Snowden [2016]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB ()  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (J. CHang) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review  

Snowden [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Oliver Stone along with Kieran Fitzgerald based on the books The Time of the Octopus [GR] by Anatoly Kucherena [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] and The Snowden Files [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Luke Harding [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a film that's destined to be controversial simply for the persons involved.  Both Edward Snowden himself (whose demeanor was IMHO captured _spot-on_ in the film, and arguably to Oscar nomination heights, by Joseph Gordon Levitt) and director Oliver Stone have their (often quite reflexive) "haters."  Yet, I admit that I both like and honestly _admire_ both of these inconvenient / disturbing messengers.

Everything that I have seen / read of Snowden indicates to me that he was a sincere and _measured_ "brainiac" who saw what was being done in terms of (near universal) surveillance at the NSA and thought (rightly!!) that _at least the American public / world ought to know_.  I'm not excited that he finds himself in Russia.  I do think that despite his best efforts _some_ secrets above and beyond his control will (or already have) gone to the Russians. 

But after seeing this film, I would like to see Jennifer Lawrence and Selena Gomez, et al, make a "Hollywood Star" CLASS ACTION FOIA inquiry into _simply_ "the meta-data" of the NSA / CIA's "searches" over the past 5-10-15 years, to simply get a sense of HOW MANY TIMES _THEY_ were "searched" by said "NSA / CIA geeks" using their "google search OF ALL" search engines.  For this would be _the simplest_ explanation of _how_ these Stars' iPads, tablets, cell phones were "hacked" for all their private photos ...  Honestly, who (most) else (outside of the world's intelligence communities) would even know where / how to look?

And yes, after seeing this film, one would be INSANE to not have a piece of electrical tape over one's "comes installed in your laptop" webcam.  I'VE HAD SAID PIECE OF ELECTRICAL TAPE OVER MY "PART OF THE EQUIPMENT" WEBCAM on my Laptop since 2 days after buying it (a dirt cheap Dell model that I've come to call a "NSA SPECIAL" :-).  I did so because 2 days into buying it, SUDDENLY a light started shining at my face from my laptop (I didn't even know up to that point that a webcam was there... it didn't even come with CD Drive, that's how simple / bare-bones it was) and I could not shut it off.  

Then, "Julius Caesar" / "Richard III" Shakespearean in style as Oliver Stone [wikip] [IMDb] has been in his films, I do believe that he does _nail_ the essential personality traits of the characters in his biopics.  Indeed, I do believe he absolutely _nails_ the essences of the key personalities of the G.W. Bush Administration in "W" [2008] in a way that both helps one understand "what happened" during that Administration and arguably makes one even feel sorry for some of the key characters present.  

SO ... in this film we're presented with Stone's understanding of the "essential Edward Snowden" presenting him as both a patriot and a geek who does come to see THE POWER that HE (and OTHERS AROUND HIM at the NSA/CIA) had come to have (the "power to KNOW ALL" about ... just about EVERYBODY) and becomes deeply disturbed by it.  Yes, OTHERS were not as concerned... Even his own girlfriend (again played quite credibly / honestly by Shailene Woodley) in as much as she knew what Ed was part-of at his job (and she did not know much), was NOT particularly concerned that the NSA could have 'pictures of her boobs...' ... she was a young 20-something spritely / generally cheerful photog ;-).  But Edward Snowden KNEW that this was entirely possible, even probable, and he was ONE GUY (and it only takes one) WHO REALLY BELIEVED THAT "PEOPLE OUGHT TO KNOW" (that this kind of surveillance REALLY WAS HAPPENING). 

The rest of the story follows.  It plays out like a "Jason Bourne for geeks" ;-).  But the warning of the story is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: The NSA (and OTHER intelligence services around the world) IS / ARE WATCHING YOU ... WATCH OUT FOR WHEN THEY DECIDE _TO ACT_ / TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT THEY'VE SEEN ...

GREAT / THOROUGHLY THOUGHT PROVOKING FILM ...

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

Don't Breathe [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Tang) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  

Don't Breathe [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Fede Alvarez along with Rodo Sayagues) is a rather nihilistic indie thriller in which _no one_ comes out particularly good.

Three random and not particularly bright / good Midwestern teens to early year olds - Rocky (played by Jane Levy), her nominal alpha-male boyfriend Money (played by Daniel Zovatto) and their perhaps more sensible (or just weaker) beta-male friend Alex (played by Daniel Minnette) -- are on a two-bit home burglary spree through the Rust Belt with only a vague goal of _eventually_ "making it to California." 

Well they get word of a particularly juicy target: a blind Vet (played by Stephan Lang) who recently had come into some serious money (a million dollars) for the wrongful death of his beloved daughter.  Since he was blind, he had demanded the sum in cash, which he presumably kept somewhere in his house (on a street of rundown abandoned homes somewhere in Detroit).  If they came in there, who'd know? Who'd care?  Heck the man was blind?  They could do the robbery _in daylight_ while he was there.  What could possibly go wrong?

Well, true, the man was blind, but he was also some sort of a special forces vet.  The house, which he knew _intimately_ was small.  And he had a trusty and vicious pit-bull of a guard-dog. Finally it turns out that as a Vet, he was not only blind, but had some rather significant psychological "issues ..."

So by midway through the film, not only did the original "plan" (in as much as there was one) of the three rather stupid "teenagers without a clue" go _really, really wrong_ in a hurry, it turned out that the Vet was not exactly "a good guy" either.

Who to root for in a story like this?  And even more to the point _why_?  There's actually even a rather oddly expressed "religious message" to the story.  The by then blood covered old blind man (who had already killed two of the teenagers who had broken into his home and was methodically hunting for the third, who he's spared but now wanted "to keep" for another, rather insane, purpose...) declares: "When one stops believing in God, all things become possible."  

Wow.  Sigh.  Yuck.  What a future to look forward to ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Ignacio de Loyola [2016]

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

IMDb listing

The Jesuit Post (D. Gustafson, S.J.) review
Jesuits West article / review


Ignacio de Loyola [2016] (directed and screenplay by Paolo Dy, collaborating director Catha Azanza, story by Paolo Dy, Catha Azanza, Pauline Mangilog-Saltarin, Emmanuel Alfonso and Ian Victoriano based on the Autobiography [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] of St. Ignatius of Loyola [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]) is a really quite excellent English language film made by the Jesuits of the Philippines about the early (young adult) years (and quite interesting conversion...) of St. Ignatius of Loyola [wikip] (the founder of the Jesuit Order).  The film has enjoyed a two week run to fairly, even _impressively_ large audiences here in Orange County, CA (at the AMC Orange 30 Theater).

The film presents young Ignacio (Iñigo) of Loyola [wikip] (played in the film quite excellently by Andreas Muñoz) as a brash to arrogant / entitled feeling young man from the environs of 16th century Pamplona, Spain, who steeped in the chivalric romances of the then still relatively "recent past" would have actually had a lot in common with his contemporary Miguel de Cervantes [wikip] and more to the point, with Cervantes' character/creation Don Quixote [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]:

It is clear that young Iñigo (of Loyola) was a dreamer, and one who from the very beginning _dreamed_ / believed himself to be destined for "great things."  What those "great things" would be, were yet to be determined.  However, at least initially he was pretty much certain that they would probably play out, somehow "on the battle field."

HERE, HONESTLY, AND I WRITE HERE WITH SOME "EXPERIENCE," young even 20 year-old Iñigo would _not_ be all that different from the teenager / young adult OF TODAY who having spent the last 5-10 years playing the "Call of Duty" video game and having then seen American Sniper [2014], would have decided to run to an Armed Forces Recruitment Office convinced that Glory / Destiny awaited him (or her) "on the battlefield" / "behind enemy lines" / piloting "drones" (or other robots) on behalf of God and Country.

I honestly found brash / young Iñigo (of Loyola) TOTALLY RELATEABLE and EVEN KNOW and _could point out_ SIMILARLY LOVELY, HONEST, SINCERE / PATRIOTIC young people from _my own parishes_ who'd almost be JUST LIKE HIM

Iñigo's dreams of battlefield glory came to a rather inglorious end with a wound with a cannonball that injured / messed-up his leg, leaving him with a limp for the rest of his life.  What to do now?

Well folks, that's the rest of the story, AND IT'S A GOOD ONE:  As a GOOD / WELL BROUGHT-UP (even arguably somewhat pampered) SPANIARD of the 16th century he turned to God.  But HOW?  Well, having read (and dreamed) of being part of all those Medieval / Chivalric / Arthurian Romances he already had a very active imagination.  So he quite literally started to live his life working out in his mind  -- IMAGINING -- the answer to a question, very well known TODAY: "What would Jesus do?" (and its corollary: "What is Jesus asking _me_ to do?").  Indeed, he came, on his own, to develop a method (his since famous Spiritual Exercises [wikip] [GR]) for the "discernment of spirits." 

Yes, getting his method approved and _not_ getting "burned at the stake" for it -- this was 16th century Spain of the Spanish Inquisition after all ... and at least initially, Ignatius was just a "War Vet turned itinerant preacher" (who hence today could have been initially dismissed as having "PTS issues" ...) -- proved a challenge.  But it also explains _why_ Ignatius of Loyola went _back_ "to School" and arguably _why_ they Jesuits have put so much emphasis on learning ever since: If you know your facts and (come to) be "the smartest / best ecdcated person in the room" _eventually_ your opponents have to let you be / concede. 

Anyway, the film becomes one that could prove very interesting _many_ young people dreaming of Glory / "making a difference" in this world and may help them to seek to do it in a manner that would be honestly pleasing God. 

Great film!  IMHO the best (Catholic / Christian) religiously themed film of the year thus far!


<< 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! :-) >>

Sully [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (A-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
L.A. Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  


Sully [2016] (directed by Clint Eastwood, screenplay by Todd Komarnicki based on the memoir Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Chesley "Sully" Sullenburger [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] and Jeffrey Zaslow [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is an very well crafted / well acted film -- again Hollywood at its "A-Game" -- that (re)tells the story of US Airways Fl 1549, piloted by Chesley "Sully" Sullenburger [wikip] (played in the film by Tom Hanks) which on Jan 15, 2009, three minutes into its flight from LaGuardia Airport in New York (to Charlotte, NC), struck a flock of geese causing both engines of the plane of fail, forcing the pilot to land the plane (too low in altitude to safely glide back to LaGuardia or another nearby airport in New Jersey) to instead land on the Hudson River alongside Manhattan just south of the George Washington Bridge.  All 155 passengers and crew were saved.

The drama of the story turned on the subsequent National Transportation Safety Board's investigation where the judgement of the pilot, nicknamed "Sully", was questioned, "sullying" at least temporarily his reputation.  Hence the story would seem to fit perfectly into the thematics of many of Clint Eastwood's films where _good regular people_ did _extraordinary things_ to either _no acclaim_ or _worse_ having their motives / results questioned, "sullied" by "experts" who really should have known better.

Here was a man WHO SAVED 155 LIVES (!!) and found himself and his career on the line before a NTSB investigative board who apparently wondered if he could have "saved them another way" ... gotten the plane back to LaGuardia or elsewhere rather than landing it on the Hudson.

To some extent such an investigation was inevitable.  Years back I had been told by former U.S. Navy pilot that all U.S. military aircraft accidents are investigated in a similar manner (and the POTUS himself is informed of every such loss) as the loss of a military plane is a loss of tens of millions of dollars of machinery and so such a loss can not be taken lightly.

Still the obvious callousness of the investigation here will initially shock / offend virtually every Viewer: How can this be?  The split second thinking of the  pilot / copilot (copilot played in the film by Aaron Eckhart) saved the lives of every single person on that plane (plus untold numbers of people on the ground if the plane had crashed onto a residential / commercial neighborhood).

And yet, in the end, _everybody_ was "doing their job" ... the pilots who landed the plane in the Hudson, the ferries / first responders who rapidly came to the scene to bring the people from the plane to safety, and finally _even those seemingly callous investigators_.  After all, EACH such accident offers us, humanity, an opportunity _to learn_ to avoid and better train for similar situations in the future.

So as hair-raising (and infuriating) as this film may be, it's certainly memorable and discussion provoking and as such certainly deserves serious consideration -- for best actor (Tom Hanks), best screenplay (Todd Komarnicki), best director (Clint Eastwood), even possibly Best Picture -- come Oscar Season.

Excellent, 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! :-) >>

Southside with You [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB ()  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review

BET coverage
Ebony coverage
Essence.com coverage
TheSource.com coverage

RogerEbert.com (N. Allen) interview w. the film's stars 

ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  

Southside with You [2016] (written and directed by Richard Tanne) is a lovely, well written "When Barack met Michelle" / "origins-story" chronicling the very first date between Barack Obama (played in the film excellently by Parker Sawyers) and his wife, then Michelle Robinson (played again here, very, very well by Tika Sumpter). 

Indeed, this is a movie that _a lot of young people_ (teens and above) really ought to see, as it models a _really good_ (and future producing...) first date -- ending _not_ "in bed" but after a 1/2 day of talking, strolling through a pretty cool downtown Chicago art exhibit (featuring the paintings of African American former football star turned painter Ernie Barnes [wikip] [website] [Amzn]), a community service gathering and a movie (Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing [1989]) ... _with a kiss_ after some ice cream ;-). 

Other reviewers (above) quite rightly compare it to Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise [1995], another film about two young 20-somethings, who come to enjoy an extended day becoming "a date of sorts" that also comes to produce (at least cinematically) "a future" together (two more films, made at nine year intervals, the latest being Before Midnight [2013], each again chronicling a both random and yet significant day in the lives of the two protagonists).

Both the current film (by Richard Tanne) and Linklater's extended periodic series remind us that romance playing-out with an eye toward the longer term / a future is both possible and satisfying in a way that a (using the language of _my_ younger years) "wham, bam, thank you mam" encounter (or even a series of them) is not.

Good job!  Folks, 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! :-) >>

War Dogs [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McCarthy) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

  
War Dogs [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by based on the Rolling Stone article "Arms and the Dudes" [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Guy Larson [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is an ugly film about an ugly aspect of war -- Profiteering -- that will ultimately offend a lot of Viewers.

Yes, most of us will accept the premise that with War comes _some_ Profiteering.  What (I hope...) will offend most Viewers are the story's assumptions that (1) War is _only_ about Profiteering (tell that to veterans / their loved ones to say nothing of the loved ones of the war dead / injured) and (2) the two protagonists in this story deserve to be considered "just regular guys out to make a buck" (perhaps at the expense of unsuspecting "losers" -- including said VETERANS (!) as well as THE ENTIRE COUNTRY).

In the story, two twenty something "dudes" David Packouz (played by Miles Teller) and Ephraim Diveroli (played by Jonah Hill) from Miami with some startup money from somewhere find that they can make ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY finding and selling stuff to the U.S. military listed on a Pentagon sponsored procurement website (apparently a "Craigslist for Guns...").  The explanation for the creation for this strange and apparently _open_ website was an over-reaction to G.W. Bush era V.P. Dick Cheney linked Halliburton Corp having been previously given BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of "no bid" contract business by the Pentagon.  So ... the procurement website "opened the military procurement business" to BASICALLY EVERYBODY ... including the two schemers in this film.

And so the two anti-heroes ... take advantage of the system ... and at least thankfully end-up getting (somewhat) caught.  Still, honestly their punishment seemed IMHO to be very very light for the level of betrayal of the public's trust.  Sigh ... KNOWING PERSONALLY people who war risking their lives for the country (and honestly looking to eventually cover use their time in the military _to pay for college_) I do find this story appalling.


<< 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! :-) >>

Ben Hur 3D [2016]

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

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


Ben Hur 3D [2016] (directed by Timur Bekmambetov , screenplay by Keith R. Clarke and John Ridley based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Lew Wallace [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a film that like many / most of my generation, I went to skeptically.  Having seen it now, like most others, I'm more-or-less certain that the current film will never attain the Epic / Awesome Stature of the celebrated 1959 version that starred the "Larger-than-Life" CHARLTON HESTON ... However, having said this, I _must add_ that do think that this is NOT a bad film and to the extent that it serves to "update the presentation" and (re)introduce Ben Hur to a new generation, I DO THINK THAT (3D and ALL...) THE CURRENT FILM DOES A PRETTY GOOD (to VERY GOOD) JOB.

Readers of my blog will note that I generally _support_ "updated presentations" even quite _imaginative_ ones -- True Grit [2010], The Three Musketeers [2011], Anna Karenina [2012], The Great Gatsby [2013] -- so long as the update was NOT just "an update for the sake of updating," but offered something something truly compelling/new of past cinematic versions:

True Grit [2010] for example sought to "return to the original novel" (where as its celebrated 1969 cinematic version had been overwhelmed by the "Larger-than-Life" presence of JOHN WAYNE). 

The Three Musketeers [2011] was _really imaginative_ BUT invited Viewers to experience the story with "(re)newed eyes" as the ORIGINAL story was NOT MEANT to be "a dry/dusty Classic" but rather a YOUNG ADULT ADVENTURE STORY ... Thus "3D / Airships and all," I do believe that 2011 film _recaptured_ a lot of the _wonder_ of the original story (before it _became_ "a required read" for "advanced French Language classes ...").

Anna Karenina [2012] was IMHO simply a beautiful film that often felt like both a movie and a stage play (IMHO intentionally ... as the the film-makers sought to express the point that Anna Karenina (the story's tragic heroine who was destroyed by gossip) did seem to live a life in which she found herself "on stage" (being gossiped about) whether she liked it or not).

Finally, the failings of the unnecessary 3D notwithstanding, LEONARDO DICAPRIO simply _nailed_ the role of the tragic hero Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby [2013] in a way that previously "Larger than Life" ROBERT REDFORD simply could not (Jay Gatsby was _not_ Redford's role to play ... while DiCaprio, IMHO was almost born to play it.  IMHO, Redford was instead "born to play" roles like his in The Natural [1984]).

Now, I have reviewed over the years some _terrible_ updates / remakes of "classic" stories -- from The Legend of Hercules [2011], to Young Messiah [2016], to the second (but not the most recent third) film of the Star Trek "reboot" series -- I thought Star Trek into Darkness [2013] was simply awful (frenetic / "action filled" for "action's" sake) while do think that the more recent Star Trek Beyond [2016] was finally (re)gaining its footing.  Still I do enjoy being surprised by something "new" that invites _new_ insight.

To the current film then ...

I do think that the general lack of "Larger than Life" stars in the new (2016) version of Ben Hur is A PLUS (yes, "Larger than Life" MORGAN FREEMAN does play a narrative / and still SECONDARY ROLE in the current film).  Thus viewers of the current film are allowed experience the story of Judah Ben-Hur (played by still relatively unknown / "up-and-coming" Jack Huston) rather than CHARLTON HESTON simply playing (and arguably OVERWHELMING) the role of Ben Hur.

As a result, the story of Ben Hur becomes almost "Job-like." At the beginning of the story, he's presented as "a Jewish prince" from a well-to-do / well-connected family (living admittedly in "Roman-occupied Rome at the time of Jesus"), who finds himself _losing everything_ as a result of "circumstances outside his control."  He suffers enormously, and and comes to harbor an enormous amount of anger.  Jesus, or at least his message (as Jesus is actually portrayed as only a peripheral figure in the tale) _helps_ him (and CAN HELP US) to _let go of that anger_.

As such, I have to say I loved this _simpler version_ -- 3D notwithstanding though the 3D, notwithstanding the chariot race that might have been too fast to film using this technology, was actually about as good / clear as I've seen it -- BETTER than the CHARLTON HESTON one.

In any case, the current version COULD encourage young people today (teenagers to 20-somethings) to pick up the original novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] or perhaps at least look-up the 1959-Charlton Heston version.

As such, a surprisingly _good job_ here.  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! :-) >>