The Girl on the Train [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


The Girl on the Train [2016] (directed by Tate Taylor, screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Paula Hawkins [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a well acted and _fun_ (it must have been a blast for the actors/actresses to get-into / play their roles) if DARK suburban melodrama -- call it "Real (or REALLY, REALLY DRUNK / FLAWED) Housewives of New York's Westchester County" where honestly _no character_ comes out a hero / heroine. 

Rachel (played marvelously by Emily Blunt) a late 30s-40ish former Westchester Co. wife begins the film honestly not knowing what had hit her (and 10-15 minutes into the film, she _literally_ gets hit in the head by someone or something).  She had been married, okay not particularly happily -- she had thought the main problem had been that she and her husband Tom (played by Justin Theroux) had had trouble having kids (and oh, yes, and she had an obvious/awful drinking problem).  But now, a year plus after her divorce, she was reduced to spending her days (and her alimony payments) riding the commuter train, back and forth -- all day, everyday -- between the lovely suburban suburban town where she _once lived_ and the City, her/Tom's former house visible from the train.  HE still lived there with HIS new wife, Anna (played again wonderfully, somewhat cluelessly / jealously by Rebecca Furguson), and his/Anna's baby. 

Who would do that??  Ride by one's old house / old life, all day, everyday, drinking the whole time vodka from a slurpee cup with a straw?  Well, someone who honestly "didn't know what hit her" in life. 

Well, as Rachel's ridden the train by her (former) house, each day, everyday, in her alcohol blurred haze, she spotted and "comes to know" from a necessarily rather creepy, distance ... a couple that had moved into a house two doors down from her old house.  THEY seemed so happy.  THEY seemed to have the loving affectionate marriage (his arm ever gently around her) that SHE, Rachel, never really had, and now -- divorced, from the man, Tom, who SHE, Rachel, had loved but who somehow never loved her, or (she feared) perhaps she had disappointed (first by not being able to have kids, and then by her drinking -- SHE, Rachel, feared she would _never have_.

Well, ONE DAY as Rachel's passing the her former house, in her usual alcohol blurred haze, and looking toward the house of her neighbors with their perfect marriage, she spots the wife (played by Haley Bennett) on the porch with a man's arm affectionately around her, 'cept ... HE'S NOT THAT WOMAN'S HUSBAND. 

Stunned, when Rachel arrives on the commuter train in the city, she gets off, goes to a bar, and after _a few more drinks_ DECIDES that SHE'S going to straighten that woman out!  So ... by now barely able to stand / walk drunk, Rachel takes the train one more time to her old suburban home town, gets off the train at the station, walks toward the street where she used to live, to head toward the house of that woman and STRAIGHTEN HER OUT.  She spots said woman, in a jogging suit, passing under the underpass that she needs to pass through to get to her former / that woman's homes.  Rachel calls out ... "HEY!"  Angry and drunk, Rachel even calls her a rather strong name! ...

THE LAST THAT Rachel remembers ... is walking up on the side of said underpass that she would have taken to get to her former and that other woman's house.  AND THEN ... nothing.  When she wakes up,  she's clearly hit her head and had been bleeding.  Worse, the woman that she wanted to talk to / straighten-out had gone missing since, And ... a few days later, the police come looking to "talk to Rachel" ...

The rest of the movie ensues ;-)

Okay, the story runs like an even darker (R-appropriate) version of something that one would expect on the Lifetime Channel, but IMHO, it honestly worked ;-)  And again, I would imagine that _everybody involved_ really enjoyed playing their "quite messed up" roles. 

NOBODY is a hero / heroine in this film, but honestly, almost everybody will probably feel sorry for this woman Rachel, who, yes, "had her issues," but deserved so much better than this.  A great / and even "fun" if often quite sad / anguished film ;-).


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

The Birth of a Nation [2016]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Every Movie Has A Lesson (4 Stars) RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (1 Star)

IMDb listing

Variety - Essay by the surviving sister of a woman who accused the film's makers Parker and Celestin of raping her while unconscious while they were all in college 17 years ago.

BET.com (E. Diaz) article on the controversy

Ebony.com - op-ed piece by the film's costar Aunjanue Ellis

CNS/USCCB (M. Mulderig) review 
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AV Club (A.A. Dowd) review
Every Movie Has A Lesson (D. Shanahan) review


The Birth of a Nation [2016] (directed and screenplay by Nate Parker, story by Nate Parker and Jean McGianni Celestin) is one multi-leveled tragedy: 

The film is about the 1831 Nat Turner Revolt arguably the African American equivalent of the Jewish 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising hence a story that DEFINITELY DESERVES TO BE TOLD and RETOLD.

The film is ALSO a LONG OVERDUE AFRICAN-AMERICAN MADE RESPONSE to the shockingly LIBELOUS / RACIST yet somehow still considered "classic" film The Birth of a Nation [1915] (by D.W. Griffith) that casts the Ku Klux Klan as the defenders of "all that is decent" and "white womanhood" against _crazed lecherous black-men_ who "otherwise" would have "taken over the South" if not for the Klan "righteously" (and VIOLENTLY / BRUTALLY ...) "stepping in." 

Yet, what a tragedy then that Parker and Celestin (accused though ultimately acquitted of raping a drunk / unconscious woman while all three were in college) decided to put it upon themselves to first make THIS FILM to begin with (could not, honestly, any number of other African American film-makers have made it instead?) and THEN _basing_ NAT TURNER'S MOTIVATION for organizing this famous Slave Rebellion ON _THE FICTIONALIZED_ RAPE OF HIS WIFE?   While _certainly_ African American women were _routinely raped_ (NO DOUBT, NONE AT ALL) during the Period of Slavery in this country, there _is_ no _historical record_ suggesting that Nat Turner's wife had indeed been raped in this way.

As a result, one can not but sympathize with the sister of the woman who had accused the film's makers, Parker and Celistin, of raping her, when she wrote recently in a piece on the matter in Variety:

"As her sister, the thing that pains me most of all is that in retelling the story of the Nat Turner slave revolt, they invented a rape scene. The rape of Turner’s wife is used as a reason to justify Turner’s rebellion. This is fiction. I find it creepy and perverse that Parker and Celestin would put a fictional rape at the center of their film, and that Parker would portray himself as a hero avenging that rape.  Given what happened to my sister, and how no one was held accountable for it, I find this invention self-serving and sinister, and I take it as a cruel insult to my sister’s memory.  I think it’s important for people to know Nat Turner’s story. But people should know that Turner did not need rape to justify what he did. Parker and Celestin did not need to add that to Turner’s story to make him more sympathetic... I will wait for a true version of this story to be told — one that respects history and does not re-exploit my sister. When she was 18 years old and incapacitated, Nate Parker and Jean Celestin had power over her. They abused that power, and they continue to wield that power to this day."

Sigh ... 1 Star.


<< 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! :-) >>

Middle School: The Worst Years of My Life [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (J. Hassenber) review


Middle School: The Worst Years of My Life [2016] (directed by Steve Carr, screenplay by Chris Bowman, Hubbel Palmer and Kara Holden based on the book [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by James Patterson [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb], Chris Tebbetts [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] and Laura Park [GR] [Amzn]) is a fun if slanted (naturally against "the Man") Ferris Bueller [1986]-like diversion about a contemporary American suburban Junior High / Middle School (from Hell) where the chief "devil", Principal Dwight (played by Andrew Daly), clearly found the current test-score-driven "state of affairs" in the American school system to his liking. 

Indeed, some 10 years back he published a school hand-book with at least 86 rules (or was it over 130 ...) that he enforced without exception to produce a school full of autonomons, who unsurprisingly tested _really, really well_ ;-).  The motivational slogans in the hallways included: "Assimilate," "Listen to your Teachers," "Authority is Good."  (Well kids, please do listen to your teachers, but teachers / principal please be well rounded / empathetic _enough_ to be worthy of being listened to ;-). 

Of course, in this film Principal Dwight (no doubt named after Eisenhower, though _he_ actually was _very liked by his troops_ ... it was MacArthur who was more of the "prima dona" ...)

Anyway, into this little "suburban North Korea"  falls a seventh grader named Rafe (played wonderfully by Griffen Gluck ;-).  (Seriously folks AS A COMPANION PIECE, if you'd like to see a remarkable documentary about _an actual otherwise cute-as-a button_ little North Korean girl who _really_ was going to a true "school from Hell" (in North Korea) find / rent Under the Sun [2015] available for streaming on vudu.com. It's WELL WORTH THE VIEW).

Well ... Rafe had some issues.  His little "Irish twin brother" (15 months apart) died of cancer a couple of years back, and his parents (mom, played in this film again quite excellently by Lauren Graham) broke-up over the death.  As such, Rafe had retreated into his own world for a couple of years, doodling quite creatively into a special notebook of his, and ... as such found himself _not performing well in school_ enough so that at story's start, he had been expelled already from two schools and this "Academy" again "from Hell" seemed to be "his last stop."

So ... soon it's "game on" ... Principal Dwight vs this  quite sensitive / creative 12 year old, half-orphan named Rafe.  Who's gonna win?  Well ... guess ;-) ...

Folks, this is a cute if more-or-less obviously slanted film.  And I do have to say that BOTH of the Principals that I worked with in my years at Annunciata Parish on Chicago's South East Side WERE VERY NICE PEOPLE and while _yes_ there were some rules, WE ALSO HAD A REMARKABLE ART PROGRAM and OUR SCHOOL'S KIDS ALWAYS DID REALLY WELL both at Annunciata and IMHO even more remarkably AFTER THEY LEFT.  There were years when _our entire graduating class_ went on to make the Honor Rolls of EVERY SINGLE HIGH SCHOOL that our kids went-on to attend.  Honestly, this was quite a remarkable achievement ... and honestly most of our kids left our school with good memories / smiling ;-)

That said, this was a fun / cute film and does ask (ADULTS above all) the question: Where do we want to put our priorities? in simply rules or in training our kids for life?

All in all, a quite good / excellent children's / family 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! :-) >>

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children [2016] (directed by Tim Burton, screenplay by Jane Goldman based on the book [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Ransom Riggs [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) will certainly confuse many viewers, intrigue others (as they begin to understand what's being attempted here) and finally disappoint still more.

For honestly, both the book(s) and the current film largely comprise a rather intriguing project.  Whether Readers of the book(s) and/or Viewers of the current film will find the project successful will largely depend on whether they believe that the well of contemporary (Anglo) young adult culture is deep enough to allow one to simply take even a fairly wide array of motifs / elements from said contemporary culture and blend them in a novel way to produce _a new story_ that wouldn't feel, well, "derivative."

So the story here involves a young Harry Potter-ish teen named Jake (played by Asa Butterfield) who instead of living in England begins the story growing-up in a nondescript, suburban-like town somewhere in Florida.  In every way (and not unlike Bella of the Twilight Saga) it would seem that Jake was utterly average, except, of course, he was not.  Indeed, like Harry Potter, it turns out that there are beings, who seem to live on the edge of this realm and another one, who want to get him.  Why?  Well, that's (necessarily) initially "unclear" ... 'cept he has a LOTR-like Gandalf-ish-like grandfather (played by Terence Stamp) who's spent most of Jake's childhood trying to "protect" him from the forces that would want to kill him and _instructing him_ (through what seemed to be rather fanciful tales) as to the forces that he would one day encounter.

Well early in the story, coming home from work (as a common stock-boy at a giant Walmart-like store) he finds that his grandfather was not at home but rather had been apparently dragged-out of his home (by something?) into the swampy woods behind their suburban Florida home.  There, in the swampy woods behind their otherwise quite contemporary suburban Florida home, Jake finds his Gandalf-y grandfather mortally wounded.  And Gandalf-y grandpa's last words evoked in Jake's memory a particular story that he had told him about his youth as a war-orphan (Jewish?) from Poland ... in 1940s Narnia-like England, er Wales, that Jake (and his reluctant family) then pursue ...

When Jake and his reluctant dad (played by Chris O'Dowd) who honestly had thought his dad (Jake's Gandalf-y grandpa) was always a bit on the extravagant ("nuts") side come to Wales, they find that the house that he would talk about had actually been abandoned decades ago, destroyed by a quite random bomb during a German air-raid.  'Cept, of course ... Jake happens upon (at the time, he doesn't even know how) another, (again) somewhat Narnia-ish, way to enter into the house (and back into time ...) when the house was NOT destroyed at all.

And that's when the heart of the story really begins, when Jake enters into the house that Miss Peregrine (played quite wonderfully by IMHO quite perfectly cast Eva Green) maintained for "Peculiar Children" (children with X-Men-like "gifts" that made them hard to "fit in" in the world of their time).  Grandpa had been one of those children with a "peculiar gift" and it turned out that Jake was one as well ...

Much ensues ...

Among that which ensues makes obvious (and creative / amusing) reference to both films as varied as the quite silly (yet definitely memorable / enjoyable) Ground Hog Day [1993] where "everyday was the same day, until..." and the great young adult melodrama (circa 1910 / 1990 ;-) Titanic [1997] ;-).

It's all _quite creative_ and almost perfectly tailored for the aesthetics of a film-maker like Tim Burton [wikip] [IMDb].

My ONE (but BIG) complaint would be that, "out of the blue" the CHIEF VILLAIN in the story becomes "a crazed black man" (!?) (played actually quite well, but ... by Samuel L. Jackson) who turns out to be THE ONLY PERSON OF COLOR IN THE ENTIRE FILM.

Why? Why? Why?  Why must the CHIEF VILLAIN IN THE FILM be THE ONLY PERSON OF COLOR IN THE FILM ?

Why?

Is _that_ "part of contemporary (Anglo) youth culture" as well?  I hope not ...

Reluctantly 1 Star ... despite some genius otherwise.


<< 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 Magnificent Seven [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


The Magnificent Seven [2016] (directed by Antoine Fuqua, screenplay by Richard Wenk and Nic Pizzolatto based on screenplay for The Seven Samurai [1954] by Akira Kurosawa, Shinobu Hashimoto and Hideo Oguni) while perhaps improving the rather still rather racist underpinnings of the 1960 version (where the heroes were basically "white guys" and both the poor / largely "defenseless" victims and _especially_ the villains were "south of the border darker complected Mexicans" ...), quite shockingly (honestly) with the single clear exception of a "righteousness seeking" heroine, a widow named Emma Cullen (played by Haley Bennett), who in the film actually hires the Seven to bring justice to her town, _every_ woman in the film (every last one) is either anonymous or a prostitute and usually both.   It's really a stunning oversight -- reducing "the women folk" in the film basically to the status of being props -- especially since at least _part of the drive_ to "re-tell this story" was almost certainly to correct the rather lazy / unreflective racism of the 1960 version.   But there it is ... what were the film's producers thinking?  I asked the same question regarding the stupid unthinking racism of Despicable Me 2 [2013] (an otherwise utterly adorable film with the single exception that BOTH of the villains in that story were Mexicans, one with hygiene issues ... sigh, WHY?? Didn't the makers of that film realize that 1/3 of their audience would have otherwise been ADORABLE HISPANIC KIDS??  Here, M7-2016 becomes a really odd sort of a "date movie" -- where younger couples could perhaps discuss if one or both still really believed that women even today should strive to "just shut up and look pretty / slutty."  Sigh ... once again, WHY?)

So ... aside from that ... what else to say about the movie? ;-)

The Mag 7 here becomes quite racially diverse -- including a stately / imposing African American lawman Chisolm (played by Denzel Washington), his friends, a former Confederate sniper (played by a goateed Ethan Hawke) and a card playing / whiskey drinking good-ole-boy (played by Chris Pratt) who've in turn befriended a dagger-wielding Samarai-ish Asian immigrant (played by Brung-hun Lee) and Mexican Zoro-ish outlaw (played by Manuel Garcia-Ruflo) and then a still-scalp-collecting relic of a mountain man (played by Vincent D'Onofrio) and a bow-and-arrow Native American Comanche prodigy (played by Martin Sensmeier) who had been told by his elders that he "just doesn't fit in" ;-).  Again, too bad the _only_ women around seem to be period-corset-wearing hookers... and then THE ONE RIGHTEOUS WOMAN just wanting Justice (though she'd "settle for vengeance if only that were possible" ...).

Then though following current PG-13 conventions that seem to allow almost unlimited amount of mayhem / destruction so long as minimal blood is shown, I honestly was surprised the film was rated PG-13.  In spirit it's certainly an R.

Finally Christian religion has a surprising (and IMHO problematic) presence in this film.  Very quickly the film's chief villain (played by Peter Sarsgaard) literally a "Robber Baron" (stealing the land of the honest poor and rendering women widows and children orphans) declares himself to be merely "a Capitalist doing God's Will."  Thank you very much.  Yes, there were ALWAYS nutjobs like this in American history, from the Robber Barons of the Old West to some of their spiritual descendants today.  However, THANKFULLY the film seems to improve upon its theology as the story progresses.   Both African American lawman Chisolm and the widowed honest woman Haley offer more honest / morally sound interpretations of traditional Christian faith.  Still, I do believe that a lot people of faith will be simply appalled by chief villain's initial announcement and if not leave the theater outright, certainly shut the film-off in their minds from then on.

So what then would be my "final judgement" on this obviously quite flawed remake?   In general "yuck."  It's a film that will offend both _many women_ and _many Christians_ and while not drenched in blood, that's only because the current rating system allows violent film-makers to have it both ways -- allowing them to "shoot up a storm" and pretend that the bullets flying everywhere don't have any consequences.  The film's a lie.


<< 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! :-) >>

Deepwater Horizon [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Deepwater Horizon [2016] (directed by Peter Berg, screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan and Matthew Sand based on the NYT article by David Barstow [wikip], David Rohde [wikip] [IMDb] and Stephanie Saul [NYT] [IMDb]) dramatizes the final hours of the Deepwater Horizon off-shore oil drilling rig, which exploded on April 20, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico after a well blowout, resulting in one of the most spectacular industrial disasters in memory and the worst oil spill in U.S. waters in history.

What happened?  As the name of the ill-fated rig already implies, the rig and its crew were pushing the limits (the horizon) of deep-sea (deepwater) oil drilling.  To do so, they were inevitably taking risks.  Both the article and the current film note that the rig was not particularly well maintained (there is the temptation when "pushing the envelope" to let more "mundane" maintenance concerns take a back seat...).  Added to this, British Petroleum, which contracted the rig from Transocean (the rig's owner), was pressuring Transocean to get the particular well that the rig was drilling _done_ (it was over 50 days behind schedule) so that the rig/crew could proceed to BP's next project (that it had _also_ already contracted Transocean for).  So there was commercial pressure as well to go faster with this project than would have been smart or prudent.  Well ...

While the film simplifies some of the dynamics -- BP was definitely cast as the villain in the film, while the original NYT article put more attention on Transocean's own cutting corners in neglecting both maintenance and emergency preparedness protocols -- the film IMHO does capture, and quite viscerally, the horror of a _really big disaster_ exploding upon a rather complacent crew accustomed to getting by on quick-wits (as necessary) and ... luck.  This time the roulette wheel spun terribly, terribly wrong ... Even the best bronco-rider can sometimes be thrown-off his horse in a particularly bad way and ... stomped.  Here the oil well exploded, 11 of the Deepwater Horizon's crew died in the explosion / subsequent fires and the environmental damage caused by oil disaster remains simply incalculable.

Heroics of the crew aside, the greater society has the right to ask the question: Should that crew have been out there drilling for oil "in our name" in the first place?

An excellent / thoroughly thought provoking film about a tragedy that on multiple levels, honestly, didn't need to happen.


<< 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! :-) >>

Storks [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


Storks [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Nicholas Stoller along with Doug Sweetland) makes for a remarkably insightful (or at least hopeful) children's parable about priorities.

Where do babies come from?  Well, storks, of course, bring them to families that wanted them.  I don't know if that was the explanation my folks used when I first asked this question, but I always liked it as a nice age appropriate explanation for young kids who couldn't possibly understand the real answer ;-).

Well if this was the case -- that storks bring babies into the world to families that wanted them -- in the past generation this has proven to be a problem: Both storks and (potential) parents found babies to be ... well kind of a hassle.  So ... (potential) parents _stopped_ asking for babies _and_ storks led by a particularly "business savy" head stork (voiced by Kelsey Grammer) "repositioned" the storks into "delivering" less problematic items -- consumer electronics -- for a new (and omnipresent) Amazon-like company called "cornerstore.com";-). 

And nobody, neither the storks nor people, seemed to mind until ... a somewhat neglected little boy named Nate Gardner (voiced by Anton Starkman) asked his ever-on-their-cell-phones parents Henry and Sarah (voiced by Ty Burrell and Jennifer Aniston) -- running some sort of a real estate business out of their home -- that he'd REALLY WANT "a baby brother" to play with.  How to fit _that_ in?  The parents initially are _definitely_ NOT "on board."  So ... Nate decides to "write the storks" himself. 

Well the storks "aren't in the baby delivery business anymore" anyway.  So the letter is destined to be "returned to sender" BUT ... BY HAPPENSTANCE ... this letter manages to get through, and the LONG MOTHBALLED "baby making machine" up there on a perch on a faraway mountain in the clouds, starts-up and makes a CUTE AS A BUTTON baby for Nate.  And ... seeing this cute as a button baby ("after all these years") despite calls by the "head stork" to "not get distracted" and just continue to deliver the consumer electronics that they're now delivering, the CUTE AS A BUTTON baby proves FAR MORE INTERESTING (first to the storks and _eventually_ to potential parents) and ... the rest of the story ensues ... ;-)

It's honestly A LOVELY STORY ... PEOPLE (and especially KIDS) prove FAR MORE INTERESTING than "stuff" ;-)

Great job folks!  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! :-) >>