Suburbicon [2017]

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

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

Atlantic (D. Sims) interview w. George Clooney
Hollywood Reporter (S. Galloway) interview w. Matt Damon


Suburbicon [2017] (directed and screenplay cowritten by George Clooney along with Joel and Ethan Coen and Grant Heslov)  is a searingly dark in our day seemingly absurdist comedy (evoking Fellini's absurdist though not nearly as dark (just really, really wierd) comedy Satiricon [1969]) about a random all-white post WW II / 1950s era suburb into which a nice random African American family tries to move-in.

Yet, as absurdist a comedy as it may seem, the story is inspired by all-too-well known post WW II / 1950s era incidents in which new white homeowners feeling, somehow entitled to do so, often resorted to violence (truly by "any means necessary") to keep African American families and those of other racial minorities out of their newly constructed neighborhoods.  This was the case even though these new white homeowners were able to buy their homes based on GI Bill FHA loans that veterans of color were _nominally_ eligible for as well.

Look, Dear Readers, my ancestry is Czech and in 1950-60s Chicago, the heavily Czech American populated suburbs of  Cicero and Berwyn were _infamous_ for keeping African American families from moving-in through violence.  My dad, emigrating to the U.S. (and the Chicago area) in the 1950s as a chemist did not need to live in Cicero / Berwyn.  So I grew up in _even more_ lily-white suburbs where simple economics kept their neighborhoods largely "racially pure," but I know (and to my own shame) _exactly_ what this film is about.

And no matter what else could be said about this 1950s-60s era injustice (and MUCH could be said -- including how this kind of post-WW II housing discrimination has kept African Americans economically down to this day) WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR IS THAT THIS KIND OF VIOLENCE AGAINST BLACKS / OTHER MINORITIES NEED NOT EVER HAPPEN AGAIN ... unless ... WE LET IT.

So then ... the current film is about two families, neighbors, in an "idyllic" fictionalized 1950s-era suburb.  One of the families, the Mayers was black (mom, dad and 10 year old son played by Karimah Westbrook, Leith M. Burke and Tony Espinosa) and the other was white, headed by an accountant of some kind, named Gardner (played by Matt Damon), his wife (played by Julianne Moore), her sister (also played by Julianne Moore) and ten year old son (played by Noah Jupe).

Actually / ironically the two families though _actual neighbors_ seemed to get along _quite well_, BUT ... that was perhaps because Gardner's family was TOO BUSY DEALING WITH ITS TRULY SORDID DEMONS to be bothered with their new neighbors being of another perceived "lower" race.

Yet even as the sordid "family drama" involving (1) Mob debts, (2) Adultery and even possibly (3) Incest plays out _quietly_ within the "confines" of the Gardner household, THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD becomes increasingly (and increasingly violently) agitated _by the mere presence_ of the _quiet_ African American Mayer family in their midst.

What the heck is going on?  Yes, what the heck is going on?  And do we HONESTLY want to go back to this kind of mentality?

Yes, this is an UGLY film, but intentionally so.  And I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND George Clooney / Matt Damon, et al for wanting to make it.

Again, do we really want to go back to _this_?


<< 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! :-) >>

Thor: Ragnarok [2017]

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

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


Thor: Ragnarok [2017] (directed by Taika Waititi, screenplay by Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost based on the Marvel comic by Stan Lee [wikip] [IMDb], Larry Lieber [wikip] [IMDb] and Jack Kirby [wikip] [IMDb]) as always in the Thor [1] [2] franchise is a smiling / beer-stein fit for the Gods in hand, jovial and crowd-pleasing romp through complexities / dirty laundry of Nordic Mythology's First Divine Family (if you thought that your family's "messed up" ... ;-).

As such, the film begins with this franchise's ever smiling ('cause no matter what comes his way, at the end of the day, HE IS A GOD ... ;-) headliner Thor [wikip-NM] [wikip-MC] [MC] [IMDb] (played as always spot-on happily -- I simply love this character ;-) -- by Chris Hemsworth) chained upside down, hanging over some precipice in some kind of subterranean Nordic hell, "imprisoned" there by some poor otherwise would-be-deathly-frightening Apocalyptic Demon named Surtur [wikip] [MC] [IMDb] (voiced by Clancy Brown).   Poor Surtur thinks that he's FINALLY going to get revenge on Thor's father Odin [wikip-NM] [wikip-MC] [MC] [IMDb] (played again and as always with appropriate regality by Anthony Hopkins) who had apparently consigned HIM to that firey subterranean Hell.  But ... alas ...

... THE ONLY ONES who can really bring down the Nordic Divine First Family's household in their Divine Realm of Asgard [wikip-NM] [wikip-MC] [MC] are ... the members of said Divine Family themselves ;-).

So ... we find the aging Odin, retreating to ... the evocative / lovely ROCKY coast of earth's Norway ... to wax eloquent to his sons, the jovial heir to the Divine Throne but never really quite ready for the job Thor and trickster / jealous "never quite fit in" (despite _everything_ that the other members of the Divine household have tried to do for him) adopted son Loki [wikip-NM] [wikip-MC] [MC] [IMDb] (played as ever wonderfully by Tom Hiddleston) that ... he can "no longer keep HER at bay."

HER?  Who's HER??  Hela [wikip-NM] [wikip-MC] [MC] [IMDb] (played again in  wonderfully/appropriately pissed-off fashion by Kate Blanchet)  "the Goddess of DEATH" who turns out to be ... Thor's / Loki's OLDER SISTER.  Older sister??  EXACTLY ;-) ;-)

Well SHE comes back to take Odin to ... Hell ... and _quickly_ catches and _crushes_ Thor's thought-to-be all-powerful Hammer _with just a bare hand_ ;-) ;-).

Much, much ensues ... ;-)

I just love the Marvel Comics movies and in particular the Thor series.  What a messed-up family, and yet Thor keeps on smiling, trying to "bring / keep" everybody "together" ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

On Wings of Eagles [2016]

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

IMDb listing

South China Morning Post (J. Marsh) review
Hollywood Reporter (C. Tsui) review

On Winds of Eagles [2016] (directed by Stephen Shin and Michael Parker, screenplay written by Rubby Xu, Christopher Chan, Stephen Shin and Michael Parker) is a largely Chinese financed, Christian based film on the final years of Eric Liddell [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film by Joseph Fiennes) previously immortalized in Chariots of Fire [1981] as the Scottish Presbyterian athlete who had foregone a near certain gold medal at the 1924 Paris Olympic Games rather than run on a Sunday.  (His witness / sacrifice in this matter would seem all but _incomprehensible_ to many today ;-).

Well, the son of missionaries, after returning from the Olympics, he went along with his wife to China to serve as a Christian Missionary there.   This is where the current film picks-up Liddell's story and it focuses in particular on his years as a prisoner at a Japanese-run internment / concentration camp during WW II.

It's an inspirational story that honestly deserves to be told.  Many Viewers may be taken aback initially by the gentleness (arguably slow-movingness) of the story.  But then, this film was never intended for audiences of typical Hollywood fare.   Indeed, conceived, written and directed in good part by contemporary Chinese Christians, it reflects a gentleness / sensibility in storytelling that ought to be taken as a challenge / gentle rebuke to viewers and film makers the world over.

In a world marked by violence, why add to it?  Why not instead lift up examples of people who despite the violence / oppression that surrounded them, still tried to live gentle and principled lives instead.

Very nice, GENTLE yet still challenging 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! :-) >>

Thank You For Your Service [2017]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


Thank You For Your Service [2017] (directed and screenplay by Jason Hall, based on the book by David Finkel [wikip] [GR] [IMDb]) is a tough, pretty honest yet squarely down the middle film about a group of U.S. army buddies (played by Miles Teller, Beulah Koale and Joe Cole) coming home to their wives / loved ones (played by Haley Bennet, Keisha Castle-Hughes, Kate Lyn Sheil and a surprising, sincere / serious Amy Schumer)  -- everyone involved in the story still quite "young" in their late-20s to early 30s -- from a tour (for most, their _third tour_) in Iraq, a tour that near its end got pretty intense.

As such, it's a film that despite its often gritty subject matter pretty much any American / Western viewer could probably watch / stay through and despite perhaps somewhat challenged, leave with his / her views ... largely unchanged.

Yes, these soldiers (and their families) mostly from small town, red-state America have endured a great deal, often suffering enormously for the rest of us, and don't receive (or perhaps don't even come close to receiving) the help / services that they need.  Yet, this being the case, what to do about it??

Here, for those who'd be willing/able to hear it, blue-state America's response (and basically the military policies of both Clinton in Kosovo and Obama in Iraq/Afghanistan) is _not_ insane:  Since the human costs of War are both predictable and _predictably high_, make sure to _not_ send our troops into war unless it's absolutely necessary.

That said, once we decide to send our troops into battle, we simply owe it to them to be prepared to expend the resources needed to allow them to come back home in the best of shape possible.  Indeed, that ought to be part of the Equation in determining if the Goal in going to War or the particular Strategy in achieving the Goal is worth it.

There are some truly difficult / heart rending scenes in this film:  The characters in this film come back from this tour of duty suffering "merely" from psychological wounds (one "lucky" to be suffering from a still _relatively mild_ form of traumatic brain injury, others with "merely" PTSD).  Yet when they finally make it to the VA, they find themselves in a hall full of vets who _on the surface_ are dealing with even worse injuries, missing limbs, missing more than just limbs.  The "survivor guilt" -- to be "merely" tormented by flashbacks that scare the daylights out of loved-ones / other civilians, while sitting with fellow vets who so clearly lost even more...

It's a film that can not but _move_ a person.  Our challenge is: What then?


<< 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! :-) >>

Only the Brave [2017]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


Only the Brave [2017] (directed by Joseph Kosinski, screenplay by Ken Nolan and Eric Warren Singer based on the GQ article "No Exit" by Sean Flynn [GQ] [IMDb]) tells the story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots an elite squad of forest fire fighters from Prescott, Arizona, nineteen (out of twenty) of whom died, overrun by the Yarnell Hill Fire of 2013.  This was the largest loss of life in a firefighting incident in the United States since 9/11.

Being from rural Arizona, this elite fire fighting unit (a "Seal Team 6" of fire fighting ...) was largely filled with highly jacked, testosterone driven 20-somethings, though its commander Eric Marsh (played in the film by Josh Brolin) was 43 when he died with his men fighting the blaze.  Yet if some more liberal Readers here would roll their eyes, thinking to themselves "Great, John Waynes some perhaps literally on steroids," the film actually portrays quite accurately those classic blue-collar rural "Trump voters" that the Left would like to dismiss / demonize and yet deserve our Respect first and only then perhaps some correction with regards to their sexism (and perhaps racism, not shown here in the film).  Why?  Put simply these are the people who police our streets often times in very tough conditions, fight these kind of fires and dodge the bullets to fight our wars.

 They were also people struggling with some, again, very Trump voter problems: One of the main characters in the film, Brendan McDonough (nicknamed Donut, and played marvelously by Miles Teller) begins the film as a Mephed-up Stoner.  (Trump got a lot of rural voters interested in him precisely because he was the first politician to talk seriously about the current rural heroin epidemic). Brendan only becomes interested in joining the Hotshots (and then finds that at least initially they are _way out of his league_) when his girlfriend who he got pregnant tells him that she wants nothing to do with him and to just stay away from their kid when she has it.  That kick in the ... changes him.

Anyway, I would say that this is about as good a Hollywood film about Red-State America as it's probably capable of making, (even) better than Country Strong [2011], that in my early blog-days I really, really liked as well and which all in all also portrayed a white rural South with some complexity and compassion as well.

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! :-) >>

The Foreigner [2017]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Abrams) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


The Foreigner [2017] (directed by Martin Campbell, screenplay by David Carboni based on the novel "The Chinaman" [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Stephen Leather [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) spins a pretty good UK / IRA tale while allowing veteran Chinese Hong Kong born actor Jackie Chan [wikip] [IMDb] to play essentially the Liam Neeson roles in the Taken [2008-2014] movies (incidently Halle Barry (!) played a similar role in the recent film Kidnap [2017] reviewed here earlier this year).

In the current film China-born, fled to South Vietnam when young, former U.S. trained South Vietnamese commando then (with his family) VIETNAMESE BOAT PERSON (after the Vietnam War) Quan Nnoc Min (played wonderfully / _credibly_ by Jackie Chan) was trying really hard to put all that painful history behind him and just live _a quiet life_ running a nondescript Chinese restaurant in London when ... his beloved youngest daughter was killed by an utterly random terrorist bomb set by an as yet unheard-of group calling itself "The Authentic IRA."  The IRA "strikes again" in 2017 (!!!)? WT ...

Exactly.  Quan, who has lived through SO MUCH decides that he's had enough.  He still quietly / respectfully goes to the authorities asking the simple question: "Who killed my daughter?"  When the authorities choose to not take him seriously, after catching a seemingly random interview with a Gerry Adams-like [wikip] (former Sinn Fein/IRA turned Northern Irish politician) figure named Liam Hennessey (played excellently by Pierce Brosnan), Quan decides to take his question to him: "Who killed my daughter?"  When Hennessey and his staff initially don't take him seriously either, he decides (progressively) to make them feel his pain.  At every step of the way, he asks his question: "Who killed my daughter?"  After a number of Quan set explosions, and a number of Hennessey's otherwise tough guys being roughed-up (not killed, just roughed-up...), Hennessey and his people "do some research" and start to realize who _they_ are dealing with ... and the rest of the story unspools from there.

It honestly makes for an interesting story.  Requisite for a good UK / IRA story, the Brits are thankfully _not_ portrayed as saints either (the Brits weren't / never were when it came to Ireland) and fascinatingly, as the story progresses, it's Hennessey who initially dismisses Quan as some kooky if colorful "Chinaman" who finds to his horror that _he_ was the one being naive because Quan had his number from the beginning: "Mr Hennessey don't you realize that politics and terrorism are just different ends of the same snake.  In the end, the snake will bite you."  In contrast, Hennessey seemed to be convinced that so long as one holds said snake "from the right end", all would be fine.  Well ...

All it all, it all makes for a well acted / thought-provoking tale ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Professor Marston and the Wonder Women [2017]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (K. Rife) review


Professor Marston and the Wonder Women [2017] (written and directed by Angela Robinson while CERTAINLY DESERVING of its R-rating (for its self-evidently adult thematics -- open marriage, S&M...) is almost certainly ALSO one of the more compelling North American films of the year.  For this is a film that really does challenge its (Adult) Viewers to go back and review the basic values of traditional Christian morality (the _whys_ of what we believe ...).

The film is about a 1920s-30s era power couple, Harvard psychology Professor William Moulton Marston [wikip] (played in the film by Luke Evans) and his wife Elizabeth Marston [wikip] (played in the film by Rebecca Hall), who worked on and arguably got a doctorate at then Harvard sister school Radcliffe but was never awarded the degree through Harvard ..., who as part of their work in the still nearly infant field of psychology took-on a young research assistant (who began simply as a student in one of Professor Marston's classes) who became a life-long _joint-three-way-lover_ of theirs named Olive Byrne [wikip] (played in the film by Bella Heathcoate).  Later, after their unconventional de-facto polygamous domestic arrangement became known and the Marstons were fired from Harvard, William Moulton Marston, under the pen-name Charles Moulton, became the original creator of the Wonder Woman [wikip] [DC] comic-book character, basing her basing her character on his previous research and, well, the two women in his life.

The challenge to Viewers especially to more traditionally minded Catholic / Christian ones -- even "back in the day," among the more vocal opponents to the imagery / (S&M-ish) thematics of the Wonder Woman comic came from the then Catholic-based Legion of Decency [wikip] -- is to re-iterate what exactly was wrong / at least difficult with the Marstons-Byrne (three-way-including-lesbian) living arrangement.  After all, it was consentual, right?

Here, honestly, it would not be a waste of time to go back and reread Saint John Paul II's [wikip] two principal documents on men and women -- Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women) [1988] and Redemptoris Custos (On the Person and Mission of Saint Joseph in the Life of Christ and of the Church [1989].  In those two documents, Saint John Paul II, sets down the fundamental sources of dignity for both men and women.  For women, in themselves, in simply their intrinsic Potential to give Life whether they actually do / not (in their Virginity or Motherhood) receive their fundamental dignity.    And then for Men, in as much as they Work, or at least in times of unemployment / hardship, _seek work_, do they receive their Dignity as well.  In either case, one does not need to be "great", "famous", "important", "super-capable", etc.  Women IN THEMSELVES and men IN AS MUCH AS THEY APPLY THEMSELVES are valuable, have intrinsic dignity.  The rest does fundamentally does not matter.  Some will find "happiness" / "self-fulfillment" in this world, others will not (for any number of reasons).  But so long as these fundamental conditions are met, ALL ARE VALUABLE.

In this light, while the very _exquisite_ domestic arrangement these three quite elite (wealthy, super-educated) people _perhaps_ made them marginally happier (even if they also suffered as a result of the incomprehension of their neighbors and peers).  The Church concerns itself with the lives of far more regular people than these, people are often put-down / oppressed for far more basic reasons than their rather complex living arrangements.

And I have to admit that my life is filled with far more regular people with far more mundane (but also life giving) concerns than these three.

Further, even Signund Freud's theory _at its base_ provides a rather insightful explanation of why increasing the complexity of our lives won't necessarily make us happier.

As a Carmelite Professor that I had back in the Seminary when we did in fact take a course on the Church and Modern Psychology put it:  "The challenge of the Adult (the Ego) is to find a way to successfully navigate between those THINGS THAT ONE MUST DO (expressed collectively in the Superego) and those things that ONE WOULD LIKE TO DO (one's Id)." No one gets everything that one wants.  And we generally don't even like people who insist on doing everything their way.  An adult is one who finds a way to be both fundamentally happy and yet responsible.

In any case, this film provides an opportunity for Adults (again the R-rating is certainly deserved) to reflect on their lives, and to better understand why we hold the values that we do as well as better appreciate why simply "doing what we want" won't necessarily bring us happiness certainly not without difficulty.  So over all Good / thought-provoking 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! :-) >>