Murder on the Orient Express [2017]

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

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


Murder on the Orient Express [2017] [IMDb-Hist] (directed by Kenneth Branagh, screenplay by Michael Green based on the celebrated novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Agatha Christie [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) continues the current cycle of remakes / updates of celebrated novels / stories of the past.  Yet while perhaps borrowing from other recent updates there remains a _slightly_ hyper-real "story book" quality to the film's set designs -- one thinks here of the reboots / remakes of the Sherlock Holmes [2011+] stories, The Three Musketeers [2011], Anna Karenina [2012], The Great Gatsby [2013] and even the original Star Trek [2013] [2016] series -- even then the sets here are more subdued than in the case of the examples just mentioned, and certainly _the pacing_ of the current film tracks much more closely to the pace of the original novel than in the case of the other recent remakes.

That said, Viewers are confronted with the question of whether this decision to adhere so closely to the pacing of the original novel was a good idea.  To be honest, and though I feel somewhat embarrassed as I write this, I found the current film _far more boring_ than say the recent remakes of the The Three Musketeers [2011], Anna Karenina [2012] and even the Sherlock Holmes [2011+] stories.  Further, since the 1974, also star-studded screen version of Murder was _so good_, one's left with the questions: Why bother with the making of the current remake? How did this film "move the ball?"  Say what one will, ALL of the above mentioned recent remakes did, at least aesthetically, _move the ball_.  The set designs of Anna Karenina [2012], The Great Gatsby [2013] and even the recent Sherlock Holmes [2011+] remakes, The Three Musketeers [2011] and  the Star Trek [2013] [2016] reboot were often simply stunning.  And even the often frenetic pacing of those recent films often carries with it its own charm (if nothing else, one marvels at these films' choreography).  In contrast, the pacing of the current film is kinda ... ho hum and leaves one wondering why, except that it was (perhaps) "time", the current film was made at all.

So what's the film about?  Well it retells the classic Agatha Christie story of her celebrated detective Hercule Poirot [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the current film by Kenneth Branagh) finding himself traveling in lavish (dare one say Grand Budapest Hotel [2014]) style on the 1920s-30s era Orient Express [wikip] from Istanbul to London, when ... (1) an avalanche somewhere in the Balkans halts the train, and (2) a MURDER, I dare say MURDER takes place on the train. 

As the good detective interviews the various fellow travelers (played by such current Hollywood stars as Judi Dench, William De Foe, Michelle Pfeiffer Penélope Cruz, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad and Daisy Ridley) on the high class train car in which they were traveling, he finds that pretty _all of them_ had _some_ connection to the murder victim, and ... I'm not going to tell you.  Either you already know how this story ends, or if you don't ... and if you don't, I'm not going to ruin it for you ;-).

All in all, this _not_ a bad, current generation remake of the classic story.  It's just I think it rather fails the why was the remake made? / "move the ball" tests. 


<< 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! :-) >>

LBJ [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (M. Rechtschaffen) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Cheshire) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


LBJ [2016] (directed by Rob Reiner, screenplay by Joey Hartstone) is a quite compelling biopic about consumate 1960s era politician President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film to levels worthy of Oscar nomination consideration by Woody Harrelson).  Yet it's probably not for everybody.

Who the film would certainly interest would be those interested in both politics and history and certainly Viewers get a glimpse of a politician who knew how to get things done in Washington DC.  If one rates Presidents simply on the number of pieces of legislation, often very significant pieces of legislation (including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, The Great Society Programs such as Medicare / Medicaid, Equal Opportunity Act of 1964 and Head Start), LBJ ranks #1 as the most successful President in U.S. History.

Yet, this is certainly not the only standard nor perhaps the best standard to rate a President and LBJ was, of course, a complex figure -- a Southerner who managed to push through the most significant pieces of Civil Rights legislation in U.S. history, one who despite misgivings from the very beginning nonetheless got us into the Vietnam quagmire.  A key question raised in this film was about his sincerity with regards to any of the initiatives that came to define his Presidency.

That question MAY be unfair.  It would seem simply unbelievable that LBJ would embark on his War on Poverty / Great Society crusade if he did not fundamentally believe in it.  The film clearly shows that he could have QUITE COMFORTABLY settled back into serving-out Kennedy's term (he became President as a result of JFK's assassination) and perhaps even run / gotten elected on his own as a center-right "Southern Democratic" President, and our nation would be very different (and IMHO, honestly, I'm not kidding, _much worse_ for it) than it is today.  The Kennedy-esque Northern Liberals would have had to vote for him anyway (no real alternative) and white Southern Democrats (as the film amply showed) WOULD HAVE JUST LOVED HIM if he put the brakes on the Civil Rights movement.  BUT HE DID NOT DO THAT.

Anyway, the film which plays-out during the years BEFORE and IMMEDIATELY after John F. Kennedy's assassination helps the Viewer appreciate the political complexities and choices facing LBJ at the time.  Again, I honestly do believe that LBJ chose well.


<< 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! :-) >>

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! :-) >>