Rango

MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (4 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb Listing - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1192628/
CNS/USCCB Review - http://www.usccb.org/movies/r/rango2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s Review - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110302/REVIEWS/110309997

Rango is an animated movie written by John Logan, et al and directed by Gore Verbinski that has something for all ages. I saw the movie in a theatre where easily half the viewers were little kids, who clearly enjoyed of the antics of the animated characters. And for the parents and grandparents the movie’s allusions to all kinds of previous movies make the film entertaining for them as well. Indeed, there is one chase scene alone involving a family of moles riding bats that evokes Star Wars I, Apocalypse Now, Avatar and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Yet a good part of the story runs more like Chinatown and its already ½ animated goofy successor Who Framed Roger Rabbit because underlying the story is a "conspiracy" that as in any good "noir" flick is not fully revealed until the end.

The story is this, Rango (voice by Johnny Depp), a pet lizard, who has aspirations of making a name for himself finds his horizons limitted and the "theatrical productions" that he puts on (for himself, really) very dry. Why? Because he realizes that he really hasn’t done anything in life. He’s been simply a pet kept in a clear glass box with some inanimate objects serving as "friends."

Fortunately, at this point, Luck / Fate sets him free. Unbeknownst to him, he and his terrarium were traveling in a car with his family somewhere through the Desert Southwest (apparently the family was moving) and the car has to swerve. Rango’s terrarium falls off the luggage rack and crashes onto the pavement in the middle of desert, setting him free from his previously sheltered/limited existence.

Can Rango survive? Well the leader of a group of Mariachi dressed owls is convinced that "The lizard’s gonna die." But wait, Rango’s a quick-learner, a lizard with gumption, one who only needed freedom to reach for and attain his destiny. And freedom he now had.

Rango soon finds himself among a community of  "good, hardworking desert folk" (mostly reptiles and rodents), okay some of the varmints were always "hardly workin.'" But they added color to the place.  In anycase, whether on the ranch or in the saloon, all these creatures find themselves increasingly in a crunch. In a world where water had always served as their "currency" (and water was _always_ scarce), things had gotten progressively worse in recent years.  And the reptiles and rodents that Rango encounters don’t understand why.

Only the mayor, a tortoise (voice played by Ned Beatty), arguably a pawn in the scheme himself, has used the "wisdom of his years" to "follow the water" and his "appreciation of the arc of history" to protect himself and a few bootlicking cronies. The rest are SOL.

Particularly distressed is Rango’s love interest in the story, Beans (voice by Isla Fisher). A lizard herself who lost her daddy a while back, she is desperately trying to find water so that she could "keep her land." (Beans has a psychological "tick" that is both funny and an obvious borrowing to the "tick" of the dogs in the animated picture Up of some years back. Beans is the only one "in the whole valley" who hasn’t abandoned her land to the scheming mayor, reminding one of a whole host of movies, including the movie There Will be Blood. It’s left to Rango to figure out what is mysteriously happening to the water.

Again, I found Rango to be entertaining and the allusions to all kinds of past movies creative. I particularly loved the Mariachi playing owls reminding me of countless Vicente Fernandez and Antonio Aguilar movies from Mexico that I have loved over the years and dearly wish had been subtitled or dubbed into English long ago.

Rango’s story, of course, ends well and the mystery of the "missing water" is solved, the answer reminding one of the animated movie of some years back Antz.

Families can’t go wrong with this movie. The kids will love it and the movie buff will probably love it for its innumerable allusions to previous films all the more.


<< 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 Adjustment Bureau

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (3 stars) Fr Dennis (3 ½ stars)

IMDb Listing - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385826/
CNS/USCCB Review - http://www.usccb.org/movies/a/adjustmentbureau2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s Review - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110302/REVIEWS/110309994

The Adjustment Bureau (official website: http://www.theadjustmentbureau.com/) written and directed by George Nolfi and based on a 1950s era short story by science fiction writer Philip K. Dick is a speculative movie oriented above all to a college aged / young adult audience. It touches questions that enter into the theological realm and that, while having an importance to people of all ages, have particular urgency to people at that age: Is there a Plan (ordained by God / Fate) for our lives and indeed for the world? Is there someone who we are supposed to meet/be with (marry)? Is there a particular career path or vocation that I’m supposed to undertake? What happens when we would deviate from that Plan? Are we free to do so? Or will a “higher power” seek to nudge us back toward the Plan?

In the world of the movie, it is the task of a discreet group of “higher beings” working for a “boss” to keep people "on Plan." David Norris (played by Matt Damen) a young, capable, charismatic and _fundamentally good_ New York Senate candidate encounters members of this group of beings, discreetly dressed for “Manhattan today” (err, more like for Manhattan of the 1950s ;-) in gray trench coats and fedora hats and presented to him as “The Adjustment Bureau” working for a “Chairman,” after he accidently encounters a particular woman, Elise Sellas (played by Emily Blunt), for a second time. His encounter with her for first time, it turns out, was no accident. However, his encounter with her a second time was an accident with potentially devastating implications for the futures of both the characters and for the world.

So the Team assigned to David Norris (played by Anthony Mackie, John Slattery and eventually Terence Stamp as Thomson) from the "Adjustment Bureau" which normally guided things from the shadows, had to step out into the life of David Norris to warn him _for everybody’s good_ to “stay on Plan.” Shaken, Norris didn’t understand, why would someone who felt so immediately so “right” could be so “wrong” for him, for her and for the world? The rest of the movie is about resolving this question both for the two characters involved in the story and for the audience.

The movie therefore becomes a great entré into a discussion of Fate/Predestination vs Free Will. I would encourage anyone who sees this movie to browse this topic on the pages of wikipedia, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the online (old) Catholic Encyclopedia to reflect on this fundamental question and to discuss it over beers or coffee with friends (and dare one hope, clergy :-) as to how our answers to this fundamental question (fate vs free will) can impact key decisions we make in our lives. This is good stuff!


ADDENDUM (added 2 days after my initial review):

I’ve spent the better part of the weekend reflecting on this movie, and I do believe that I do have problem with the movie’s premise. The movie assumes that "God’s Plan" for senate candidate David Norris is much more burdensome than "God’s plan" generally is.

To make the point, I quote the simple beginning lines of the Baltimore Catechism:

THE PURPOSE OF MAN’S EXISTENCE
Lesson 1 from the Baltimore Cathechism

1. Who made us?
God made us.
In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. (Genesis 1:1)

2. Who is God?
God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence.
In him we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17:28)

3. Why did God make us?
God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.
Eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love him. (I Corinthians 2:9)

4. What must we do to gain the happiness of heaven?
To gain the happiness of heaven we must know, love, and serve God in this world.
Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth; where the rust and moth consume and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven; where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. (Matthew 6:19-20)

Now, EXPERIENTIALLY, in my 12 years of being a Catholic priest, I’ve buried over 250 people, about 20 a year. Not one of them was important or famous. Some were probably schmucks (you can kinda tell that from what the friends/family say... ;-). However, a good number of those who I buried seemed to me to be authentically good people even though _no one_ outside of their families, friends, and GOD would have known that. And certainly no worldly monuments (streets named after them, statues of them placed in parks, etc) would be built in their honor.

So while the conflict between "public sacrifice/greatness and private happiness" may make for an interesting story/movie – and I _continue_ to recommend this movie to college-aged 20-somethings and young adults who really are in a stage in their lives when "the world is their oyster" and they are making big decisions about their lives – I do think that the movie actually misrepresents God and even Christian religion in general.

I say this because at both extremes, the Calvinists (who famously believed in Predestination) and the Catholics who defended Free Will, BOTH were talking about FUNDAMENTAL CHOICES (or STATES), that is of being at peace or not at peace with God. To both camps one’s other actions ultimately didn’t matter _that much_.

To the Calvinists one’s other (worldly) actions did not matter _at all_ (even though worldly success was seen as probable evidence of one being in grace with God). And the Catholic Church has _always_ maintained that up until one’s death one was ALWAYS able to reconcile with God (through a good Confession) no matter how much one may have run away from God throughout the course of one’s life. St. Dismas the Good Thief crucified with Jesus was always an important figure in Catholic imagination (and is even invoked in the Prayers of the Faithful in the current Catholic Funeral Rite).  And Jesus’ saying that "There will be more rejoicing in heaven over the one sinner who repents than over the ninety nine righteous people with no need of repentance" (Luke 15:7) has been a stock appeal in Lenten Mission Sermons since at least the Middle Ages when Lenten Mission Sermons began to be recorded.

So it is doubtful that by EITHER belief system (Calvinist or Catholic) God would have put such a heavy burden on Senate candidate David Norris as in the movie. Instead, in the simple words of the Baltimore Catechism, our purpose (God’s plan for us) is simply to come to "know, love, and serve God in this world" and then "to share everlasting happiness" with him "in heaven." And that would be why Jesus could say "Come to me all who are burdened and I will give you rest, for my yoke is easy and my burden light" (Mt 11:30).


<< 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! :-) >>

Poetry (original title "Shi")

MPAA (Not rated) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (3 ½ stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb Listing - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1287878/
CNS/USCCB Review -
Roger Ebert's Review- http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110224/REVIEWS/110229993/1023

Poetry (original title, Shi) a South Korean movie written and directed by Chang-dong Lee first caught my eye when it was mentioned by several people on the IMDb’s Oscars' discussion board as one of the Best unnominated films/performances of 2010. Then it happened to be playing at Chicago’s Music Box Theatre this week.

One of the joys of the movies is that one can use them to enter, however briefly, into other places, cultures and times. One of the frustrations of international films is, however, that no matter well these movies are subtitled or dubbed, the films are at least initially disorienting, that is, until one gets a grasp of the film-makers’ intentions as well as their films’ conventions and forms. Hollywood’s films, even the good/great ones, are famously formulaic. Films produced in other countries for their domestic consumption are also generally formulaic. Most complex however, are movies clearly intended for international audiences. It’s as if producers of such films fall into the trap of believing that they must pack in as much of the problematics of their country or culture as possible in the 2-3 hours that they have alotted in their film.

Poetry appears to me to be a very good, though very typical example of such an international film: there are at least three stories, each compelling in its own right, taking place simultaneously. Together, the three stories do add up to more than the sum of their parts, however at the cost of some clarity. I’m more or less positive that Hollywood would have counseled that the stories be taken separately and used as fodder for 2-3 separate and unrelated films.

The central character is Mija (played by Jeong-hie Yun), a South Korean grandmother living in Seoul and raising her teenage grandson Jongwook (played by Da-wit Lee), while his mother works in a factory in Pusan at the other end of the country. (Veterans of the Korean War or those who've studied it, will know these as place names well). Jongwook appears to have no father to speak of. Mija takes care of him out of a sense of obligation and resignation and Jongwook, being early in his teens, is both utterly clueless and hence utterly ungrateful for what Mija is doing for him. Mija is also becoming “forgetful” ... Finally, Mija as seniors often do, signs up for an activity, a Poetry class, at a community center and this class clearly gives her life.

Fairly early in the movie, Jongwook becomes more than a mere ungrateful annoyance when Mija is informed by the a number of fathers of his similarly loutish friends that Jongwook along with these other boys was implicated in the rape of a young teenage girl who subsequently jumped off a bridge committing suicide. The fathers wish to payoff the mother of the deceased girl so that she does not press charges thus “saving" their sons’ "futures.”

Not only does Mija not have ready access to the kind of money needed (though she would have a way), she seems clearly conflicted in participating in such a scheme. Was Mija’s own daughter raped in a similar way when her daughter was young, explaining the absence of a father for Jongwook? Was Mija herself raped/abused in the same way when _she_ was young? In any case, while the other fathers are in agreement as to what to do, Mija is clearly an unenthusiastic participant. Worse, Jongwook acts as if nothing at all had happened and remains simply an bad mannered and largely clueless (immature) child in Mija’s home. Mija’s new found poetry class offers potentially some respite or salvation, but Mija is also getting “forgetful.”

The movie then plays out in a poignant manner that the reader can probably put together from the pieces given above.

In the background of this terrible story of Mija and her family are some truly beautiful and tragic scenes of daily life in contemporary South Korea. The girl who was raped and subsequently committed suicide was Catholic (reminding viewers that at substantial portion of South Korea’s population _is_ Catholic). Then her family lived in the countryside at the outskirts of Seoul. This is beautiful country, but also brings to mind issues of economics and social class, as well as further poignancy of what it must have been for a country family to lose a daughter who up until her sudden rape/death might have been giving hope to the family of "making it" in the city.

The get togethers of the poetry class are both fun and at times conflicting as clearly language, even the language of poetry can be used to express a multitude of thoughts, impressions and intentions. And then there is Mija with so much going on in her life, finding it increasingly difficult to express herself at all...

This is a great and, as often is the case with “international films,” a _sad_ story. There will be American women whose blood will certainly start to boil/curdle as this story plays out. Poetry is _not_ the first story of previously largely untold women’s pain to come out on screen in recent years. I think of the recent Hollywood movie Defiance about the otherwise heroic pursuits of the Bielsky brothers who had led a specifically Jewish partisan movement in the forests of Nazi occupied Byelorussia during World War II. One of the horrors given voice in that movie was that of the Jewish women of that time who did not necessarily feel _safe_ around the Jewish men (who took “forest wives”) even as those men were nominally "protecting" them.

I am positive, however, that these kind of stories of specifically women’s suffering will increasingly common for the foreseeable future as both men and women come to grips with the violence against women, both past and present, that until recently was rarely if ever discussed.

Seniors, especially senior women would probably like / relate to this film as it is about a senior woman with definitely a story to tell.

Note to parents: While there is no nudity in the picture or onscreen violence, the themes presented are clearly intended for an adult audience. I don't think that a lot of teenagers would really understand this movie, even if one of the main characters in the story is an obviously "clueless" and largely ungrateful teen.


<< 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 the 2011 Oscars - Navigating the Old and the New

IMDb listing
Previous/Other years


It was clear that the organizers of this year’s Oscars had decided to “mix things up” by bringing in two of Hollywood’s younger stars, Anne Hatheway and James Franco, to host the show. And in the months leading up to the awards ceremony, this certainly must have seemed like a very good move:

For 2010 featured a parade of younger actors and actresses in outstanding roles. Among the best movies were some which were either positively revolutionary (Inception) or documenting in big ways and small ways revolutions taking place before our eyes (The Social Network, The Kids are All Right and Blue Valentine). Even the Coen brothers' decision to “rework” the previous John Wayne classic True Grit was brave, revolutionary and indeed, subversive. (The hero of the Coen bros. version was _not_ the “John Wayne” character Cockburn, but the teenage _girl_ who set-out to hire him to hunt-down her father’s murderer. Who had the “true grit?” The _girl_). So 2010 appeared to be a year that screamed: “Out with the Old and in with the New.”

So how is it that as the curtain fell on this year’s Oscars the big winner was a movie about a stuttering, long-dead, white, war-time King (where even Churchill, if not John Wayne, was a character in the story), and the two young starry-eyed hosts of the show were so widely panned?

Well, one of the reasons why I’ve liked movies (or for that matter events like the Oscars) is that these are among the few “mass events” of our times and reflecting on the way that we respond to them can help us to discern the “signs of the times.”

Anybody in the Catholic Church knows that we have experienced a 20 year more or less sustained “correction” (to some) or “counter revolution” (to others) to roll back some of the changes brought about during the time of the Second Vatican Council. Similarly, since the election of Ronald Reagan as President in 1980, despite an occasional spikes (the Clinton years, _perhaps_ the relative surprise election of Barrack Obama) the U.S. has trended in a generally more conservative direction.

And a few years ago, a generational shift in hosts of the Tonight Show from Jay Leno to Conan O’Brian, was famously rolled back, so that Jay is hosting the show again and Conan has been exiled to the cable network TBS.

All this can serve to invite us to reflect – How do we understand “revolutions” or “revolutionary times?” How permanent are they? Is it really as The Who already sang at the end of the 1960s “[Meet] the New Boss, same as the Old Boss?”

Perhaps sustained change really comes “under the radar” and “incrementally.” The Kids are All Right (underscoring growing acceptance/mainstreaming of homosexuality) and especially Blue Valentine (a narrative that worked because it’s indicative of a truly broad-based rise of feminist consciousness across all levels of society) do present changes that are much more long term than perhaps the needless taking of pot-shots at venerated icons of the past (the Coen bros. True Grit) or glorifying passing fads (or even stages) in _ongoing_ technological progress (The Social Network)..

And while I am and hope always to be a booster of the young, because I honestly believe that God generally has more faith in the young than we do, or the young themselves have in themselves – God would almost always pick the young (Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Mary) over the old (Esau, Joseph’s brothers, David’s brothers, Absalom, etc) to do his work (and all this has worked its way into countless homilies I've given over the years at quinceañeras) - I do believe that there is something to be said about prudence that does come with age.

I’ve loved Anne Hatheway from the time of her Princess Diaries. And I’m happy that she and a whole host of other young actresses (among them famously being Amy Adams and Amanda Siegried) have learned a thing or two from the experience of Meryl Streep and have decided to take on widely varied roles early in their careers. Indeed, that would seem to be one of the great joys of acting: the taking-on of widely different roles during one’s career and thus entering into their worlds. Further, from what I’ve seen of James Franco, I see nothing but a brilliant future for him as well (he’s both on General Hospital _and_ studying for a PhD in Poetry at Yale!).

However, perhaps the hosting or next year's Academy Awards should fall back to the Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez, Jennifer Aniston, Cameron Diaz, Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck, Ben Stiller crowd. There’s no crying need to jump over that generation of talent in search of hosts that don’t require resurrecting Bob Hope (or Billy Crystal/ Whoopi Goldberg for that matter) as a hologram.

2010 was a great year for movies. Years from now, Inception could be looked at as the 2001 Space Odyssey or Blade Runner of its time and probably _both_ versions of True Grit will come to be respected for what they were, the first as a vehicle to finally get John Wayne an Oscar and the second as a great retelling of the story closer to its original style and language where all the actors truly had fun with their roles. But lasting change does not come overnight. And _perhaps_ the better model is that of a patiently self-improving "King" (person/individual) who seeks to walk steadily forward in a world of fluctuation, conflict and change.


<< 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! :-) >>

My Oscar Picks

IMDb listing
Previous/Other years

 
I’ve been asked by a number of people to give my Oscar picks. Here I confess my still "amateur" striving for "semi-pro" status ;-)

However, for the “big” categories these are my picks of those who I think will win, those who IMHO _should_ win ;-) and those who least should have been nominated/considered:

BEST ACTOR – COLIN FIRTH (The King’s Speech). Who I’d like to win is JEFF BRIDGES (True Grit). Who should have at least been nominated is GEORGE CLOONEY (The American).

BEST ACTRESS – NATALIE PORTMAN (Black Swan). Who should have at least been nominated HILLARY SWANK (Conviction).

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR – CHRISTIAN BALE (The Fighter). Who I’d kinda like to win is unnominated MATT DAMON (True Grit).

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS – MELISSA LEO (The Fighter). But this was a surprisingly tough category this year. HELENA BONHAM CARTER (The King’s Speech) was excellent as was teenager HAILEE STEINFELD (True Grit), though the latter could be a flash in the pan. Who both surprised and I wish was at least nominated was LEIGHTON MEESTER (Country Strong).

BEST DIRECTOR – DARREN ARONOFSKY (Black Swan) or the COEN BROTHERS (True Grit). Who deserved to at least be nominated was SOFIA COPOLLA (Somewhere).

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY – DAVID SEIDLER (The King’s Speech), though both CHRISTOPHER NOLAN (Inception) and SCOTT SILVER, et al (The Fighter) were excellent as well.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY – COEN BROTHERS (True Grit). However, this was a great year for writing. The other four nominees – 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3 and Winter’s Bone all deserved their nominations. Others that deserved consideration were Conviction and The American.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY – INCEPTION or BLACK SWAN though SOMEWHERE ought to have been at least nominated.

BEST FEATURE LENGTH DOCUMENTARY - INSIDE JOB

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM – TOY STORY 3, though I preferred HOW TO TAME YOUR DRAGON. The movie I thought deserved at least a nomination in this category was DESPICABLE ME.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM – I only saw this one of the nominees, but it was _excellent_ BIUTIFUL.

BEST PICTURE – THE KING’S SPEECH though I much preferred TRUE GRIT.


<< 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! :-) >>

Unknown [2011]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (2 stars) Fr. Dennis (2 ½ stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1401152/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/u/unknown2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110216/REVIEWS/110219990

Things are not as they seem ...

Unknown, starring Liam Neeson, is a kind of Hollywood paranoid suspense thriller that’s been relatively common in recent years. Viewers will find clear thematic similarities to Matt Damon’s Bourne Identity as well as to Liam Neeson’s recent film Taken. Older viewers will also notice obvious homages to Harrison Ford’s thriller Frantic.

In each case an American finds himself lost in an exotic city in Europe and Europe proves to be a bewildering and hence dangerous place. While Unknown, Taken and The Bourne Identity are all clearly presented as fictional stories, bewilderment -- the struggle to figure out who exactly is who, and who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad” – forms a large part of the subtext of recent more historically based movies like Munich and The Good Shepherd (both largely set in Europe during the Cold War era) as well as countless movies set in the post 9/11-Middle-East (Syriana, Green Zone, The Kingdom, Body of Lies, etc). Add to these recent fictional movies about the cold methodical lives of fictional assassins (George Clooney’s The American, Jason Statham’s The Mechanic, Nicolas Cage’s Bangkok Dangerous) and it would seem that portions of Hollywood are making really good money producing films that portray the world as a bewildering place where danger lurks around every corner and pretty much everyone is a potential enemy, all this being especially true when one ventures outside the more familiar confines of the good ole U.S.A.

One could criticize Hollywood for exploiting and even feeding American post-9/11 fears, but I do tend to side with “apologists” here who respond by saying that these movies would not work if they did not touch a nerve. And even if most of these movies are set off American shores, _none of them_ present the “good” and the “bad” along clear ethnic or national lines. Indeed, that makes for a great part of the bewilderment expressed in these films. Almost everyone becomes suspect, both nominally friend and foe, and the protagonists as well as the audience are given the task to sort it all out.

Unknown is exactly this kind of movie. The audience is presented Liam Neeson playing the role of a botanist Dr. Martin Harris traveling with his wife Elizabeth (played by January Jones) to a biotech summit in Berlin. While entering a taxi on leaving the Berlin airport, Neeson’s character's briefcase gets left behind. Arriving at the check-in counter at their hotel, Neeson’s character realizes that his briefcase is missing. Without even telling his wife, he quickly hails a cab to take him back to the airport to retrieve the lost bag. Trying to call his wife on his cell phone to tell her where he’s heading, he can’t get a signal. Before he knows literally what hit him, a refrigerator falls from a truck in front of his cab while the cab is crossing a bridge. The cab driver a Bosnian immigrant named Gina (played by Diane Krueger) swerving to avoid plunges the cab off the bridge and into the river.

Four days later, Neeson’s character wakes-up from a coma in a Berlin hospital and is first surprised and then worried that his wife wasn’t able to find him. He checks himself out of the hospital against the attending doctor’s advice, and finds his way back to the hotel where he and his wife were to be staying. To his astonishment when he encounters his wife, she denies knowing him. Further, he finds she’s being escorted by a man who looks reasonably like him and who also claims to be Dr. Martin Harris. What the heck just happened?

The rest of the movie gradually fills in the story. The viewer is invited to follow along, to sort out the good folks from the bad. More crucially to a story like this, the viewer is also invited to render judgement on whether the story ultimately makes sense at all.

As a thriller (and as a puzzle), I found Unknown to be reasonably engaging. It did keep one's attention. Still the more interesting question for me remains, why movies like this are “working” (successful) in the U.S. and at this particular time in our history?


<< 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 Eagle

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (3 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034389/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/e/eagle2011.shtml
Roger Ebert's Review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110209/REVIEWS/110209982

The Eagle is a movie that probably everyone who’s ever been a Scout or played the game “capture the flag” would appreciate. Yet as simple in concept as it may be, the story offers the audience to reflect on a whole host of fairly profound questions about honor, valor, patriotism, civilization and freedom.

Set in Roman-era Britain, it plays out on both sides of Hadrian’s Wall, which came to divide the Roman dominated South which later came to be England from the unconquered North which eventually came to be Scotland. The story is built around a pre-wall attempt by Rome to conquer the whole of Britain outright. The 9th Roman legion marched into the unconquered northern territory only to be never heard from again. Presumably it was decimated and symbolically the 9th Legion’s Eagle standard never returned from the northern wilds.

At the beginning of the movie, we are introduced to a young Roman officer Marcus Flavius Aquila (played by Channing Tatum) from Gaul who volunteers to take an assignment along the fortifications of Hadrian’s wall. His father had led the 9th Roman Legion and its loss had brought dishonor to the whole family.

After proving his worth as a commander in battle at the cost of an injury that ended his military career, Marcus Aquila finds out that the 9th Legion’s Eagle standard may still exist, being kept as a war trophy and used in ceremonies by one of the northern tribes. No longer in command of a garrison, he sets out with Eska (played by Jamie Bell), a British slave of his, to take back the Eagle standard.

At this point the movie begins to resemble other stories built around a “frontier mission” theme – Black Robe, Apocalypse Now, and even Alien / Avatar and Dances with Wolves -- come to mind. Out in the northern wilds of Scotland, the purpose of Rome’s past attempt to conquer this territory comes into question even if Rome would have brought far greater Order to such wild territory. The natives, as vicious as they appeared, did have a point. They were just defending their land and their freedom if doing so in very brutal ways. The two find “survivors” of the 9th Legion out there in the wilds (Roman-era “MIAs”) who after having lost (and perhaps cowered) in battle seem to have preferred to “go Native” to returning back to civilization. Eska is also given repeatedly the opportunity to reassert his freedom among his still unconquered and free cousins.

The movie, appropriately rated PG-13 (no sex, no _gratuitous_ violence and no gore), filmed beautifully in both the Scottish Highlands as well as in Hungary, gives the audience much to think about. What would you do if you found yourself born or stationed at the edge of the world that you knew? Would you have the courage to “boldly go where no one (that you knew) had gone before?” Are you able to accept anything at all (even good things) from The Other, if that Other came to you in a dominating/condescending way? Are you able to appreciate/respect the native desire for freedom even if it's demanded by a people/group that's poorer economically and even culturally than you?


<< 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! :-) >>