The Trip to Italy [2014]

MPAA (NR would be PG-13)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review


The Trip to Italy [2014] (screenplay and directed by Michael Winterbottom) played this past spring at Chicago's 17th EU Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chciago.  More recently (late-August/early-Sept 2014), it has been released/playing through the "Landmark Century" theater chain in the United States and is also available for streaming on iTunes.

What to say of the film? 

First, I pointedly didn't see the film when it played at Chicago's EU Film Festival because I was wondering "Why see a British film about two Brits going down to Italy when there are several very good Italian films made by Italians about Italy playing at the same said festival..."  I also remember that Brits haven't had necessarily a good reputation in Italy (at least among older Italians), because they have had a reputation of approaching Italy with a certain "The sun still doesn't set on Our Empire" arrogance (think Tea With Mussolini [1999]...).  (Seriously, during my three years as an American seminarian in Italy, I heard from countless Italian Servites and parishioners: "Well at least you Americans are not British."  Italy and Britain were, of course, on opposite sides of a war (WW II...).  And Britain and the various states of Italy were also on opposite sides of centuries of religious wars.  The British would pride themselves for being honest, if also admit that their food was generally lousy and that they themselves were traditionally often quite cold as people.  The Italians would pride themselves on their food, warmth and style, even as they would admit that "financial clarity" was never exactly "a strength" in Italy (and especially "in the South..." ;-) ).   So seeing a British film about a "trip to Italy" ... in 2014 ... seemed to me somewhat "retro-imperialistic."  Again, why not just let Italians present themselves ...

That said, the film could really be entitled "A Trip to simply Somewhere..." (and Italy seemed to be a nice/worthy place to go) as the film was intended as a sequel to the film The Trip [2010], both films (The Trip [2010] and The Trip to Italy [2014]) actually condensed versions of a British sitcom television series featuring two British actors Steve Coogan and Rob Bryden playing lightly fictionalized versions of themselves doing in the first case a restaurant tour of Northern England and in the current case a similar restaurant tour of largely (Mediterranean) coastal Italy.   In both cases, the locations and even the food, as beautiful/tasty/picturesque as they were, were largely irrelevant to the often hilarious conversations between them.

For these are two _very talented_ and THANKFULLY SELF-EFFACING actors, who let loose, spend two nearly hours, poking fun at themselves, their profession and other actors, even as they eat REALLY GOOD FOOD and STAY AT SOME OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PLACES IMAGINABLE.  That they do poke, laugh-out-loud, fun at themselves (and the "perks" that come with being "rich and famous" ...) makes the film not only bearable but honestly worthy of a thumbs-up (or two ;-). 

Honestly, watching them eat splendidly prepared calamari and linguini (and many other dishes that I'd honestly not have the vocabulary for, even if I did spend three years out there in Italy...) while going through rapid-fire impressions of Dark Knight Rises [2012] characters played by Michael Caine, Tom Hardy and Christian Bale or through everyone of the Bond actors (Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, etc ...) is priceless. 

So despite my initial reservations (back in March), I honestly have to say that this film was a blast.  And the scenery was beautiful as well.  Good job ;-).


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

Frank [2014]

MPAA (R)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

TheGuardian.co.uk Article by writer Jon Ronson

Frank [2014]  (directed by Lenny Abrahamson, screenplay by Jon Ronson [IMDb] and Peter Straughan based on British writer/journalist Jon Ronson's experiences with Frank Sidebottom and his band) is a surprisingly poignant movie about a simultaneously shy and arrogant "alternative rock" musician going by the stage name of "Frank" (played magnificently throughout by Machael Fassbender, even as for 95% of the movie he wore, and spoke through..., a giant, goofily "Bob's Big Boy" expressioned papier-mache mask over his head).

Frank and his band who were so completely "out there" that one really couldn't really call them "avant-garde" (out-in-front) as that would suggest that they were actually interested in pursuing direction.   Instead, they purposefully _chose_ to "follow their bliss" to the point of repeatedly facing being kicked-out onto the street (for having run out of money) while _not_ recording (they were too busy re-inventing every constituent component of music -- from their instruments to their instruments' sounds, to rhythm and to notation..., to bother with actually finally producing something ...) and _not_ touring (they proved too depressed or otherwise immobile for that either).

Yet they were utterly sincere, convinced of their genius, especially of Frank's, and absolutely unwilling to "sell-out" by conforming in _any_ (even practical / even self-preserving) way to the world outside their group.  This is post-modern / contemporary artistic narcissism at its grandest / goofiest.  And yet, one can't but feel for this group, so utterly unwilling to step-out of its self-imposed / fake? (papier-mache-like) "shell." ;-)

The film is told through Jon Burroughs (played by Dumhnall Gleeson) whose character is loosely based on writer Jon Ronson [IMDb] himself.  Working a clerical job, but fancying himself a song-writer and keyboardist, he accidentally runs into Frank's band one morning while walking along the beach somewhere in Southern England.  The band's keyboardist had run out of the band's van and was trying to drown himself, quite unsuccessfully, in the sea while the police were trying to grab a hold of him, pull him back from the water and eventually take him in for a psychiatric-evaluation.

Watching the police chase the very much "gone" keyboardist down the beach, the band's apparent manager Don (played by Scoot McNairy) laments, "Well that's just great!  We actually have a gig tonight and now we have no keyboardist."  Jon standing next to Don and hearing his lament, responds: "Well ..., I'm actually a keyboardist ... but ... I wouldn't know any of your songs."  Taking a look at Jon, Don answers "Can you play C, F and G?"  "Well, yes."  "Okay, you're in!  The gig's at ... come by around 5, we'll teach you what you need to play."

Jon comes by the club at 5, meets the rest of the band, and of course, Frank, with his giant papier-mache mask covering his head and quickly realizes that this was both "a real band" and a _really odd_ one.  The gig didn't go well.  Half-way into the first song, an amplifier caught fire and über- volatile band-member Clara (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal) stormed off in disgust.  A brawl broke-out as patrons at the bar, where they were playing, realized that the band was walking off the stage 30-seconds into their first already admittedly strangely-techno-sounding song.

It would have made for one heck of a "one strange night" story for Jon, if he did not get a call a few days later from manager Don asking him if he'd like to join them for a gig in Ireland that weekend.  "Sure!" he answers, thinking he'd be back home in England by Monday.  Only when the band arrives at a very out to the way "retreat" somewhere by a lake in rural Ireland does he realize that "the gig" was actually an extended (and really open-ended) one ... the group was going to record a "new album."

Okay, Jon's going to have to walk-away from his job back in England, BUT this was always "his dream" to be part of "a real band." And he could be part of their recording of an album.  However, as time progresses, it becomes clear that the band's "creative process" was a rather _long one_.  They arrived with nothing prepared, and spent the next period of time, "reinventing themselves," reinventing EVERYTHING (except apparently Frank's mask...) ABOUT THEMSELVES and their music, up to reinventing their instruments, their musical notation, etc, etc.  That period only ended, 11 months into the project, when they ran-out of money ;-).

... Or so they thought that they ran out of money.  Here, Jon actually stepped up, offering the "nest egg" that his grandfather had left him.  And though nobody in the band except for Don and Frank particularly liked Jon -- Clara, paranoid and generally angry throughout, thought Jon was a loser who actually had sought to insinuate himself into this band, and their French base-player Baraque (played by François Civil) and his girlfriend Nana (played by Carla Azar) the band's drummer, pointedly refused to speak English to him for those 11 months (even though Jon spoke no French ;-) -- they happily took his money, blissfully spending another year or so "on the creative process."  And at the end of said "process," Jon with some growing resentment, noted that not a single new song that they had recorded was "his" and none of them featured any more of him than him banging-out a few notes in it.

No matter, Jon _still_ felt that he was "living the dream" ... AND he was tweeting about it, and quietly posting videos on YouTube about the band's progress.  The result was that though the band largely hated Jon, it had actually gained something of a following as a result of him, enough so that the band got invited to the South by Southwest Music Festival in Austin, TX to play there.

But was a band that took two years to produce an album that they weren't particularly concerned about anybody hearing, much less liking ..., really interested in playing (or able to play...) for a real audience no matter how "avant garde" that audience would perhaps be?

The rest of the movie follows ... ;-)

I found the film to be a kick and I've enjoyed Jon Ronson's work in the past.  And I do think that the story does touch on a concern that we should perhaps have in our society today: If people really do all just drift-off to "follow their bliss" (with total unconcern for "The Other") does this really mark the end of society?

The band's stuff, no matter what THEY THEMSELVES THOUGHT OF IT, in this film was pretty awful.  And yes, they were free to do it for a while ... until (repeatedly) their money ran out.  But honestly, what then?  Is there still a place in society for "common sense" or will the bounds of society be determined in the future PRIMARILY (or even SOLELY) by economics?   You can do anything you want, but once your money runs out, you're dead?

Hmm, that actually was the theme of a recent sci-fi-ish thriller starring the musician-turned-actor Justin Timberlake called In Time [2011] ;-).

Anyway, a good / thought provoking if also often anguished film ;-) and though playing only "in select theaters" it's also already available for a reasonable price on Amazon Instant Video.


<< 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! :-) >>

Innocence [2013]

MPAA (PG-13) ChicagoTribune (1 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (C. Darling) review


Parents should note that Innocence [2013] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Hilary Brougher along with Tristine Skyler based on the novel by Jane Mendelsohn [IMDb]) is a rather mislabeled story.

Okay, yes, it's about a rather innocent 15-year-old girl named Beckett Warner (played by Sophie Curtis) from somewhere on Long Island, who after the rather strange death of her mother (due to an aneurism while surfing) moves with her father (played by Linus Roache) to Manhattan, where he enrolls her in a rather odd/creepy prep school where apparently her mother had also gone.

The school is run by women, all apparently her mother's age (late-30s to mid-40s).  They are all good looking and very competent, like her mother was.  But they all also seem to be rather emotionless to the point of seeming drugged / sedated.  And they all seem to know her father, a writer, from their "book club."

Also despite their quite fashionable attire and quite modern bordering on trendy demeanor, these women running this quite upscale prep-school, that's been "around for ages," seem surprisingly "puritanical," obsessed with blood and protecting their students' virginity.

Well there's, of course, "an explanation" to this. And it's actually a quite amusing one, though it more or less requires a BIG SPOILER ALERT to cuntinue further.

But (PARENTS DEFINITELY TAKE NOTE...) let's just say that the film offers one of the more "original" (unconvincing but _original_) excuses that a young girl could give to her parents for NEEDING to LOSE HER VIRGINITY _QUICKLY_ that certainly I've ever heard ;-)  ...

DON'T READ FURTHER if you accept the warning and don't want to have the film otherwise "spoiled' for you, but its final act really is kinda a hoot.

BIG SPOILER ALERT: "But dad, I HAD to lose my virginity because OTHERWISE the WITCHES who run my school would CONTINUE TO SUCK MY VIRGIN BLOOD TO KEEP THEMSELVES 'FOREVER YOUNG.'"

Unconvincing as an excuse, yes, but certainly quite original ;-).  Would I recommend the film to your teen? Probably not.  But I'm sure that most readers who've read this far will be amused.


<< 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 Remaining [2014]

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

IMDb listing

Nerdrepository.com: Interview with the director


The Remaining [2014] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Casey La Scala along with Chris Dowling) imagines the sudden arrival of the end of the world according to the sequence outlined in the Biblical Book of Revelation

The film begins at a lovely "garden wedding" (but note here, not a _Church_ wedding ;-) of a lovely,  even somewhat sassy couple, Skylar (played by Alexa Vega) and Dan (played by Bryan Dechart) both of whom could have easily starred in some CMT / GAC music video.  They do have someone there to officiate ("Pastor Shay?" played by John Pyper Furgeson, whose character gets more important as the film progresses).  They've written their own sincere if somewhat cheesy vows.

We viewers get to endure then the typical "rites" that go on at the lovely Reception that follows including the "toast" by the Best Man (played by Shaun Sipos) where he talks about "Commitment" to the irritation of his 7-years-and-going GF named Ally (played by Italia Ricci) who then asks, "Why then has HE not proposed (to me) yet ...?" ;-), the "first dance" (that "starts slow" and then "suddenly" becomes a "hip-hop" number, "oh what a surprise" ;-), the "rigged bouquet toss" (all dressed-in-white and sassy Sky knows her BFF Ally's "pain ...").  There's even a somewhat creepy (or simply nerdy...) friend named Dan (played by Bryan Dechart) who's videotaping it all.

And then, as Dan's videotaping Sky's parents' well-wishes to their daughter, telling her (into the tape) that her "wedding was perfect" (even as they note that they still would have preferred a Church wedding ;-) ... SUDDENLY ... both of Sky's parents DROP DEAD (apparently Raptured...) and ... THE END OF THE WORLD BEGINS ...

The rest of the movie follows with many of the torments described in the Book of Revelation, including storms of fire and ice and fearsome flying beasts who sting like scorpions, ensueing...

To the its credit by film's end, it is clear WHY these torments are occurring: It's a LAST CHANCE for those who Remain to choose between God, and ... non-God (unbelief, selfish pride, etc). 

That's NOT an altogether bad understanding of the Book of Revelation whose dream-like, hallucinatory imagery, of course, DEFIES EASY / HONEST interpretation (though certainly, there have been various sects for 2000 years, who've insisted that "they know...").

The Catholic Church has insisted that the imagery present be understood as being BOTH PREDICTIVE of a future time AND ALREADY PRESENT.  That's why ANY TIME can feel LIKE "THE END TIMES."  And let's face it, there have been PLENTY OF TIMES during the Church's 2000 year history, that "THE END TIMES" seemed quite "Nigh" -- during the Roman persecutions of the Early Church, during the Barbarian invasions that sacked the remains of the Roman Empire after it had become Christian, during the Crusades / Black Plague, during the Religious Wars that plagued Europe during the time of the Reformation (culminating in the Thirty Year War in which HALF of Central Europe's inhabitants DIED as a result of the wars), to the wars/plagues of the modern era (WW I, the Spanish Flu, WW II, the threat of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War ...).  Every one of these historical torments had MANY sincere believers believing that The End was Near.

One can ALSO interpret the Book of Revelation as the grand-apocalyptic struggle FOR ONE'S OWN SOUL during _one's own life_.  The struggles, the toils, the failures that occur in one's own life could be interpreted as being as painful as "scorpion bites" or being hit on the head by "hail of fire."

And ultimately, the whole drama centers around the fundamental question: Does one (come to) believe?  If one does come to believe none of these torments ultimately succeed ... and one reaches the blissful peace of the last two chapters of the Book of Revelation (interestingly LEFT OUT OF THIS FILM).  If one continues to struggle, thinking that "one is in charge," well the final plagues wipe everybody out.

Anyway, IMHO this does make for an interesting film.  I would also note here that BOTH fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Protestants arrive at basically the same conclusion: One ultimately has to _submit_ to God (Allah / Jesus).  And I would also note that interestingly enough, though the Muslims DON'T accept Jesus as God's son, THEY DO BELIEVE that it will be JESUS (and _not_ Mohammed) who will come back to earth (as Prophet if not as God's son) to judge it at the end.

Something to think about as one munches popcorn while watching the Final Days play-out on-screen: We often may not like each other, but we all have more in common than we think.


<< 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 Don Juans (orig. Donšajni) [2013]

MPAA (R)  iDnes.cz (4/10)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CSFD listing*
FDB.cz listing*

CervenyKoberec.cz (E. Bartlová) review*
iDnes.cz (M. Spáčilová) review*
Lidovky (M. Kabát) review* interview w. director*

Expats.cz (J. Pirodsky) review
Variety (R.. Scheib) review

Czech that Film [official site] [2014 line-up at GSFC in Chicago]

The Don Juans (orig. Donšajni) [2013] [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]* (written and directed by Jiří Menzel [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) was the Czech Republic's submission for the Best Foreign Language Film competition at the 86th Annual Academy Awards (The Oscars).  On the flip side, the film caused something of a stir (and not necessarily a good one...) back in the Czech Republic where the film scored a 30% from viewers on its CSFD database, the continued sanity of the director (of Woody Allen's age and demeanor) was questioned and the film was even labeled as "possibly the worst Czech film made since the fall of Communism."  In other words, as one of Czech parents, who grew-up on films like Menzel's Oscar-winning (best foreign language picture) Closely Watched Trains (orig. Ostře Sledované Vlaky) [1966] [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]* and Secluded by the Woods (orig. Na Samotě u Lesa) [1976] [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]* (filmed in the rolling Bohemian countryside near the village where my dad's family was originally from) as well as more recently I Served the King of England (orig. Obsluhoval jsem anglického krále) [2006] [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*, I had to see the film ;-) ... and it played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago as part of 2014 Czech That Film Tour cosponsored by the Czech Diplomatic Mission to the United States.

The film then, which runs very much like a contemporary Woody Allen [IMDb] movie (one honestly thinks of Allen's most recent Magic in the Moonlight [2014]), is definitely on the parternalistic / sexist side (and this is exactly what Czech critical opinion, above, was most irritated with).  Yet it does have quite a few, ever-gentle laughs.

Set in a Czech provincial town (one thinks of Český Krumlov, Pardubice or Tábor ) at the center of the film are two protagonists: Vítek (played by Jan Hartl [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*), male, and Markéta (played by Libuše Šafránková [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*), female.  He's a bored if still good-natured said-provincial-town opera director.  She's a still quite enthusiastic children's drama coach lifetime resident of the same provincial town.  Interestingly, they are roughly of the same age both presumably in their late 50s to early 60s.  Yet also tellingly, they are NOT romantic interests to each other in this film.  Vítek, bored though he may be with staging "provincial opera," nonetheless "takes solace" in bedding a veritable parade of young soprano women looking for lead parts in his productions.  Markéta, on the other hand, raised a now late 30-something daughter as a single parent, having allowed herself to be seduced by a dashing (then) "leading man" opera singer who passed through the provincial-town (readers, count the years yourselves ...) some decades past.  She doesn't necessarily have regrets, but she does admit that she has had a love-hate relationship with "Donšajni," that is, "Don Juans" in general and then with Mozart's opera Don Giovanni in particular.

Now it turns out that Vítek, whose opera company has been struggling for years, decides to go for broke and stage Don Giovanni at his opera house.  And he even invites the once dashing leading man "baritone" superstar, now thanks to age and attendant wear-and-tear reduced to "bass" voiced Jakub (played by Martin Huba [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) to "come back from America" to sing the part of Don Giovanni's great nemisis "Il Commendatore" (Don Pedro) in the opera.  And poor Jakub, who gets a free trip "back to the old country," accepts.  Now who is this once great, now whiskey and cigarettes ravaged Jakub?  I think most readers here will guess ... ;-) 

Much, often very funny ... in a typically light-hearted, Allenesque (the Czechs would add Svěrák-Smoljak-Cimrman-esque), "petite bourgeois" sort of way ... ensues ... ;-)

Folks, this is a goofy movie, but people who've ever liked the stories around "small town theater" would probably very much enjoy this light-hearted Czech-provincial "Baroque" version of Garrison Keillor's "Prarie Home Companion" [2006] ;-).


* Reasonably good (sense) translations of non-English webpages can be found by viewing them through Google's Chrome browser.

<< 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 November Man [2014]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune/Variety (A. Barker) review
RE.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


The November Man [2014] (directed by Roger Donaldson, screenplay by Michael Finch and Karl Gajdusek, based on the novel by Bill Granger [IMDb]) makes for a potentially very interesting post-Bond spy-thriller for ex-Bond actor Pierce Brosnan who not only stars in the current film but was also one of its producers.

As I watched the film, the question that I kept asking myself was why?  Why did Pierce Brosnan clearly want to do this film?  To be sure, I found the film to be neither "great" (I've generally found the James Bond movies, including the latest, starring Daniel Craig, Skyfall [2012] far more entertaining) nor certainly "awful" (as I found the latest "Jack Ryan" movie Shadow Recruit [2014] to be).  It just seemed to me that Brosnan was trying to remind us of something that generally isn't present in either the James Bond [IMDb] or Jack Ryan [IMDb] franchises: the spy "game" is an ugly business -- people, including innocents, do die and even the assassins doing the killing live terrible, incomplete lives, in which they are constantly looking over their backs.

Interestingly, I haven't yet found in interview where talking about the current film Brosnan opines as much, even if in the film's dialogue itself it is clear that this very ugly side to the "spy game" is very much at the film's center.  In the film, Brosnan plays a veteran Cold-War trained CIA assassin named Devereaux ("French" meaning roughly "(of) those who devour ..."), who among other things is tasked with mentoring a younger, post-9/11 CIA recruit named Mason (played by Luke Bracey).  And it's clear that Devereaux is conflicted in this task.  Throughout much of the movie Mason appears to have "a complex," believing that Devereaux doesn't think that he's up to the job.  Instead, Devereaux appears to be trying to dissuade Mason from pursuing this line of work to begin with: "You can either be a man or a killer but not both," Devereaux tells Mason at one point, "because one will eventually extinguish (devour...) the other."

For a reviewer with my line of work, I'm a Catholic priest after all, one can not but take note of (and even _applaud_) that kind of introspection regarding pursuing, after all, a "career path" IN ASSASSINATION. 

But how does the rest of the movie play out?  Here IMHO it's a rather a mixed bag:

The film is certainly current, set largely in the Serbian capital of Belgrade (the original novel was set in Berlin) involves intrigues surrounding both the post-Cold War Balkan and Chechen conflicts.  There's a Russian general named Arkady Federov (played by Lazar Riskovwki) who's now looking to run for Russian President.  Since he was involved in various massacres in Chechnya, he's looking to eliminate anyone-and-everyone who might embarrass him when he makes his run for the Presidency.  Then there's a worker at the UN Refugee office in Belgrade going by the name of Alice Fournier (played by Olga Kurylenko) who knows "a thing or two" about Federov's sordid past.  So much of the film plays around protecting her from all sorts of shady people who appear to want to put a bullet in her head.

But the film's use of technology seems kinda silly.  As in the laugh-out-loud ridiculous scenes in the recent Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit [2014 the CIA is portrayed driving around a "discrete" NYPD-style "surveillance van" through the streets of Moscow in the case here even followed "at rooftop level" by a 3-4 foot CIA operated unmanned aerial drone.  Come-on, these things eventually have to land _somewhere_, and after 2 maybe 3 uses, the Russian FSB would certainly be there waiting for it (and for the "nice CIA folks" "handling" the goofy machine).

Then it would be hard to imagine that the authorities in either Moscow or Belgrade would be able to "keep quiet" the various gratuitous open air shootings / high speed chases portrayed in the film.  This deficiency in the film is not exactly "uncommon" in the genre.  One thinks here of not only various crowded street shoot-outs in the various James Bond [IMDb] films (Venice seemed to be a particularly popular venue for those sorts of things in the Bond films) but also of the Bourne movies (particularly The Bourne Ultimatum [2007] that featured an extended and very complicated sequence in and around London's Waterloo Stationq which if it had occurred in reality would probably have been impossible for the authorities to expunge from public memory). 

Yet, Cold War intrigues and War on Terror intrigues have taken place all across Europe ranging from terrorist bombings / anti-terrorist bombings to political / espionage / counter-espionage assassinations to "renderings" ("trade speak" for abductions of terrorist / espionage suspects).  These have had to have led to a psychic toll on Europeans and contributed to their cynicism with regards to viewing the United States.  I've wondered in fact if various right-wing or otherwise "anti-government" "militia groups" across the Western United States with their talk of "black helicopters," "abductions" and "secret bases" have more in common to various left-wing or otherwise anti-American groups in Europe, with their own lore of "CIA renderings" and other "unsolved crimes" than one would initially think ... So while these often crazy shootouts portrayed in these films on the streets of European cities may be exaggerations, they MAY actually express a reality that the average American could only imagine on the pages of a spy-novel or on the screen of a film like this one.

All this again brings me back to my original question: Why did Brosnan _choose_ to make a film like this?  Was it simply because it seemed like a "cool project" to work on, or to perhaps return a sense of "reality" to the James Bond genre of spy-thrillers ... a reminder that the "License to Kill" business is not exactly a pretty (or moral...) one. 

In any case, this is something that wouldn't be bad for viewers of this film (and the next spy-thriller) to consider as they watch buildings blowup and the bodies of "evil henchmen" or even "passerbys" be shot-up or otherwise mangled in various terrible ways.... "License to Kill" is a sordid business indeed.


<< 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 Forgotten Kingdom [2013]

MPAA (UR would be R)  TVSA.za (3 1/2 Stars)  Iol.co.za (4 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing

TVSA.za (T.Bang) review
Iol.co.za (T. Owen) review
citipress.co.za (P. Mabandu) review

IndieWire (V. Martinez) review
Orlando Weekly (B. Manes) review

The Forgotten Kingdom [2013] (written and directed by Andrew Mudge), a movie filmed in South Africa and Lesotho using entirely local actors and actresses recently closed the month long, ever popular 2014 (20th) Annual Black Harvest Film Festival at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago. The film is also now available for streaming using the Amazon Instant Video service for a reasonable price.

The film tells the story of an initially directionless 20-something youth named Joseph / Atang Mokoenya (played by Zenzo Ngqobe) who at the beginning of the film was living in a small apartment in a tenement in Johannesburg ("Jo-berg"), South Africa.  He's informed by some of his friends that his father (played in flashbacks throughout the film by Jerry Phele), living in a shack in the Soweto neighborhood at the outskirts of town, was very ill.  Receiving the news as more an imposition on his time (not that he'd have much else to do with his time ... as he was unemployed and not particularly concerning himself with looking for work) than a concern, he sighs, rolls his eyes and decides to (eventually) go out there.

When he arrives, he's chewed-out by a neighbor-woman for being such a typically uncaring grown child of a sick parent.  Seething, but trying not to show disdain now, he endures her lecture and then proceeds to his father's shack, only to find that he's not answering when he knocks on the door.  Removing a plank from a window, her crawls in, and discovers, of course, that his father is dead.

Since the father wasn't terribly old, about 50 or so ... the assumption is that he probably died of some AIDS related illness.  This in part, but certainly _only_ in part, explains some of Joseph's disdain for his father.  Contracting HIV/AIDS remains a cause for shame in South Africa.

Some of Joseph's similarly listless, directionless friends from Jo-Burg arrive.  One of them goes over to a local tavern to get some beers.  Together they pull off a few planks from Joseph's dead father's shack to light a small bonfire, and together they toast with _some_ (but certainly not a lot) of respect the memory of Joseph's dad.

It is now that somebody asks Joseph what he's going to do with his dad's body.  Joseph shrugs not really knowing the answer.  However, someone then, a neighbor perhaps, informs him that Joseph's dad was prepared in this regard for his demise (as well as for his well-predicted assumption that his son wouldn't have a clue what to do ...).  As such, the father had paid the local undertaker for a respectable casket and transport ALONG WITH AN ACCOMPANYING TICKET FOR HIS SON to his home village in Lesotho.

Now Lesotho is small mostly mountainous kingdom in Southern Africa that due to its very inaccessibility had always kept its independence through the whole of the Colonial and later Apartheid Eras.  It was just "too far away" and didn't have much to offer in terms of minerals for the white settlers / colonial powers to bother with conquering.  So except for Anglican / Catholic missionaries the people of Lesotho were left alone (and the legacies of both the Catholic and Anglican missionaries were also portrayed in a generally benign way in the film as well).  Lesotho, for the most part, would seem to be as "forgotten" a Kingdom as the title of the film proclaims.

But Joseph's dad, being from there, did not forget.  And if not really in life then at least in death, Joseph's dad reminds him of his roots (and early childhood there) as well.  Indeed, the neighbor who tells Joseph of his dad's already purchased funeral plans reminds Joseph that his Lesothan name was actually Atang.

Wonderful.  So Joseph (er Atang), unemployed anyway, takes his dad's body back to Lesotho for burial.  And this is when the story, of course, really begins:

Since Joseph-Atang had little except for a generic set of friends "of the street" back in Jo-Berg anyway, he "lingers" in Lesotho for a while after his dad's burial.  It's not that Joseph-Atang suddenly "fell in love" with the remote country of his birth.  He did not.  It's just that _nothing_ in Atang-Joseph's life had much of a direction to it.  So there was no particular reason for him to rush back home now.  And he stays long enough to run into a childhood friend, a school teacher, named Dineo (played by Nozipho Nkelemba) who remembers him and he takes a liking to (and she to him).  And so he decides to stay for a bit longer than he thought he would before.

Now Dineo's father (played quite well by Jerry Mofokeng) sees the recently arrived (but apparently penniless) "city slicker" Atang hanging around his daughter suddenly.  And so he decides to scare him back to Jo-Berg: "Hey you, if you respect me and my daughter then do the right thing and marry my daughter.  And my bride's price (for her hand in marriage) is no less than ..."   Since Dineo's father _was right_ about him (at least initially), and Joseph-Ateng was indeed penniless, Joseph-Ateng "snapped out of his spell" and got on the next bus back to Jo-Berg.

BUT ... on the way back to Jo-Berg, he perhaps realizes that in Dineo HE FINALLY HAS SOMETHING TO LIVE FOR.  So HE DOES GET A JOB in a number of the mines in area ... and eventually returns back to the Lesothan village of his birth to pay the bride's price for Dineo ... only to find her and her father / sister GONE.

Where'd they Go?  Well Atang knew that Dineo's sister was ill (again in some stage of HIV/AIDS).  That's why Dineo, healthy, had stayed on at home ... to take care of her.  Again, HIV/AIDS remains a cause of shame for a family.  SO when it became impossible to hide his other daughter's illness, Dineo's father MOVED THE WHOLE FAMILY ACROSS THE MOUNTAINS CLEAR TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE KINGDOM to "protect" them (and himself...) from "gossip."

The rest of the movie then is about Ateng-Joseph along with an orphan boy (played by Lebohang Ntsane) from the village of his birth (who reminded Ateng-Joseph a lot of himself when he was the boy's age) crossing the mountains of Lesotho to return to his, now, Love.

It makes for a very nice story.  The last part of the film, shot in the mountains of Lesotho, is absolutely beautiful.  And the story also touches on universal themes.  Indeed, in the past year, I've three movies from three continents -- the Argentinian/Bolivian film La Paz [2013], the Indian film The Lunchbox [2013] and this one from South Africa / Lesotho -- in which the central (or otherwise key) characters only found peace by leaving their largely meaningless existences in Buenos Aires, Mumbai, and (now) in Johannesburg and finding starting new lives in the mountains of Bolivia, Bhutan and now Lesotho. 

I appreciated the film further because my (United States) Province of the Servite Order founded and has maintained the Catholic mission to KwaZulu (Zululand) which borders Lesotho (and one of our Italian Provinces was responsible for the Catholic mission to nearby Swaziland.  The film, beautifully shot, particularly in the latter two-thirds of the film, when the story takes place in the Lesothan countryside can help viewers appreciate the rugged beauty of that part of the world.

Overall, great film!  And, again, it's available for streaming for a reasonable price on Amazon Instant Video.


<< 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! :-) >>