically considered to be "subhuman" that is to say ... "mutants").  Finally, a similar rage exists among homosexuals (also sent to concentration camps by the Nazis for "special treatment") and even women (thought of by "Nazis" - but really _all of humanity_ at its worst - previously as basically "breeding machines") over past crimes / mistreatment.

So the experience of watching the destruction wreaked by "mutants" in these X-men films is IMHO a conflicted one.  Perhaps MORE than in the case of OTHER "Superhero" scenarios -- be it Marvel Comic's Avenger Series, the "Batman v. Superman" DC Comics inspired universe or even the recent incarnation of the Star Trek series -- we _kinda understand_ the onscreen _rage_ / _violence_in the X-Men series and yet at the same time we remain disturbed by it. THERE OUGHT TO BE A WAY for "humans" and "mutants," to reconcile, forgive each other, and live together in peace.

... but it's clearly not easy.  Professor Charles Xavier [Mrvl] [IMDb] (from hence comes the "X" in "X-men" and played since X-men: First Class [2011] by James McAvoy) continually tries to find / "educate" the "mutants" he finds to help them understand / control their "powers" while also trying _really hard_ to dialogue with humanity so that it does not _fear them_ so, while above mentioned Magneto [Mrvl] [IMDb] tries above all to train "mutants" to "defend themselves" (or, in this film, just tries at least to defend himself / his family).  Neither option seems to work particularly well, though Xavier's would seem to be the long term better one.

But then seemingly "random events" arise -- like the waking-up of the above mentioned "Ancient Egyptian" super-hero/mutant En Sabah Nur a.k.a. Apocalypse [Mrvl] [IMDb] and everything "goes to Hell" again for a while with significant sections of the world, in the current case, Cairo, being seemingly wantonly destroyed.

Will it ever really calm down?  I suppose we'll see (or at some point we'll _stop watching_ ...).  Perhaps the X-Men universe stocked with _so many_ "super powerful" mutants / people will NEVER be able to be(come) calm.

And _perhaps_ the solution will come when a new (and more diverse) generation _of writers_ (let's face it, the "true Gods" in these stories ;-) will come on the scene and find _a new path_ that neither ProfessorX [Mrvl] [IMDb] nor Magneto [Mrvl] [IMDb] nor the present crop of writers of these tales have been able to discover.

Until then, probably the slaughter will continue ... until we just get tired of it and go on, ourselves, to something else.


<< 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! :-) >>

Alice Through the Looking Glass [2016]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  ChicagoTribune (1 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (0 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

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


I confess that in contrast to virtually every critic that I cite above, I LIKED Alice Through the Looking Glass [2016] (directed by James Bobin, screenplay by Linda Woolverton inspired by the book(s) [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Lewis Carroll [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]).  I liked Tim Burton's (updated / reimagined) "original" Alice in Wonderland [2010] released in the months _just before_ I started my blog, and I LIKED THIS ONE, its sequel as well.  Why? ;-)

Well, first off, CATHOLIC PRIEST or not, I LIKE the "reimagined" Alice [wikip] [IMDb] (played by Mia Wasikowska).  I have _repeatedly_ recommended the original to family/friends and had made it a parish "teen group outing" after it had come out.  For here was a late teen / young adult Alice (rather than a 7 year old) who was a clear protagonist in her own story rather than one to whom (often bewildering) things happened to.  I can't imagine a parent _anywhere_ today who'd not want their daughters to grow-up to be _like_ "Wasikowska's Alice."

So I just LOVED the opening sequence of the current film which had Wasikowska's Alice AS THE YOUNG (maybe 20 y.o.) CAPTAIN OF HER FATHER'S OLD SHIP "The Wonder" outwitting a group of (Malay) pirate ships somewhere near China.  Yes, it was utterly anachronistic -- there'd be no way that a 20 year old, let alone a 20 year old young woman would be allowed to be / let alone BE RESPECTED) as a captain of a sailing ship in the late 1800s, no matter who was one's dad was ("it's just not done laddy / missy ...") -- but it was IN YOUR FACE COOL.   The gauntlet was dropped, the film's makers reminding EVERYBODY that the Alice of the first film was here to stay.  As a priest who I respected, indeed loved, early in my relationship with the Servites (my religious order) would say: "Good on you" ;-)

And it wasn't as if it was easy for Alice "to be free" / liberated in such a way.  A good part of the story that takes place "in the _real world_" was about an attempt by her family (her mother, played by Lindsay Duncan) and her father's old business associates including Alice's once "picked for her" fiance' (played by Leo Bull) to "put her back in her place" (in then Victorian society). 

So it's should not surprise anyone really at all, that faced with a truly _oppressive_ "reality" where she was (or at least would have been) allowed to do "next to nothing" (live as basically _as an adult version_ of the original 7 year old Alice of Carroll Lewis' books), she _preferred_ (to at least escape to) the "alternative world" available to her, this time, not through "a rabbit hole" but rather through "passing through a looking glass (mirror)" where she could be both valued and useful.

And so it was, faced with a "damned if you / damned if you don't" prospect of either losing her ship or being forced to watch her mother lose her home, led by "a butterfly" that she recognized (Absolem voiced by Alan Rickman), she jumps through said "magical mirror" back into "Wonderland" where she could catch-up / commune with and ultimately help resolve problems among her friends "on the other side."  Again, WHO WOULD BLAME HER?


Then I honestly thought the CGI (as well as set / wardrobe design) of "Wonderland" was (as in Tim Burton's "original") MAGNIFICENT.  Readers here will note that I don't necessarily give CGI a pass.  I _panned_ last year's Pan [2015] (as well as Mad Max: Fury Road [2015] and others).  On the other hand, I've whole heartedly defended / embraced CGI (even when it was _wild_...) when it served / improved upon the story (as in the CGI extravaganza that was the "updated" Three Musketeers [2011], as well as Suckerpunch [2011] and Thor [2011] to say nothing of the LOTR Hobbit [2012-14] movies).

Much of the current film deals with Alice, in Wonderland, having to sail "the seas of time" (in a steam-era mechanical orb-like contraption) in order to go _back in time_ to see what exactly had happened the Mad Hatter's [wikip] [IMDb] (played by Johnny Depp) family back on one fateful day an event which was causing the previously "mad" but otherwise _lively_ "hatter" to sink ever more deeply into depression. 

I found the CGI of the "Sea of Time" sequences (with seemingly every wave representing a day) to be simply Magnificent ("Thor [2011]"-worthy ;-).  I even found Alice's battles with personified Time (played IMHO quite excellently by Sasha Barron Cohen) to be LOL _fun_ as well: "Remember, I'm _inevitable_" he calls out to her as Alice tries to "out-run Time" ;-).  And there's a sequence centering around "Tea Time" that IMHO will be unforgettable to ANYONE with an 8-10 year old as the "Time puns" just fly for several minutes straight with Cheshire the Cat [wikip] [IMDb] (voiced by Stephen Fry) appearing (arriving) "ON Time," TIME _flying_ "when we're having fun", etc, etc.


Alice's passage "back into time" also helps Viewers appreciate better _why_ the "Red Queen" [wikip] [IMDb] (voiced by Helen Bonham Carter) had become so "evil" / problematic.  To be honest, I'm getting a little tired of that device, first popularly used to explain why "The Wicked Witch of the West" of the Wizard of Oz [1939] fame had become so "Wicked," but it does serve to remind us that "every person does have a story" and what _all of us_ do TO EACH OTHER _does have (long term) effects_.

So all in all folks, I LIKED THIS FILM (as I liked Tim Burton's "original") and would definitely recommend it to parents with teen and tween-age daughters.  It's a NICE and _empowering_ story of an "Alice" that all of us would want our kids to come to be.

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! :-) >>