Gangster Squad [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  Michael Phillips (2 Stars)  AVClub (D+)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Michael Phillips' review
AV Club's review

Since America's film industry remains centered around Hollywood in Los Angeles, CA, interesting, often scandalous tid-bits of Los Angeles' history inevitably find their way into our films.  However, how these "tid bits" from L.A.'s history get incorporated into our films is not exactly straight forward and there have been all kinds of approaches.  Consider simply:

(1) the venerable "neo-noir" film Chinatown [1974], directed by Roman Polanski and staring Jack Nicholson inspired by murky water-rights disputes in the early 1900s, the resolution of which making the metropolis of Los Angeles possible;

(2) the screwball comedy 1941 [1979], directed by Steven Spielberg and staring Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi conflating two WW II-era Los Angeles stories, that of the hysteria caused by the "phantom raid" on Los Angeles in early 1942 and the "zootsuit" race riots between white sailors/marines and hispanic youths in Los Angeles;

(3) the Disney animated "noirish comedy" Who Framed Roger Rabbit? [1988] about the conspiracy by a consortium lead by General Motor which bought-out Southern California's "Red Car" public transportation service in the early 1950s with the purpose of shutting-it-down to make "pave the way" for automobile expressways and increases in auto-sales, a conspiracy the film called "so stupid that only a 'toon' [a cartoon villian] could come up with it." and finally back to

(4) the neo-noir classic LA Confidential [1997], starring Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, Kim Bassinger and Danny DeVito giving a rather grim answer to the question of why the mob never made a permanent inroad into Los Angeles: the police itself conducted itself like the mob. 

All these films tell, often with swagger/exaggeration, some part of Los Angeles' story.  It is in the context of this celluloid legacy that Gangster Squad (directed by Ruben Fleischer, screenplay by Will Beall, loosely based on the non-fiction book by the same name by Paul Lieberman) is to be understood.

For it is clear that while some of the characters in Gangster Squad, notably LA Police Chief Bill Parker (played in the film by Nick Nolte), his aide (shown briefly) Daryl Gates (played in the film by Josh Pence) who later also became a similarly legendarily hard-nosed LA Police Chief (and was L.A. Police Chief at the time of the 1992 L.A. Riots) as well as the film's chief villain, gangster Mickey Cohen (played in the film by Sean Penn) and even the film's chief hero, World War II vet turned LAPD Sargent and Parker's special/off-the-books "Gangster Squad" leader John O'Mara (played in the film by Josh Brolin) were all real people, the "stew" that the film-makers put together does _not_ fit the historical record (simply check the wikipedia article on Mickey Cohen).

So what to make of the film?  Well, it's a "period piece."  It is "inspired by a true story."  The "off the books Gangster Squad" apparently really did exist.  But the rest is, well, "Hollywood."  Does that take away from the performances by Nolte, Penn, Brolin as well as Giovanni Ribisi (who played the "gangster squad's" radio/bug man Sgt Keeler, who again really existed), and of others like Mirielle Enos (who played O'Mara's wife Connie), Ryan Gosling (a squad member) and Emma Stone (girlfriend of Cohen though also involved with Ryan Gosling's character) who's characters become ever "less historical"?  No, just don't read too much history into the film?  Look above and begin to think again in terms of Disney's "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" ("Which 'toon' represented 'General Motors?'" ;-)

However, since Gangster Squad is not altogether "historical" a more important complaint could be made (and especially in light of the recent shooting massacres in Aurora, Colorado and the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT) whether it was wise for the for the film makers to focus on and certainly exaggerate the story's violence.  Yes, the creation of the "off the books" squad itself indicated a determined "take Cohen down by any means necessary" approach taken by LA Police Chief Parker.  (And this in itself has produces its own problems: Thoughout the 1960s-1980s anti-Communist paramiliary "Death Squads" killed all kinds of people, Communists and non ..., throughout Latin America.  Do we really want to give Police, or anyone, unlimited powers with little/no accountability?)  Still, if the way Cohen was actually arrested and actually sentenced to Alcatraz was emphatically not the way the film-makers chose to portray his downfall, then why (wildly...) exaggerate the number of deaths/bullets?

So to be honest, I ended up rather disappointed with the film believing that though the individual performances were good, the story cheated both the author of the original (and true) story as well as the audience.  We, the book's original author and even the actors deserved 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! :-) >>

A Haunted House [2013]

MPAA (R)  USCCB (O)  AVClub (D+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars with explanation)

IMDb listing
USCCB review
AVClub's review

Wow, you know it's January (after the Oscar deadline) when a crop like this weekend's films including A Haunted House (directed by Michael Tiddes, screenplay by Marlon Wayans and Rick Alvarez) is released and actually stands a good chance of scoring number one in the box office this weekend (I don't know whether to put a :-) or a :-( because both apply ;-).

I went to see the film because I am more or less certain that a fair number of the young people at my parish are going to see it anyway.  And I have to say to Parents that, (1) YES, the film is definitely R-rated (drugs, upper female nudity, backside male nudity, and a whole lot of trash talk), and (2) I can't think of any reason why a teenager, especially a young teenager would "need" to see the film.  And so I would encourage parents to STAND THEIR GROUND with this film as I can't think of a reason why their 15 year old would need to see something this trashy or stupid.  (Let them "grow up" a bit more to see something this trashy/stupid ;-) ... seriously, because then they'll KNOW that it's so).

But that then becomes an interesting dividing line (that of Maturity).  For those of upper high-school (17+) and young adult age, hence those who've reached that "wisdom threshold" and especially those young people of that age who know the films (mostly the Paranormal Activity films) being spoofed, I do believe that as a send-up of those movies, A Haunted House is one of the funniest in years (hence why the film simultaneously got only a 6% (!!) favorable rating from critics AND an overwhelming 94% (!!) favorable from audiences on rottentomatoes.com -- part of my amusement being that together they actually equal 100% but that's of course, only by coincidence ;-).

Yes the film is extremely crude, yes it is extremely stupid, but it is also funny.  It's based on the oft-said joke by African American comedians like Chris Rock (and even Richard Pryor before him) that most American horror movies are basically "white people movies" because "there's no way that an African American family would stay in a house that is haunted ..."

Well in this case, a young, yes unmarried African American couple, Malcolm (played by Marlon Wayans) and Kisha (played by Essence Atikins) move into a house in suburban Los Angeles (note that the white couple in the Paranormal Activity series was also unmarried...) only to find themselves tormented by a ghost/demon (like the white couple in Paranormal Activity was).  And yes, Malcolm's first instinct is just to run.  But he can't.  Why?  Well, just like in last summer's B-movie horror film The Apparition [2012] again featuring a white unmarried couple living in their case at the outskirts of suburban Los Angeles, he can't "run" because he wouldn't be able to sell the house "in this market."  So he and Kisha must stay ... Much ensues ...

Part of what ensues is that most of the people they go to for help turn out to be themselves rather creepy: "Chip" a gay psychic (played by Nick Swardson) who seems more intent on hitting-on Malcolm than searching for a ghost; Malcolm's "gangsta" cousin Ray-Ray (played by Affion Crockett) who quickly and sincerely comes with his "posse of homeboys" still "from the hood" to help is "bro" out when he hears that Malcolm in in trouble only to realize that invisible ghosts would probably be rather immune to bullets from "gangsta arms" ...); and a black "priest" who did his "theology" through a six month correspondence course while in prison (played by Cedric the Entertainer).  Note here that the USCCB review found the portrayal of the "priest" among the most appalling aspects of the film.  Yet most Catholics would know that while there are plenty of "fly by night" mostly Baptist/Pentacostalist-inspired Protestant seminaries that give all kinds of "ministerial degrees" in short orders of time, it takes next-to-for-ever (7-8 years of college/graduate study) for Catholics to get ordained precisely because the Catholic Church takes seminary training so seriously.  Yet the "store front churches" (again mostly Baptist/Pentacostalist-inspired) are fixtures throughout the poorer neighborhoods of America's cities.  So, okay, while Cedric's character would not be a Catholic priest, he could easily be a somewhat "hucksterish" Protestant minister who's both sincere and, well, kinda/rather flawed.  But also, frankly, he's "still out there fighting the good fight" as best as he can.

Anyway, the film is certainly NOT for those who haven't already seen some of the Paranormal Activity series of films (My own reviews of PA 2 and PA 3 are given here)  And yes, I would certainly say again to parents that they could insist on their minors sitting this film out until they reach maturity.  But for those who've already seen the Paranormal Activity films and are of an age to understand that the film is a "send-up" of those films, then I do believe that this film, if often very raunchy, is also very, very funny. 


<< 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! :-) >>

Price Check [2012]

MPAA (UR)  Chicago Tribune (3 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
Chicago Tribune's (Gary Goldstein) review

Price Check (written and directed by Michael Walker) is a small, low budget "indie" picture that I sw recently at Chicago's Facets Multimedia theater a few blocks east on Fullerton from Ashland.  As such the story is simple but certainly contemporary.

Pete Cozy (played by Eric Mabius) lived a rather uneventful life with his wife Sara (played by Annie Parisse) and their kindergarten aged daughter in suburban New York, working in the Long Island regional office of a rather middle-of-the-road, arguably boring supermarket chain.

Into these doldrums enters a firebrand named Susan Felders (played by Parker Posey) who for reasons that seem baffling to the staff of this previously sleepy regional office had apparently machinated her way into taking their regional boss' job.  Why would anyone want their apparently sacked boss' job?  And why would anyone want to come out all the way to "midway-up Long Island" from "Corporate" (located in Los Angeles) to "change things?"  Yet she arrives with corny, eye-rolling enthusiasm quickly instituting (without asking) the office's "the first annual Halloween party -- costumes MANDATORY" and then insists that everyone at the party SING at the kareoke mic.  What an unbelievable nightmare ... ;-)


She also takes a quick and arguably inappropriate "liking" to Pete who she tries to butter-up and get him to become her "right hand man" to the obvious, eye rolling derision of the rest of the office staff.  But hey, she's the new Boss, who makes NO SECRET that she's been sent there by "Corporate" with a blank check and well, when she opens that magic checkbook and at the drop-of-the-hat doubles Pete's salary, that's a kind of "life changing development" for a late 30-something marketing expert who's previously been resigned to essentially sleep at work, all the more so since she insists on coming over to his house and with equal vigor and persistence seeks to befriend his wife.

What the heck is going on?  After-all, all this "regional office" does is help the "Corporate's" local grocery stores "stock their shelves."  This is not exactly the Apollo or Manhattan project ...

Well much ensues.  And probably anyone who's ever worked in the "regional office" of anything will enjoy the ride...


<< 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! :-) >>

Any Day Now [2012]

MPAA (R)  Michael Philips (2 Stars)  AV Club (B)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
Michael Phillips' review
Village Voice's review
AV Club's review

Any Day Now (directed and screenplay adapted by Travis Fine based on the original screenplay by George Arthur Bloom based on a real case which took place in Brooklyn, NY in the 1970s) is a propaganda piece.  That said, I don't mean that necessarily in a bad way.  There are times to when it is entirely correct to "make a case."  And I do believe that this is a story that that people of good will ought to know.

Though Any Day Now is set in Los Angeles in the late 1970s, it's based on a real case that took place in Brooklyn, NY around that time.  It's about a gay man, Rudy (played by Alan Cumming) seeking to first get custody and then keep custody of a severely challenged 15-year old boy named Marco (played by Isaac Leyva) with Down Syndrome who lived in the run-down flat next to Rudy's, who due to his family situation (absent father, drug addicted mother, played by Jaime Anne Allman) really had few options other than state sanctioned foster care.  Pulling no punches, Rudy is portrayed as being a singer in a West Hollywood "drag club," indication of the film makers' desire to not try to "sanitize" the story by making Rudy artificially "respectable" AND also helping to explain why Rudy would have found himself involved in Marco's case to begin with: If Rudy didn't work as a "drag queen" in a club and live in a run-down apartment somewhere in the Hollywood/West Hollywood district of Los Angeles, he never would have had met Marco the differently-abled son of a down-on-her-luck / drug challenged mother.  Yet once one meets such folks in such heart-rending situations, well, what does one do?  Rudy does step-up to take care of Marco after Marco's mother doesn't come home one night (after being picked-up by the cops on some charge ...).

Now due to the particular characteristics of the gay-subculture, the "bohemian" (to the drag queen edge) singer Rudy comes to have a friend (who becomes more of a friend) Paul (played by Garret Dillahunt) a recently divorced and now half-out-of-the-closet lawyer/assistant D.A. who's able to help Rudy navigate some of the then overwhelmingly complex legal minefields that he would have to pass in order to hope to get custody of Marco after Marco's mother is locked-up for a sentence of three years.  Much certainly plays out ...

Now the Catholic Church in recent years has taken the stance of opposing both gay marriage and gay adoption to the extent that in Illinois from where I write Catholic Charities has withdrawn itself from dealing in adoption services rather than be compelled to grant custody of children to gay couples.  So why am I, as a Catholic priest, reviewing a film like this?  I am doing so because theology is made with the Scriptures/the whole history/Tradition of interpreting the Scriptures in one hand and our (humanity's) experience in the other.  This film is a data point.  My own experience both (1) in dealing over the years in my pastoral work with a surprisingly and at times depressingly large number of cases of troubled adults who grew-up in truly horrendous home situations (headed, as a matter of course, by heterosexual but often deeply troubled parents) and (2) actually knowing of a case of a gay (in this case, a lesbian) couple and their experience with adoption (by then, in their case, it was "legal" for them to adopt, but the number of opportunities available to them remained limited to basically the hardest, most troubled children that very, very few prospective adoptive parents would dare to undertake -- troubled, abandoned teens with either severe disabilities or drug problems) tells me that this film rings fundamentally true.   And hence I make note of the film here, noting also, as I generally try to do, what other relevant/published reviewers (see above) had to say about the film 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! :-) >>

Promised Land [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Michael Phillips (2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDB listing
CNS/USCCB review
Michael Phillips' review

Promised Land (directed by Gus Van Sant, screenplay by John Krasinski and Matt Damon, story by Dave Eggers) is a message movie about the controversy surrounding the relatively new natural gas extraction technique called "fracking."  On the positive side, fracking opens up a potentially game changing supply of natural gas in the United States (enough to make our country energy independent for the first time in generations).  On the negative side, the technology has been associated with the occasional poisoning of underground water supplies and even if the risk to the nation's underground water supplies proved relatively small or otherwise managable, natural gas remains a fossil fuel and depending on the true seriousness of the threat of global warming due to the world's use of fossil fuels, the development of this new source of energy could exacerbate environmental problems.

From what I've written thusfar, and from my previous writings on my blog, Readers here would not find it hard to discern that my natural sympathies would tend toward a "natural conservatism," that is, "if you don't really know the danger of something, then you don't do it ..."  I would add however that an IMHO under-discussed aspect of the whole "Fossil Fuel" / "Global Warming" controversy has been the relative poverty of Europe with regards to fossil fuel resources and their relative abundance, if not in terms of oil, then certainly in terms of coal and natural gas in the United States.  To put it simply, Europe (taken together an economic powerhouse of the scale of the United States) loses "little" by "going green," while the United States stands to forfeit an enormous economic advantage that it would otherwise have over Europe in the coming century if forgoes developing these resources.  Now it may well be that the threat of global warming is such that for the sake of the future of the whole planet (including the United States) these coal and natural gas resources would have to remain undeveloped.  Still, it should at least be admitted in public discussion that the United States would be sacrificing "quite a bit" for the sake of the planet's welfare (and the presently poorer nations of the world even more), while Europe would actually be sacrificing "relatively little."

Be all this as it may, this film, IMHO, does a fairly good job in presenting the various aspects of the current fracking debate.  Matt Damon's character, Steve Butler a representative of a natural gas firm called Global Crosspower Solutions sent to a rural Pennsylvania farming community to get local residents to agree to let the firm use their land to extract the shale gas found miles below their properties in return for royalties, is  emphatically not evil.  Butler introduces himself in the film as someone who himself grew-up on the farm, in his case in rural Iowa, and one who understood the importance of "industry" to supplement farm income.  He tells the story of the devastating impact that the closure of a Caterpillar tractor factory had on his hometown's local economy.   As such, he tells his bosses that he's been successful in talking farm residents to sign contracts for the drilling rights on their land because he understood their realities.  Steve Butler's partner Sue Thomason (played by Frances McDormand) is perhaps more mercenary/professional about the matter of talking to the residents, but even her pitch talks to the local residents about their hopes, needs and realities.

All goes relatively swimmingly, except for an early and relatively amateurish attempt by the local mayor to shake down Steve Butler and the company that he represents for some extra and presumably personal cash.  However, when what up until that point was expected to be a perfunctory "town meeting" goes unexpectedly awry -- a grandfatherly high school science teacher named Frank Yates (played by Hal Holbrook) who's done some reading-up on fracking on the internet asks some pointed questions -- and the mayor is forced to adjourn the meeting with a promise that the town be able to vote on the matter of bringing Global into town to drill for the natural gas, Steve and Sue, as well as their bosses at Global's office get nervous.  Things seem to get shakier when an outside environmentalist  named Dustin Noble (played by John Krasinski) roles into town a few days later after hearing of the stand that some of the residents had taken at the town meeting, promising to help organize the town's residents against falsehoods and half-truths being pitched by Global's representatives, Steve and Sue.  The rest of the movie unspools from there ... Metaphorically the battle between Steve and Dustin becomes also over the affections of a younger grade-school teacher named Alice (played by Rosemarie Dewitt).

It all plays out IMHO quite well.  The film does come from generally more Liberal Hollywood rather than from more Darwinian Wall Street/K-Street or Texas, so most Readers here could probably guess how it ends up.  Still the complexities of the questions involved (and I'm not talking about the science here but rather of a clash of competing values) is IMHO presented very well.  The "deciders" (to take a term from the GW Bush years) are truly regular folks, who've had farms in their families for generations, who do understand that there would naturally be some risks involved with the fracking technology, but could also use the money. 

So honestly folks, very good job, very good job!

Finally, parents, the only reason why the film is rated-R is from occasional use of some rough language.  There is no sex/nudity or violence in this film to speak of.  All in all, it's a quite gentle, arguably "pastoral" film.


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

Jack Reacher [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (L)  Michael Phillips (2 1/2 Stars) The Onion/AVClub (C-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Michael Phillips' review
The Onion/AV Club's review

Jack Reacher (directed and screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie based on the crime novel (series) by Lee Child/Jim Grant) is an army/crime/detective story set in the context of a fictional mass murder sniper attack that is necessarily going to give viewers pause.  (The film was released at roughly the same time as the mass shooting at the elementary school in Connecticut).

That said, the film hinges on the following question: Can a sniper who apparently kills five random people actually have been contracted to kill one specific person plus several others to make the massacre seem random?  It's I suppose something to think about.   The question is, does one want to?

On the other hand, I've recently reviewed a documentary, The Central Park Five [2012] about a TRUE INCIDENT in which five young teenagers (all "of color" ...) were wrongly convicted of a crime that they didn't commit largely because society appalled by a horrific crime (the brutal rape of a white 28-year old female jogger one hot summer evening in Central Park, a rape that left her in a coma and nearly killed her) demanded speedy "justice" even if it severely altered/damaged the lives of further five (all "browner" ...) innocents in the process.  

So sometimes things really aren't "what they seem," and this film certainly does train viewers to "think outside the box."  As an example, former army investigator Jack Reacher (played by Tom Cruise) asked for by name by the accused shooter Barr (played by Joseph Sikora) asks the young defense attorney Helen (played by Rosalina Pike) to interview the victims' families as she begins work on (at least nominally) defending the person arrested for the shooting.  She thinks he's trying to teach her the lesson of having sympathy for the victims and their side of the story.  But Jack is actually interested in discerning just how "random" the victims were.  It turns out that two of the victims were meeting on the river bank there across the river from the garage from where the shooter was to have been perched because they were probably having an affair. The two still end-up tragic/unfortunate victims and the shooter was not targeting those two for any specific reason, but the reader here should get the picture.  An incident that appears to look "random" may not be random at all.

Anyway some of the performances are quite good - Cruise's, Pike's, Richard Jenkins' / David Oyelowo's (as the DA and chief police investigator on the case).  Alexia Fast plays a young woman named Sandy who gets caught up in the mess and Robert DuVall and Werner Herzog come to play significant roles in the story as it progresses.

The question becomes, honestly, does one have the stomach for this kind of film?  Yet do we want to see "patsies" then sitting in prison or even getting the chair ...?


<< 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! :-) >>

Rust and Bone (orig. De rouille et d'os)

MPAA (R)  AV Club (B+) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
Michael Phillips' review
The Onion/AV Club's review

Rust and Bone (orig. De rouille et d'os) [2012] (directed and cowritten by Jacques Audiard along with Thomas Bidegain, story by Craig Davidson) is a French language film (English subtitled) that's received a fair amount of Oscar nomination "buzz" because it stars the French actress Marion Cotilard who has scored some fairly significant roles in Hollywood over the past several years (Inception [2010] and Dark Knight Rises [2012] come to mind).  Here she plays the lead role in her native language.

The film is intended to be about two "regular young people."  There's Stéphanie (played by Marion Cotilard) who begins the film a "Killer Whale" (or Orca) trainer at a "Sea World" kind of theme park in Southern France.  As such, one would assume that she had some sort of college degree, probably in marine biology.  And there is Alein (played by Matthias Schoenaerts) a more working class / blue collar "bloke," who at the beginning of the film moves down to Southern France from "the North" (presumably Paris) with his 8-10 year old son to stay with his sister Louise (played by Céline Sallette) after the break-up of his marriage/relationship with his son's mother.

Not having many skills, Alein first lands a job as a bouncer at a local club.  It is there that he and Stéphanie first meet.  She had gone there to dance/scope guys and had gotten into some trouble with a rude patron or two.  Alein, the new bouncer comes to her rescue.  The two talk briefly afterwards.  It's clear afterwards that neither was particularly impressed with the other at that first encounter.  Alein, taking a look at Stéphanie thinks her to be something of a tramp who more or less got herself into trouble (and more or less tells her so...).  Stéphanie, rolling her eyes, thought Alien to be a "more muscles than brains" loser who was working as a bouncer at the bar because, well, he couldn't find much else for work...

Such it would remain, and there would not be much of a story following if ... Stéphanie did not have a horrible accident at work.  Mind you, she worked with Orcas (Killer Whales) ... So, as has actually happened (thankfully only rarely...) one of the Orcas/Killer Whales got a bit too aggresive with the trainers during a show and knocked Stéphanie along with a fair amount of gear that was around her into the tank with it.  Whether or not she was initially injured by the gear flying into the water along with her or whether the Orca simply attacked her, the result was that she woke-up some time after the accident in the hospital, only to find to her horror that she had lost both of her legs up to the knees.

The story unspools from there...  Stéphanie, depressed and largely alone finds that she could actually use the help of a man who was relatively strong with previously relatively simple tasks but now much more difficult without her legs.  By a happy fluke, she actually kept the Alein's number which he had given her when they first met in that bar.  Before she probably would have never thought to use it.  Buy now it proved rather handy.

For his part, Alein who still seems to see Stéphanie in a largely objectified manner (as "a chick" if now a somewhat more interesting "chick without legs") still has to come to see her as more than that.  Eventually, as the limitations of his own life come crashing around him as well -- he really was probably "more muscles than brains" and finds himself in a job which only gets his sister, the one who was helping him with his son, fired from hers ... --  he, of course, does ...

I think that I and readers here would get the point of the film and the film is largely well done.  I suppose the truly odd parts of the story is Stéphanie's initial work as a "Orca/Killer Whale trainer" and then her rather rare kind of accident.  The film would have worked better for me if she had just had a random car accident or something more "relatable" like that.

Still none of us is perfect or "an island."  And the people who surround us, who we may initially find "annoying," "problematic" or even "beneath us," can become more important in our lives (and positively so) than we first expected.  And that's a rather nice message!

Finally, parents, while I doubt that most would be particularly keen on taking a minor to a subtitled film anyway, please be warned that the R is appropriate.  There is some romance/nudity in it that minors need not have to see.  But as a young adult film and above, I do believe that it tells a basically very nice story.


<< 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! :-) >>