Lola Versus [2012]

MPAA (R)  Roger Ebert (2 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Lola Versus (directed and co-written by Daryl Wein along with Zoe Lister Jones who also costars in the film) is an _excellent_ young-adult oriented "indie" film set in Manhattan.  Lola (played masterfully by Greta Gerwig) is 29.  Both she and her boyfriend Luke (played by Joel Kinnaman) with whom she is living with  already for some time are grad students.  She's working toward her Doctorate in Literature, he's getting a Masters in Fine Arts.  Two scenes into the movie, after having had sex back home at the apartment one night (yes parents, this film is really _not_ intended for youngsters...) Luke gets out a ring and proposes.  She happily accepts.

The next several months, Lola along with her best friend Alice (played by Zoe Lister Jones) and Lola's mother (played by Debra Winger) sets about planning the wedding.  Yes, this a contemporary story, so Luke is certainly involved in sending invites helping to decide on caterers, etc.  But it's still, above all, Lola, her best friend and mom doing most of the running.  Well three weeks before the wedding, Lola comes home one afternoon and sees Luke sitting slumped stone-faced in a chair.  She asks, "Luke, is there something wrong?  You look like you just had a stroke."  Luke's had no stroke.  He's breaking-up.  BOOM.

The next scene, some days later while Lola lies still half comatose (from shock) on a couch, has Lola's ma' along with her dad (played by Bill Pullman) at ma's side arguing over the phone with Luke's mother (who we never see), telling her: "Listen, this was supposed to be a destination wedding.  There's no way that she or my husband and I are going to refund the invited guests' plane tickets when it was your son who chose to ruin my daughter's life 3 weeks before what was supposed to be their wedding..."

And of course it's not just the immediate scrambling and embarrassment of informing the various guests caterers, services, etc that the wedding is off.  There's much more going on than just that.  Lola and Luke had been together for a long time.  There are relationships with mutual friends that have to be renegotiated Alice (okay, she'd almost certainly fall into Lola's camp) and another fairly important friend Henry (played by Hamish Linklater) who both Lola and Luke knew like "forever."

Then, of course, there are Lola and Luke's studies.  While there's _some_ flexibility in terms of pacing as one works for one's Doctorate, it's not a process that can be meandered through indefinitely.  Further studying for a Doctorate is HARD.  And how can one FOCUS when all this relational upheaval is going on?

Finally, after being together _for so long_  is "over" really "over"?  Wow, I really felt awful for Lola, and really for everybody in this story because it was SO WELL PLAYED OUT and SO OBVIOUSLY PAINFUL.

When Lola presents her proposal for her doctorate (again she's working for a PhD in Literature) -- it's to be on the presence of SILENCE in Literature.  She tells her board: "People don't necessarily appreciate the power of commas and pauses in poetry") --  I just wanted to cry.  (Actually, I'd suspect that there would be a lot more on such a topic in the scholarly literature than the film-maker would have realized, BUT what a _utterly perfect_ dissertation topic for someone who's both studying literature and had just gone through an upheaval like this in her life!

Much of course happens...

Lola Versus is the second movie in several months that I've seen Greta Gerwig in (the first being Damsels in Distress [2011]).  And I honestly have been impressed by both her performances.  I also have to say that I was impressed with the direction, writing and editing in this film.  The dialogue was crisp, every scene had a point.  Just wonderful film-making the telling of the story.  So good job Daryl Wein and Zoe Lister Jones and really the rest of the cast.  This will certainly be a film that you all could be proud of.

FINALLY being a Catholic priest, I really can not end this review of this movie without mentioning (the lack there of) something that is obviously very dear to my heart.  That is, I simply have to mention that the film, despite dealing with some FUNDAMENTAL challenges in the lives of young adults does not make ANY reference at all religion or God.  (Okay, Lola was tangentially "interested in astrology" and "took a yoga class," but honestly that was it....)

Here I want to say to young adults that I actually "get" this and really on multiple levels.

For instance, on the most understanding of levels (and something that a lot of religionists would do well to appreciate as well), I do understand very well that the United States is a diverse place and that this diversity becomes more and more evident among the young (The younger the age group in the United States the "less white" and less traditionally "Judeo Christian" it becomes).  Further, this film was written and made in New York certainly the most diverse city in the United States and one of the most diverse in the world.  Finally, the film was about (and largely FOR) a college/grad-school set (audience), which is even more diverse than the general population or that of New York.  (People from all over the world come to study in the United States).

SO it'd really be asking a lot that this film (made by and for this milieu of college/grad-school aged people) have a particularly strong focus on any particular religion.  And I say this _not simply_ because a fair number of the young adult viewers of this would probably be Jewish rather than Catholic/Christian, BUT BECAUSE A FAIR NUMBER OF THE VIEWERS WOULD NOT BE "JUDEO-CHRISTIAN" AT ALL, but rather HINDU (from India), BUDDHIST (from Taiwan, Malaysia, Japan or China) or MUSLIM (from places as diverse as Iran/Iraq, Morocco and Pakistan where, contrary to perhaps popular belief in the United States, most educated Muslims are _not_ exactly "Taliban").  So I "get" even the practical "soft pedaling" of religion in the portrayal of the day-to-day life of young adults today.

I also understand that there would certainly be an aspect of "young adult bravado" playing here.  Young adults in their 20s be they like the characters in this film, this film's makers or young adults in general are famously "unconvinced" that even their parents have all that much "wisdom" to offer (Our parents generally get wiser as we get older ;-) ;-).  I understand this because I was a young adult once too ;-) ;-) and my dad became so much wiser in my 30s and now in my 40s than when I was in my 20s ;-) ;-).  And if we discount our parents in this way when we are young, it should not be surprising that we largely discount our religion (that often stands even behind them) at that time as well.

HOWEVER, be all this as it may, knowing a thing or two about suffering as well (we all do in some way when we are young) and fully admitting that _some people_ can get through all life's difficulties "by their own bootstraps" or simply "with Friends" without ever needing God or religion, I DO HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT IT IS SO MUCH EASIER to get through those difficult parts of life believing that God is somehow at our sides.  This is NOT to have God "casting flaming boulders" on the "Lukes" or otherwise "problematic people" in our lives, but to simply feel Someone (God) knows our pain and that SOMEHOW it will all turn out for the best in the end (and frankly, perhaps not even in this life or this world, but at SOME FINAL TIME).

I found Lola's choice for her dissertation topic fascinating -- researching the role of SILENCE, "commas/pauses" in literature -- because almost immediately I saw this as what IN OTHER TIMES was self-evidently called a "search for God:"  Jacob famously "wrestled with God" ALONE IN THE DESERT "one night," when NO ONE ELSE COULD POSSIBLY HEAR HIM (Gen 32:23-33).  Elijah encountered God NOT in "storms or earthquakes" but in a _whisper_ literally "A SILENT SOUND" (1 Kings 19:11-13).  Then in Catholic spirituality, St. John of the Cross wrote an entire book around his poem "Dark Night of the Soul" a phrase that has been so evocative that THE PHRASE (if _not_ necessarily the book) resonates with untold millions to this day.  I've long laughed that the 1970s-80s British Rock group Supertramp's "Logical Song" basically described "A Dark Night of the Soul" as well. 

So honestly WHILE I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE NOT A SINGLE "COMMA" in this wonderful film, I would like to say to the readers of this column about this film that if _you_ find yourselves in situations like Lola in this film, don't be afraid to reach out to God in those times.  It's a _lot_ easier to get through those difficult parts of life with God at our sides.

Indeed, I do believe that for folks like St. Paul, God's presence to us "through it all" (even death) was the most fundamental message of Jesus' Resurrection and therefore the Gospel:  "If God is with us, who can be against us ... For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 8:31, 37-39)


<< 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! :-) >>

That's My Boy [2012]

MPAA (R)  Michael Phillips (0 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
Michael Phillips' review

Ok, leading-up to this weekend, I honestly didn't expect to go see the Adam Sandler vehicle That's My Boy (directed by Sean Anders and screenplay by David Caspe).  Like many other movie-goers, I've found that I can generally take only so much of his humor, which is usually very, very stupid and generally crude.  And honestly, this movie is certainly stupid and crude.  HOWEVER, with it being Fathers' Day weekend, the film having a "Father's Day" theme to it (albeit portraying Adam Sandler playing a particularly awful father) and knowing that men/fathers haven't exactly had an easy time of it over the last generation or two, I decided to give it a shot.

Now, parents, honestly PLEASE DON'T take little kids to this movie!   The film DEFINITELY earns its R-rating.  The list of (thankfully generally off-screen) transgressions in the film is very long and in a "Hall of Shame" sense "impressive."  However, since the transgressions are generally _so over the top/exaggerated_ it is clear they are intended for effect: Yes, Adam Sandler's character, Donny, was a loser.  In the story, Donny knocked-up his teacher in 8th grade (played by Eva Amurri Martino when young and by Susan Sarandon in the present day) who subsequently was sent to prison, leaving Donny (actually initially Donny's dad, but when he turned 18, Donny) to take care of the child, who Donny (who was like 13 years old at the time the child was born) named "Han Solo" after the "really cool character in Star Wars" (played in those films by Harrison Ford).

Needless to say, this was not an "ideal arrangement" and soon as Donny's boy (Han) turned 18, Han (played as an adult by Andy Samburg) _left home_ changed his name to Todd and tried to start his life anew.  And actually he did quite well, majoring apparently in Math (his mother had actually been a Math Teacher, and Donny if not for so messing-up his own life had been actually shown talent in math as well...).

Eventually Han (now Todd) landed a job at a Wall Street firm, found a gorgeous girl, Jamie (played by Leighton Meester) that he was going to marry.  What could go wrong?

Well dad (Donny) who had resigned himself to the fact that his boy Han/Todd was going to be out his life for good, finds that he needs to come-up with some very quick money or else he's going to go to jail.  So on the weekend on which his estranged son Todd's WEDDING was going to be held, Donny suddenly shows-up at his doorstep (and it's not even his son's doorstep but the doorstep of his son's boss' beautiful Cape Cod estate (where the wedding was going to be held) in self-evident (though _also_ initially _unclear_) need of help.  Good God, much ensues ...

Again, this movie _is_ crude.  But honestly what a story it tells ... My hat off to Adam, and my hat off to Leighton Meester (of "Gossip Girl" fame, who's had to deal with "disappointing/problematic parents" for real in own life and who first caught my attention as someone who really could become a serious talent in Country Strong [2011].  The current film is, of course, impossibly exaggerated.  But many, many people and families _also_ have to deal with seemingly impossible situations.  So honestly, good job folks (as well as to Andy Samburg, whose role was actually and clearly more important in this than Meester's though Meester's background so well resonates with the problematics played out in the film).

Once again, parents PLEASE DON'T take a kid who's "10 years old" to this film.  This is a movie that deserves its R-rating.  Still, for even a teenager in the latter years of high school, where there would be issues of "disappointment with parents" at home, this would an _excellent_ (and funny) film to see.  And it MAY BE a good film to see as "father/older teenage son", "parents/older teens" 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! :-) >>

Rock of Ages [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (O)  Roger Ebert (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1336608/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv068.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120613/REVIEWS/120619993

It didn't take altogether long, maybe 10 minutes into Rock of Ages (directed by Adam Shankman, screenplay by Justin Theroux, Chris D'Arienzo and Adam Loeb based the stageplay musical by Chris D'Arienzo) for me to realize what I'd be up against in writing review for this film.  

Parents, while this movie is rated PG-13 and I doubt that a lot of you would necessarily want to be sit through this movie with your teens as they watch it, _at minimum_ the film should require "a discussion at home" and I honestly believe that an R-rating or even NC-17 rating would be more appropriate.  I say this because, at minimum, there are multiple scenes in which one or another young woman bends down on her knees before a guy and starts undoing his pants..., and I simply can't imagine ANY REASON why a high school kid (or younger ...) ought to see that without knowledge (and at minimum comment) by his/her parents.  This kind of stuff does annoy me: If one's going to make an adult oriented movie, then just rate it appropriately (An R-rating would allow teens to see the movie WITH CONSENT OF THEIR PARENTS).  To play games with the ratings is at minimum childish and at worst it is misguided/evil.  At minimum, the film-makers will be contributing to a new epidemic of herpes and quite possibly worse.   And were those "bending down and unbuttoning his pants" scenes somehow "necessary" to the plot?  Of course not ... So unless the film-makers have made investments in some new herpes medications, I can't imagine any possible reason for including them in the film.  But there we are ...

But that is really just the most childish, stupid (and frankly, utterly needless) problem with the film.  The larger problem concerns what I recently wrote about in my recent review of the kids' movie Madagascar 3, that American film-makers (both on the Right and on the Left) seem to assume that they _need_ to include "villains" in their stories.  And while Rock of Ages does in good part lampooning the otherwise wild excesses of the "Rock God" era of the 1980s (that characterization alone ought to give a serious believing Catholic/Christian pause, as NO ONE short of God ought to receive the kind of adulation given to Rock Stars at that time, or Ball Players or Movie Stars, political figures like Hitler, Stalin, Peron, Quadafi or Assad before or since), it was clear from about 5-10 minutes into this movie that the "villains du jour" were going to be "Conservative Christians." 

These Conservative Christian "villains" in the current story are led in the story by the 40-something Patricia Whitmore (played by Catherine Zeta Jones) wife of a _somewhat_ surprisingly (to non-Los Angelinos) conservative mayor of Los Angeles, Mike Whitmore (played by Bryan Cranston). [Note to non-Los Angelinos both "red" and "blue" -- the mayor of Los Angeles from 1993-2001 was Republican Richard Riordan, which wouldn't surprise ANYONE once one stops and realizes that to be a mayor of any major city in the world requires that one balance many competing forces, not the least of which, of course, is business.  An excellent if somewhat controversial book on "the making of Los Angeles" is Mike Davis' City of Quartz (Amazon) ...] 

Returning to the story ... Now there is clearly _some_ historical truth to the film's presenting of Conservative Christians as opponents to "Rock and Roll."  HOWEVER, ANY Catholic/Christian born pretty much ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD since the end of World War II would know that this history has _never been_ the whole story or practice.  Otherwise, tens of millions of us Catholics/Christians in the United States and hundreds of millions of us across the globe would have to somehow get rid of our record albums/CDs (if anyone still actually as LPs ;-) and/or erase good chunks of the memories on our i-pods / mp3 players.  And I for one have no interest at all in getting rid of my "Pink Floyd" or "Creedence tapes" ;-) ;-) to submit to some a tired, half-baked narrative that was, at best, only partly true.  And I doubt any practicing Catholic here at Annunciata or frankly anywhere else would want to do that either.

Consider simply, that in the late 1980s when I was a grad student studying at USC in Los Angeles, both Eddie Van Halen and his wife, actress, Valerie Bertinelli (both Catholic ... ;-) spent an afternoon happily at the USC Catholic Center to get a respite from the crush of the fans/paparazzi that awaited them at L.A.'s Shrine Auditorium a block or two away where the Grammy Awards were being held that year.  Then REO Speedwagon and Styx (both huge bands in the late 1970s-1980s) were from the "ethnic" parts of Chicago.  At least some of these people were Catholic and it's simply unfair/wrong to assume that _all of them_ (even to this day) would have lost their faith.  Even Rock Stars are _more_ than merely "Rock Stars."  Finally, the parish where I'm stationed at, Annunciata on Chicago's South East Side, has come to be known for its annual Annunciata Fest which hosts a fair number of really good "up and coming" 2nd and 3rd tier bands.  The bands that play here may not be great now, but 5-10 years from now?  Who knows?  And I'm positive that the experiences of musicians from REO Speedwagon and/or Styx would have been similar.

So then the film presents a false and stupid battle.  Yes, there will always be extremists in both the United States and across the world who'll want to "ban" "Rock and Roll."  On the other hand, there will always be extremists who'll think it perfectly okay / normal, to "bite the head off of a live bat" as rocker Ozzy Osborne apparently did back in the early 1980s (when I was going to college).  And there will be young people who will be hurt and/or even die as a result of some of the excesses of the "rock and roll" culture.

So then, what to make of the rest of the film?  If it was Rated-R or even perhaps NC-17 (thus bravely choosing to be an honest movie) and it shelved the needless "fight" with "Conservative Christians" the film still could have been a very nice "nostalgia piece" perhaps even musical about Sherrie Christian (played by talented singer/dancer Julianne Hough) arriving to LA from Oklahoma meeting Drew Boley (played by Diego Boneta) "from South Detroit" at a bar on LA's Sunset Strip called "The Bourbon."  (Yes, Sherrie's name and Drew's coming from "South Detroit" come from a song by the 1980s rock group Journey called "Don't Stop Believing" and the The Doors started at real bar on the Sunset Strip called The Whiskey).   And the rest of the cast, the stoned/lost/searching Rock God "Stacey Jaxx" (played masterfully by Tom Cruise and modeled after Axel Rose of Guns 'N Roses and perhaps Jim Morrison of The Doors) as well as the Rolling Stone reporter Constance (Malin Akerman), the slimy agent/record producer Paul Gill (played by Paul Giamatti) and the Bourbon's owner Dennis DuPree (played by Alec Baldwin) and his sidekick/assistant Lonny (played by Russell Brand) could have all remained in a less "we want to play childish games with the censors and needlessly bash 'conservative Christians'" version of the story.  It would have worked AND FRANKLY WOULD HAVE WORKED BETTER than this confused version. 

But it seems that Hollywood screenwriters seem to continue to believe that they need villains in their stories (preferably of a straw-man variety) and the Rock and Roll culture appears to remain fundamentally childish.

Honestly folks, this film would have been much better if you just went for an R-rated (or even NC-17 rated) picture and frankly "grew-up" ;-).


<< 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 Matchmaking Mayor (orig. Nezvatbov) [2010]

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

IMDb listing
CSFD listing - [CZ orig, ENG-trans]

The Matchmaking Mayor (orig. Nezvatbov) directed by Erika Hníková [CSFD, Eng-Trans] is a documentary, a Czech and Slovak collaboration (subtitled in English) that played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago as part of the 2012 New Czech Films Tour organized by the Czech Film Center and the Czech Consulates in Chicago and New York.  (The tour promises to visit 8 major cities in the United States including New York, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, Washington D.C. and Seattle).

It is about the mayor (a retired general) of a small Slovakian town, Zemplínske Hámre [SK, Eng-Trans], in the picturesque, rolling, gently forested eastern Slovakian countryside, who's done much to turn his town around in his seven years in office.  The open credits declare that he's "Lowered unemployment, built a new [soccer] stadium and municipal swimming pool, improved the streets and sewage systems, brought in cable TV.  By all accounts he's beloved by all.  But there's one problem he's not been able to fix.  In his town are 70 unmarried people over thirty years of age who according to the mayor really ought to be having children.  As such, already two years ago he promised a not altogether insubstantial monetary award to any unmarried towns-person who got married and produced a child within a year of doing so.  As yet, no one has come forward to claim the award.  However, this has not discouraged the mayor from pursuing other options..."

The cynic could say, what can he do?  Well, as a good Catholic mayor with a good Catholic wife (he's pictured at one point napping on a couch in his house under a large picture of the Sacred Heart) in a town inhabited overwhelmingly by good Catholic townsfolk (even those unmarried 30+ year olds are no radical eyes and ears pierced head-to-toe tattoo covered "monsters."  They are -- both male and female -- good honest, salt of the earth folk that one truly finds _in any parish_ -- one 40+ year old single woman is introduced to us as she's finishing mopping clean the floor of the sanctuary and is continuing to sponge clean the tarnish off the brass on the tabernacle in the parish church...) he does what any good Catholic authority figure would do in a case like this -- He guilts them:  "Don't you want to get married?  Don't you think God wants you to get married?  Don't you see that the town, the country, indeed the world needs you to 'settle down' and have kids?  Don't think it's going to be easy for you in the second half of life, who's going to take care of you as you get older?"  And he means it sincerely.  And both the men and the women, salt of the earth as they are, kinda dip their heads and smile, "yes, mayor..." and of course continue with their day...

Finally, the mayor and his wife decide that they are going hold an end-of-summer municipal 30+ singles' get-together, and invite not just all the men and women of the town that fit that category but also those singles form all the other towns and villages in the area (I'm guessing, within a 5-10 km radius).  And the camera follows the mayor's wife personally inviting every single single-person in at least the town to the get-together.  What could go wrong?

Well, it doesn't really succeed.  I'll leave it to the readers here to find, see or rent the film to find out why...

However, as gentle, pastoral as the set-up to the film was, I will say that the last 10 minutes of the film are surprisingly harsh and bring the film (and the audience) back to reality but then really make the film potentially an excellent discussion piece.

For the documentary film-maker is after all a young, educated, (Czech) woman from Prague (the city) and the mayor is an older (Slovakian) man, a former general (therefore obviously also educated and obviously more than competent/successful throughout his career) who's otherwise been a very successful mayor of that small Slovakian town (in the countryside).  And the voices (and prejudices) of both come out loud and clear at the end.  And of course what makes the film so great is that _both_ of these people are at least partially right. (Indeed, the Czech young woman film-maker doesn't really say all that much.  But she doesn't have to: She controls the camera ...).

I would also add that there would be plenty of Slovaks (especially younger ones) who'd probably agree with the young Czech woman film-maker's exasperation at the end, while more than a few Czechs (especially older ones) would sympathize more with the older, retired general, Slovakian mayor.  But the play stereotypes here (especially if understood as being _intended as play_) actually works quite well here and enhances the the message that both the older retired (more regimented) general and the younger (more feminist?) film-maker from the city have a point ...
 
Finally, I would add that I recently saw another documentary, a Russian one, (called Russian Reserve) which concerned itself with much the same problem (the gradual dying of rural-village life) as this film did.  And I'm more or less certain that the Russian Orthodox priest's (typically big country "Russian" and typically "Orthodox") opinion at the end of that film would probably irritate both the young Czech film maker from Prague and older Slovakian mayor from the countryside.  But his insight into the matter is worth consideration as well.  (Find / rent that film too ;-)

To Americans, especially American Catholics from cities like Chicago packed with people of Slavic decent, I'd definitely recommend this current film as you'll recognize faces and attitudes throughout it (and not just of the single people in their 30s+ but also of their parents, neighbors, coworkers, etc).  Again, none of the single people in this film are portrayed badly.  They are kind, salt of the earth folk.  But one gets the sense that most of them are probably never going to get married...

ADDENDUM

It might also be worthwhile for readers here to consider this film to be a less harsh/more balanced and certainly "more true to life" (it's a documentary after all...) playing-out of the story in the film Chocolat [2000], which centered on "an epic battle" (fictional but at times very, very funny and certainly at other times very, very pointed) played out in a small French provincial town in the late-1950s / early 1960s between an unmarried 40-something "woman in red" newcomer to the town and the upper-end of middle-aged mayor whose "great, great, great grandfather's statue stood in the middle of the town's square."


<< 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! :-) >>

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted [2012]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-1)  Bill Zwecker (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1277953/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv067.htm
Bill Zwecker's review -
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/12979488-421/daffy-madagascar-3-tops-original-film.html

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (directed by Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath and Conrad Vernon, screenplay by Eric Darnell and Noah Baumbach) is, for an American (Hollywood) production, a generally okay kids' affair.

I say "for an American/Hollywood production" because American/Hollywood comedies generally still need villains, someone or someones at whose expense jokes are made.  In the case of Madagascar 3, the jokes are made at the expense of a hapless French female Gandarme named Captain Chantal DuBois (voiced by Frances McDormand) -- aren't the French _always_ "hapless?" -- and to some extent at the expense of a sullen Russian accented Siberian tiger named Vitaly (voiced by Bryan Cranston) -- aren't Russians always sullen/bitter sounding?  (Actually, even the selection of Mde Gendarme's last name as "DuBois" is rather strange and at best unfortunate, because African American lawyer/statesman W.E.B. DuBois had been a towering figure in the African American community in the latter part of the 1800s / early 1900s in the United States and was one of the founders of the NAACP.  More on the film's somewhat strange treatment of Africa and African-American actors below...). So in the midst of the laughs, there's the message intended presumably for American audiences (I can't imagine that this film would go over very well in France or in Russia) that the French are losers and the Russians are bitter (presumably because "we beat them" in the Cold War ... ).

Now the question could be asked -- don't comedies have to have _some_ villains?  Even It's a Wonderful Life [1946] had the rich-banker Mr. Potter as the villain.  (Villains are not necessarily chosen by "right wingers."  The Left is also quite adept at creating them as well ...).  However I'd like to suggest that the Italians, for instance, have proven capable of creating successful comedies with _no_ discernible villains.  Two recent examples that I reviewed on this blog are Immaturi [2011] and Habemus Papam [2011].  But we Americans seem to need to see "Bugs Bunny hit Elmer Fudd over the head with a 2x4" and then we laugh.  I just offer this observation to ask why this should be and to note that creating villains is probably "bad for business."  Again, I would imagine that Madagascar 3 would probably _not_ be an easy sell in France or in Russia...

... or for that matter among some African Americans or in Africa.  Why?  Well the whole premise of this movie is that Freedom in Africa is boring and it is better to live In a Cage (In the Zoo) in New York.  The movie begins with Alex the Lion (voiced by Ben Stiller) waking-up panicky after a dream in which he saw himself dieing all alone, in a boring drought-stricken black-and-white desert in Africa and thinking how much better it was to, yes, live in a cage, but be the "center of attention" in the Zoo back in New York.  When he tells his dream to others, the rest of his animal friends agree, and so then they decide to go back to New York (via Monte Carlo/Europe).  And much, of course, ensues ...

Now there are African American performers in the movie.  There's Gloria the Hippo (voiced by Jada Pinkett Smith) and Marty the Zebra (voiced by Chris Rock) -- I think that most folks could rather quickly see some rather obvious problems that one could have with both of those castings.

I spent much of the movie thinking that Stefano the Italian-accented Sea Lion was voiced by Eddie Murphy (which I would have found kinda cool because from my Seminary days which I spent mostly in Rome, I actually marveled at how well the Italians dubbed Eddie Murphy's characters when his movies played in Italy) but now I realize Stefano was actually voiced by Martin Short (okay, but IMHO Eddie Murphy would have been a much more inspired choice for that character).

So, all in all, the movie was fun.  It's like I say a generally "okay" affair.  And certainly there have been some rather awful children's movies that have come out over the past few years (I think back to Hop [2011] and Hood Winked Too [2011] which IMHO were absolutely horrendous).   Still, I didn't particularly like the message or casting in this picture.  And I do believe that Hollywood and America could do better if it / we chose to do so.


<< 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! :-) >>

I Wish (orig. Kiseki) [2011]

MPAA (PG)  Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1650453/
Roger Ebet's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120530/REVIEWS/120539998/1023

I Wish (orig. Kiseki) written and directed by Hirokazu Koreeda is a lovely, gentle Japanese film (subtitled into English) about two young brothers, separated, each living with one parent, as their parents divorce.  Twelve year-old Koichi (played by Koki Maeda) now lives with their mother Nozomi (played by Nene Ohtsuka) who returned to her parents (played by Isao Hashizume and Kirin Kiki respectively) to the smaller, more provincial town that she was from, while the younger brother Ryonosuke (played by Ohshirô Maeda) stayed with their father Kenji (played by Jô Odagiri) in a bigger city.

Both boys have adjusting to do, but the older brother (perhaps because he had to move, perhaps because he was simply older and knew better what was going on) has had a harder time of it.  The two talk occasionally by phone as they do with their parents.

The two boys finally decide to meet at a uniquely modern "auspicious time:" A new bullet train line was going to be inaugurated that was going reach for the first time the provincial town that Koichi and their mother had returned to and this was a real big deal for that town.  (Presumably the larger city where Ryuonosuke was living in with their father was already connected to the web of Japan's bullet-train lines).  The two brothers decide to meet somewhere along the line between their two towns to watch the bullet trains pass by.  Between them and their friends they came up with a story that if they spotted two of these bullet trains pass by each other, they would approach each other with such speed that ... anything could happen and therefore any wish that they could wish for ... would come true.

The rest of the movie becomes planning with each others' friends how they would meet to watch those bullet trains go by.  To an American like me, it seems fascinating that Japan would appear so safe that the parents of a dozen or so 10-12 year olds would allow them to travel by themselves to a midpoint between these two towns and even spend the night there (okay at one of the 10-12 year old's grandparents -- but at least one group of those kids wouldn't have even known the grandparents) to watch these two bullet trains pass-by.  But, well, that appears to be Japan...

When they do see the two trains pass-by, the kids do wish for all kinds of things that one could imagine a 10-12 year old to wish for.  Koichi publicly wishes that a nearby just volcano would blow-up and force him and his mother to move back to the larger city where his father and younger brother live.  Privately he'd settle for his parents to getting back together.  Well do they?  What do you think?  How would you end a movie like this?  How do you think writer/director Hirokazu Koreeda does?  Guess ;-)

Walking too Fast (orig. Pouta) [2009]

Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CSFD.cz listing - [Cz orig / Eng Trans]

Walking too fast (orig. Pouta) directed by Radim Spaček [CSFD, Eng-trans] screenplay by Ondřej Štindl played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago as part of the 2012 New Czech Films Tour organized by the Czech Film Center and the Czech Consulates in Chicago and New York.  (The tour promises to visit 8 major cities in the United States including New York, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, Washington D.C. and Seattle).

Note to readers: As many of you would know from previous reviews, I am of Czech descent.  However, it's in good part on account of the legacy of Czechoslovakian film-making, notably that of the Czechoslovak New Wave of the 1960s (that arguably helped bring about the Prague Spring in 1968 and the subsequent Soviet invasion to crush it) that I grew-up in a family that enjoyed and talked about movies.  Further since the fall of Communism in Czechoslovakia in 1989 in the Velvet Revolution (led in large part by artists), Prague has become not just home to a native film industry but a favored location for Hollywood film-making.  Tours like this, no doubt, are promotional attempts by the Czech government / film-industry to keep things this way.  Still, Czech-American though I am, I do believe that the Czech and Slovak film industries objectively do have a legacy worth indulging and so ... on with the review here ;-)

Walking too fast (orig. Pouta), a winner of three Czech Lions [CZ, Eng-Trans] (the Czech equivalent of the Academy Awards) is set in Czechoslovakia during the later part of the Communist era.  The film is a study of the effect of power on even the individual police officers tasked with maintaining an authoritarian regime _and_ the limits of power in any case.

Antonín (played by Ondřej Malý [CSFD, Eng-trans]) an ethnic Czech, who nonetheless had been born in the countryside prior to moving to the city (presumably Prague) is a member of the State Security Service, the StB [CZ, Eng-Trans].  Along with his Slovakian partner Martin (played by Lukaš Latinák [CSFD, Eng-Trans]) who thus was also presumably not from Prague but grew-up in the more rural eastern, Slovakian part of the country, are tasked with watching Tomáš (played by Martin Finger [CSFD, Eng-Trans]) a not particularly important dissident writer.

It's rather boring work.  Yet both Antonin and Martin certainly believe in the value/importance of what they are doing.  They've been told by their higher-ups that they are doing this for the good of the working class / nation and they believe it.

Indeed, both Antonin and Martin resent Tomáš.  After all, they both came from the countryside, both had "honest jobs" in their minds (and in the ideology that they were sworn to defend) defending other "honest working people" from hippie/elitist purposefully unemployed "parasites" like him. For Tomáš is unemployed because as a dissident -- one opposing the regime -- he can't hold a job in his declared profession, writing (The Regime won't publish his writings, because he's choosing to write things opposed to the Regime).  But he's not working anywhere else, instead choosing to take the lowest possible state-mandated dole.  (In American terms, he's "on welfare.")  In one of the scenes in the movie, the two pick-up Tomáš and drive him to a quarry at the outskirts of the city and briefly dump him outside of it telling him: "Why don't you take a real job among those who work here?"  But as a dissident, he's arguably "striking," holding-out for the right to write (and have published) what he pleases.  So there's the battle ...

Note here: Actually most dissidents did work, usually doing the most menial jobs in society.  The future Cardinal Miloslav Vlk [CZ, Eng-Trans], for instance, worked as a window washer for years during the Communist dictatorship.  The future President of the Republic, playwright Václav Havel, stoked furnaces.  Other dissidents washed toilets of the Prague subway systems.  This was not by choice, but rather pretty much the only jobs that they were allowed to do.  (And yet, they had to work somewhere, so as _not_ to be labeled "parasites").  So it might be an exaggeration that Tomáš would have done nothing or have chosen to do nothing.   However, from the point of view of the enforcers / "believers" of the Communist system, dissidents were basically spoiled "ingrates" who refused to appreciate "all that the Socialist paradise was giving them.")

However, what really sets Antonin off is that this (again, in his mind) lazy, no good, elitist parasite, Tomáš, finds himself a girlfriend, a young rather attractive Slovakian transplant (again presumably from the countryside) named Klára (played by Kristína Farkašová [CSFD, Eng-trans] who's working in a factory in town.  What does she see in him?  Besides, that low-life purposefully unemployed elitist writer already has a strikingly beautiful and doting wife while he chooses to "play dissident!"  And it's true, Silvia (played by Barbora Milotová [CSFB, Eng Trans]) is holding the family together, working (if I remember correctly in a school as either a teacher or a nurse), and taking care of their kids, while the unemployed Tomáš "plays dissident" and now even cavorts with a cute red-headed Slovakian factory-worker who has to be 10-15-20 years younger than he is.  How could that be?  Why should that be?  Yet such have been artists, writers and musicians across all the ages -- often penniless, difficult to live with and to a _lot of people_ seemingly unbearably lazy.  Yet across the ages, they've _always_ been ... attractive.  How is _that_ fair? ;-)

So Antonin decides that he's not going to let this stand.  After all, he may be a short, balding, 40+ year old and actually also with a kind, soft-spoken, lovely and doting wife (played by Monika Fingerová).  But Antonin's comparing himself to the "lowlife" Tomáš.  It's HE, Antonin, who has an "honest job" and "a badge."  And yes, his particular kind of badge (he works for State Security) gives him an awful lot of clout.  No one, and I mean, NO ONE in his/her right mind would challenge his authority when he's carrying _that kind of a badge_ (for fear of getting themselves needlessly in trouble with "State Security"...)  But then is that kind of power _enough_ to "get the girl"?  And once he starts using his power for personal ends ... what happens to whatever "honesty" was in his work?  Welcome to the rest of the movie...

It all makes for a fascinating movie, and to be honest, as I've written this review, I've probably gotten more "into the head" of Antonin than I'm particularly comfortable with.   And truthfully, the film does not portray the moral life of the dissidents particularly well either.  On the other hand, that's the beauty of freedom.  In freedom, the hope is that one can truly tell a story that's truly painted in shades of grey.


<< 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! :-) >>