First Man [2018]

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


First Man [2018] (directed by Damian Chazelle, screenplay by Josh Singer based on the book [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by  [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) continues a trend in contemporary (here and now) film-making:

If "back in the day" (my youth ;-) NASA portrayed itself as an almost super-heroically serene, supremely competent can-do agency -- "Houston, we have a problem" was literally the phrase used by the Apollo 13 crew to report back to NASA mission control that some sort of an _explosion_ occurred in the Service Module of the spacecraft as it approached the moon.  Over the course of the next several days, NASA, chock full of experts, who performed _all kinds of simulations_ on the ground, instructed the crew as to what to do, to get themselves safely back to earth.  All this was, of course, immortalized in Ron Howard's, Tom Hanks starring film Apollo 13 [1995].

In the current film, the opening scene portrayed Neil Armstrong [wikip] [IMDb] (played _largely_ still with unknowable superhuman stoicism by Ryan Gosling) piloting the US Air Force's experimental X-15 rocket-plane in a test that put him, then, in 1961, outside the atmosphere, and ... as he sought to bring the plane back down it ... apparently BOUNCED OFF THE ATMOSPHERE ... sending him and his craft, apparently drifting out into near orbit space.  What to do?  Well, he begins by calmly hitting levers and buttons, and ... NOTHING SEEMS TO BE WORKING and FIFTEEN / THIRTY SECONDS INTO becoming UNWILLINGLY "the first man in space" HE BEGINS TO DO WHAT _EVERYONE OF US_ WOULD DO IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS: He begins TO POUND on EVERY BUTTON / LEVEL IN SIGHT UNTIL ... _SOMETHING CLICKS_ / SOME MOTOR STARTS AND ... he begins to bring the rocket plane down to earth ;-)

THAT opening scene, did its job for me.  I was hooked for the rest of the film ;-)  [Neil Armstrong, we learn, never flew in the military.  He was a civilian engineer.  BUT BOY DID HE GET RESPECT FOR WHAT HE DID ON THAT DAY.  "He brought an X-15 that was drifting out into space down to earth and lived to tell about it," an admiring military test pilot program commander explained when someone asked WHY Armstrong was picked for the NASA Space Program over presumably some other military test pilot].

And this opening scene was emblematic of the difference between the contemporary sci-fi film-making and that of a generation ago.  In the past, everything was portrayed as calm, even frighteningly / monstrously calm -- think of the calm voice of the HAL computer in Stanley Kuberick's 2001: A Space Odyssey [1968], or the tag-line in Ridley Scott's first Alien [1979] movie "In Space no one can hear you scream!" ;-).  In the current film, the launch sequence of Apollo 11 was NOT done with Strauss' "Blue Danube" waltz playing in the background.  INSTEAD, EVERYTHING SHOOK and at least _inside_ the Apollo 11 capsule THE LAUNCH WAS _LOUD_.  Using largely _shaking_ hand-held cameras, the effect to the viewer was experiencing the launch of Apollo 11 as at least _in part_ how it was: like going into space / being attached to the largest fire-cracker / sky-rocket ever built ;-).

Much has been said (usually negatively) of recent attempts to literally "shake-up" / "energize" previous thoughtful / even cerebral storytelling -- one thinks here of the "reboots" of the original Star Trek series or even of the Sherlock Holmes stories.  Yet, I suppose here, in the case of Neil Armstrong and the Apollo 11 mission, the "correction" is perhaps, well, "the most correct."  THIS WAS an incredibly dangerous mission with ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT COULD HAVE GONE WRONG.  There's an excellent scene in the film showing Armstrong "practicing" the landing of a "best guess" mock-up lunar module somewhere in the Mohave Desert.  Let's just say it doesn't go well and one is reminded very well that they were still using 1960s technology that wasn't nearly as digitized, reproducible as technology today.

So I left _really impressed_ by the film, and of the qualities that were being asked of the astronauts in those days.  These were _not_ scarves around their necks photogenic prima donna "flyboys."  They were literally risking their lives and selected precisely for their ability to keep tremendous internal pressure (to scream, to fly off the handle, to give up) under wraps.

My hat off to the film-makers and the people they portrayed!


< 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 Wife [2018]

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

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


The Wife [2018] (directed by Björn Runge, screenplay by Jane Anderson based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Meg Wolitzer [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a very well written, well executed drama about an older "power couple" (of the more traditional sense), Joe and Joan Castleman (played in the present by Jonathan Pryce and Glenn Close, and in their younger years by Harry Lloyd and Annie Starke). 

Near the beginning of the film, Joe is informed through a gushing early morning phone call from Stockholm by a representative of the Nobel Prize Committee that he is going to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature that year.  Of course both are ecstatic, initially, but ... all is not what it seems.

The story that ensues is on one hand somewhat predictable but certainly poignant in the current (and hopefully this time lasting) #Metoo movement.  Yet, the film is crisp / extremely well executed and leaves Viewers with some very interesting questions about the nature of marriage / a couple / a common project and even of "prizehood" itself.  While the story presented here gives actually an extreme (though still quite interesting) case, can ANYONE really declare about ANY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT that he/she did it all "My Way"?

< 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! :-) >>

Fahrenheit 11/9 [2018]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (R. Abele) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Fahrenheit 11/9 [2018] (written and directed by Michael Moore) is typically in the style of the writer-director's movies if perhaps one of his more uneven ones.  The film gives Moore opportunity to vent his anger at the Democrats because he did, indeed, "see it coming," Trump's election that is.  And it's clear that he's supporting (with reason) the new generation of Democrats who've had enough of the Republican-light Clinton (and even Obama) variety.

A particularly strong condemnation was of former President Obama, who Moore showed going to his hometown of Flint, Michigan in the midst of its literally (lead) poisoned water crisis, where OBAMA _feinted_ drinking a glass of the water there during a speech whose _sole purpose_ was to declare the water to be finally, at last, again safe.  Moore noted that _that single_ botched / fake / cynical gesture could have lost the Democrats Michigan in 2016 and hence the Presidential election.

And there was Moore's thesis: What good are the establishment Democrats if they don't stand for / "compromise" on traditional Democratic values -- most poignantly portrayed here, public health, but also defending people who need decent health care, decent wage jobs, freedom from having to fear that they're going to be gunned down by some idiot with a legally purchased AR-15, etc.

So Moore puts his hopes on the young, new Democrats who're not afraid of speaking on behalf of health care, unions, gun control, all issues that he maintains clear majorities of Americans support if only some politicians would support.

And here it ought to be noted that these values -- universal access to affordable health care, unions, gun control -- are all supported by over a century of Catholic Social Teaching.   Yes, the Catholic Church has never supported (and almost certainly never will support) abortion or gay marriage.  But precisely because it is pro-Life it has always been pro-universal access to affordable health care, pro-union (allowing workers to organize themselves) and always against unrestrained "gun rights."

Anyway, most viewers will come to the film with their own views and leave with them largely unchanged.  Yet, Moore's point that parties, here the Democrats, have to _stand for something_ (and hopefully stand for something that is _good_) is well taken.

I would add here, that we've a wasted a generation in which the only movement has seemed to be with regards to abortion and tax cuts, and I'd like to ask: WHAT GOOD IS THIS TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS who're far more concerned about their wages being stagnant and their medical bills going through the roof? 

The "marqui issues" of both the GOP and the Democrats don't effect _positively_ the concerns of the vast majority of the populace and haven't for a generation.

So yes, Michael Moore, who did, in fact, "see Trump coming" is angry.  So should most of us be as 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! :-) >>

Peppermint [2018]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  RogerEbert.com (1 Star)  AVClub (C-)  Fr. Dennis (0 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Abrams) review
AVClub (G. Garner) review


Peppermint [2018] (directed by Pierre Morel, screenplay by Chad St. John) is a film that's very violent and that will offend a fair number of viewers notably Latinos who will identify, QUICKLY, the film's most obvious villains -- tattoo covered members of a MS13 style LATINO drug gang -- who kill the film's heroine's (Riley, played in the film by Jennifer Garner) husband and cute as a button 8 year old daughter on the eight year old's birthday.

'Course its a little more complicated than that.  There are also bought-off / corrupt cops, attorneys and judges, all of whom are white, who make the normal / legal / non-spray them all with bullets path toward justice _impossible_ for Riley.  Indeed, they wanted to put her away into a nut-house when she tried to testify against her family's murderers, but ... she ESCAPED, drops off the radar and COMES BACK five years later to the day of her family's murders AND ... you get the picture.

A clear problem with this picture TODAY is that it almost seems like the film that Quentin Tarantino had Goebbels make for Hitler in Inglourious Basterds [2009] only here for ... To call this film a dog whistle would diminish ... dog-whistles.

And yet, the film does express a frustration of many of those who did vote for Donald Trump -- honest, hardworking white people struggling to make ends meet who do feel frustrated at all levels by the system, dominated by rich folks (also generally white people, but who don't seem to care about them).  And then throw in TATTOO COVERED, UTTERLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE "ALIENS" well, it's enough to get one REALLY, REALLY SURVIVALIST WITH AN AR-15 / UNLIMITED SPRAY OF BULLETS MAD.

To those Readers who are still Reading here ;-), the film reminds me of a conversation I had with group of lovely Puerto Rican born parents when I was stationed at a heavily Puerto Rican parish, St. Catherine of Siena, in Kissimmee, FL.  I asked them why they didn't seem go to the movies much.  And they responded: "Fr. Dennis, we're church going people trying to raise our kids right.  Why should we go and support movies which almost always portray us as EXACTLY what we don't want our kids to become?"

And films like this make their point ... 0 Stars.


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

A Simple Favor [2018]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (K. Rife) review


A Simple Favor [2018] (directed by Paul Feig, screenplay by Jessica Scharzer based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Darcey Bell [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]), APPROPRIATELY R-Rated (there's an "intimate portrait" of Blake Lively's character hanging in the living room of her house that, let's just say, reveals WAY, WAY, WAY "too much" ;-), is a delightful, _extremely well-written_ (IMHO, it certainly deserves a "Best Adapted Screenplay" nomination though it probably won't get it) mash-up of "Gossip Girl" artsy French pop (one thinks of all that a stylish recent French film called The Lady in the Car with Sunglasses and a Gun [2015] could have been) and "Glee." 

Single (widowed) homemaking (and video-blogging about homemaking) ever smiling Connecticut suburban mom, Stephanie (played wonderfully in her trademark bouncy, effervescent, gosh, how can you not love her, style by Anna Kendrick) meets ice-cold dry/hard martini pounding cut-throat "director of public relations" at a Manhattan based fashion firm, business-woman Emily (played by Blake Lively) who's certainly decided to "take life by the ..." and ... the two become "best friends." 

HOW?  Well, mostly because their two 1st or 2nd grade sons want a "play date" ;-).  Well both become kinda fascinated by each other: Stephanie by Emily's attitude "all you really need to make a great ice cold gin martini is ... ice cold gin and a martini glass" ;-) and Emily by Stephanie's "if I really think about it (which I don't) my life's kinda sucked until now, but I'm going to make the absolute best of it" ever-positive sweetness.  And well, Emily finds Stephanie's "ever willing to help" sweetness... useful.

So ... one day, five weeks after they've met and become BFFs, Emily calls Stephanie for a favor ... to take 1st-2nd grade her son after school over to her (Stephanie's) house while she (Emily) stays late at work to "put out a fire at the office" and ... Emily NEVER COMES BACK.

WT ... happened?  Yea ... But then leave it to ever bouncy, ever positive (and quite resourceful, 'cause gosh darn it, EVERY PROBLEM HAS A SOLUTION) _video-blogging_ Stephanie to figure it out ;-). 

And so Stephanie's once simple / cute "home-making tips" video-blog becomes a different kind of "tips" vlog and we get to watch a cute amateur/videobloggin Martha Stewart [wikip] [IMDb] dare one dream wannabe morph into a "tough as nails" (even as she bakes cookies) "amateur" cold-case solving Nancy Grace [wikip] [IMDb] vlogger ;-).

Folks, this is a very fun film, with some really well drawn characters.  I've focused here on the ones played by Kendrick and Lively as they are the leads.  But others, including the other "moms" (and now requisite "house-dad") at the school, as well as Emily's husband (played by recent Crazy Rich Asians starring Henry Golding) and others are priceless.  There's even the nice touch of having the 1st or 2nd grade teacher in the story depicted as a cute / sweet _hijab wearing_ (hence Muslim) woman.

Overall the performances were fun.  But honestly, the whole scenario was spectacularly well crafted / imagined.  Hence, I'd really like to see the film get some attention in the screenplay and possibly direction category.

< 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! :-) >>

Operation Finale [2018]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review

Jerusalem Post (A. Spiro) article
Haaretz.com background / coverage


Operation Finale [2018] (directed by Chris Weitz, screenplay by Matthew Orton) is a historical drama that tries to tell the story of Israel's intelligence service Mossad's 1960 capture and then transporting of Adolf Eichmann [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film by Ben Kingsley) from literally "off the street" to a safe house and eventually to Israel for trial.

It's a spectacular story, arguably one of Mossad's finest hours.  A full length historical drama such as this released across the world will reach countless people that "a good book" or even "a excellent documentary" would not.  So there's certainly a great deal of value in the project.  It's just the "good book" / "sober, just the facts, documentary" would probably do _this story_ more justice than a drama always in danger of falling into "Hollywood cliché."

And at least on two counts, IMHO this film does fall into cliché:

(1) After capturing Eichmann literally "off the street" at the outskirts of Buenas Aires, literally half the film is spent on the somewhat absurd _device_ of getting Eichmann (tied up there in a safe house) "to sign."  Sign what?  Literally a paper saying that he was going from Argentina of his own free will to Israel for trial.

According to the film, apparently, Israel's STATE OPERATED airline El Al, was insistent on this technicality fearing repercussions for involving itself otherwise with an abduction.  STILL ... (!%!&) ... THEY HAD EICHMANN the Architect of the Holocaust perhaps the highest ranking Nazi to have eluded death or capture after the War.  And now MOSSAD (the Israelis) HAD HIM.  It just seems absurd to believe that ANYONE in Israel's shoes WOULD HAVE GIVEN A DAMN about this ridiculous triviality.  THEY HAD THE GUY WHO MURDERED SIX MILLION FELLOW JEWS.  And whether "he signed" or not, there's no freaking way that MOSSAD was going to leave him in Argentina after going through the huge trouble of capturing him.

(2) The decision then to spend so much of the film's time on the (at the end of the day rather trivial) plot point of "getting Eichmann to sign" reduced the film to essentially Ben Kingsley playing Adolf Eichmann as Hannibal Lector of The Silence of the Lambs [1991].   Yes, the real-life Adolf Eichmann was EASILY as creepy and EVIL as the fictional Hannibal Lector, but ...

That said, if this film gets people to go to the library or to Amazon to buy a good book on Mossad's capture of Eichmann or to watch a good documentary on it, then this would be great and the film would have fulfilled its purpose.

So while this film doesn't score particularly high in "technical merit" --  I honestly wish that the writers of the Bourne films and/or the last several Mission Impossible films had been chosen to work this story up -- I still have to give the story high marks for the subject itself.  I think it's incredibly important that the world know that Justice was done here.  Mossad here, really did "get its man."

As such, not a bad film all around, still could have been a lot better.


< 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! :-) >>

BlacKkKlansman [2018]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


BlacKkKlansman [2018] (directed and, screenplay cowritten by Spike Lee along with Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz and Kevin Willmott based on the book [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Ron Stallworth [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is in the tradition of writer/director Spike Lee's other films, indeed his whole career, a "different kind of film" from mainstream Hollywood fare.

That characterization may in itself discourage many potential viewers from going to see the film.  "What do you mean different?"  "Why should I be challenged or disturbed in any way when I go to the movies?"  Well, there are others of us who don't mind being challenged and _appreciate_ well articulated perspectives coming from another from others, other people, with whom we share this world, perspectives that we could not possibly know, or understand as well, if we did not hear them from those who've lived them.

Now yes, this film is about certainly, the at least in part _amusing_ story of how Ron Stallworth (played in the film by John David Washington) the FIRST African American member of random midsized American city Colorado Springs, CO's police department (its "Jackie Robinson" as he was called) got involved in, indeed initiated, an investigation into the local Ku Klux Klan.

But the film is above all about appreciating the fundamental oddity and PAIN of Ron Stallworth's position.  YES HE WAS CSPD's "Jackie Robinson."   Yes, most of us know who Jackie Robinson was, who Rosa Parks was, who Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr was.  But here was simply Ron Stallworth, a random African American guy who, again, lived in an utterly random midsized American city of the 1970s, who like many other cops of all colors and ethnicities had decided that the best way for him to do his part in this world was to serve as a law enforcement officer.  Yet here was an utterly random guy who ALSO found himself to be "the Jackie Robinson" of his world.

And it wasn't easy.  First, the other officers in CSPD didn't necessarily know initially what to do with him, and yes, SOME couldn't get past his skin color (while to Spike Lee's consistent credit throughout his whole career, he makes sure that Viewers know that OTHERS did).  AND members of his own African American  milieu didn't necessarily see him always as "one of them" either.   Ron Stallworth _became_ very useful to CSPD, because he would discreetly attend / monitor functions of local Colorado State University's Black Student Union: "Hey, are you a spy?"  Well partly yes, but also in good part no.  It's honestly better for society (and law enforcement) know what's going on in smaller groups before things get out of hand.

And it is Ron Stallworth who comes across a surprisingly deep involvement of the KKK way out there in the "sleepy Colorado plains."

So this is really an excellent film and allows ALL its viewers to enter into the world of Ron Stallworth and ask the questions: "Why did this man have to become 'a Jackie Robinson' at all? Why could he have not been seen as 'good enough' from the get go?"

Finally, this film is a very strong reminder to all of us why calls for "Making America great again" are so hated and feared by this country's communities of color.  To an African American, America WASN'T "great" when his/her ancestors came to this country _in chains_.  And it WASN'T GREAT when for even 100 years after the nominal end of slavery, African Americans could stand to be lynched at the whim of a white population intent on keeping people of color "in their place."

< 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! :-) >>