On the Basis of Sex [2018]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB ()  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (4+ Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (N. Minow) review
AVClub (C. Siede) review


On the Basis of Sex [2018] (directed by Mimi Leder, written by Daniel Steipleman) is a well-worth-the-view biopic about the early career of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (played in the film by Felicity Jones) who part of the first generation of women to be graduating from Ivy League law schools (she started law school at Harvard, graduated from Colombia) had co-founded the ACLU's Women's Rights Project.

Among the indignities that she faced was being asked at a dinner hosted by the Dean of Harvard Law School (played by Sam Waterston) to stand-up at the dinner table (along with the eight other invited women law students) and "explain" to him and to the other guests why she was at Harvard studying law when her spot could have been given to a male.  Then despite having graduated tied for first in her class (at Colombia, after being first in her class at Harvard, prior to her transfer on account of her husband Martin Ginsburg - played in the film by Armie Hammer - one year ahead of her at Harvard Law who had gotten a job in New York) SHE was UNABLE TO GET A JOB in New York except in academia at Rudgers University (despite having graduated tied for #1 in her class she wasn't taken seriously).

All this serves as an excellent reminder of what it was like to be a woman in the United States in the 1950s-60s, and why a fair number of the changes that have taken place in society since then took place.

And yes, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had simply "stayed at home cooking dinner" the whole world would have lost a brilliant mind.

Excellent 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! :-) >

Welcome to Marwen [2018]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB ()  RogerEbert.com (1 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (D+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

NY Times (P. Green) article about Mark Hogancamp


Welcome to Marwen [2018] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Robert Zemeckis along with Caroline Thompson) continues a career by Steve Carell of playing characters who often were marginalized, even considered wierdos or freaks, even as they were often simply soft-spoken and nice.

The current story tells the true story of  Mark Hogancamp (played by Steve Carell) from small-town upstate New York whose previous life was largely destroyed in 2000 when he was beaten-up / kicked in the head within inches of his life by five men after, drunk at a bar, he admitted to them that he was a cross-dresser.  After he woke up from his coma nine days later, he set about "healing" from this disaster by creating (and photographing) an entire miniature town called Marwencol out of barbie dolls and WW II action figures that symbolically told the story of what had happened to him.  The five men who had nearly killed him were portrayed, unsurprisingly, as Nazis, the women who had helped him heal, dressed in various 1940s era pinup costumes, would fight the attacking Nazis back, but they'd always return ... to try to ambush him again.

It makes for one heck of a story even if perhaps not for the average crowd.  It asks us the question: why can't we sometimes just leave nice / quiet people alone.


< 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! :-) >

Second Act [2018]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
Los Angeles Times (M. Olsen) review
RogerEbert.com (N. Minow) review
AVClub (C. Siede) review


Second Act [2018] (directed by Peter Segal, written by Justin Zackham and Elaine Goldsmith-Thomas) may break little new ground for Jennifer Lopez, who plays the lead character Maya, a hard working forty-something New Yorker who finds her advancement at work blocked by her lack of a college degree.  Still more than a few Viewers will relate to Maya's plight.

In the film, her Stanford attending "fairy God son" (not God-mother) invents a resume for her as well as a whole online virtual life to support it ... and ... "barrier overcome" ... but, of course, it's based on a lie ...

Some of the reviewers above are correct.  There is material stuffed into this film that could be unpacked legitimately across 2-3 movies -- Maya had a daughter in her teenage years who she gave up for adoption, who she now runs into (played by Vanessa Hudgens) as a result of her being magically "bumped up" the socio-economic ladder as a result of her "fairy God-son's" action.  And there's also the whole question of how to relate now with her previous friends, including lifelong-BFF Joan (played by Leah Rimini) and more recent, though 5 years running Significant Other, Trey (played by Milo Ventimiglia).  Yet, transporting anyone from one life into another would produce at least some unforeseen consequences.

All in all it's a nice film that reminds us that we are all much more than simply our job title.


< 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 Favourite [2018]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (T. Laffly) review
AVClub (K. Rife) review


The Favourite [2018] (directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, written by Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara), set in a fictionalized early 18th century England (hence a "period piece" / "costume drama"), the story, appropriately R-rated, runs, so that Readers here know, like a Lesbian-oriented Harlequin Romance:

An aging "Queen Anne" (played by Olivia Colman) frankly _relieved_ to be finally widowed after SEVENTEEN MISCARRIAGES "finds comfort" in her childhood BFF Lady Sarah (played by Rachel Weisz), who also helps her run the dang country, until ... a YOUNGER, once lesser somebody (lower nobility), now thanks also to the whims of early-unfortunate widowhood, one step from truly becoming a sexualized-nobody turning tricks at some mud-covered road-side brothel somewhere, lucky to use the last of her connections to at least have clawed her way to becoming a chamber-maid in the Queen's Court, Abigail (played by Emma Stone), comes onto the scene ... and much ensues ... :-) or :-|.

And the story asks us, the Viewers, the question if it really would have been _any more edifying_ if good ole Queen Anne had "found comfort" with some sweaty stable-hand or perhaps a strapping young red-coated officer with a big tall bushy hat and a sabre in hand.

And actually, it's not an altogether bad question to ask:

I've often joked that if one put one's characters in period clothes and placed them in some exotic locale then one could have those characters do just about _anything_.  As but one (though IMHO excellent) example: In the English Patient [1996], darling of the Academy Awards that year, set in colonial Egypt/Libya just as World War II was about to break out, the lead characters "finally" consummated highly scandalous / adulterous affair (and then in _bed-board banging fashion_) while the entire British garrison was assembled in the Plaza below singing ... "Silent Night" :-). 

So while I do think that it's fair for Readers to know what they're going to be seeing here -- a lesbian oriented Harlequin Romance type story -- after that, I'd say that its "morality" (or amorality) is no different than if Queen Anne would have come to share her bed with some early-18th century Scots-Irish Rasputin.


< 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! :-) >

Aquaman [2018]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller-Seitz) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Aquaman [2018] (directed and screen story co-created by James Wan along with Geoff Johns and Will Beall screenplay by David Leslie, Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall and based on the DC "Aquaman" Comic [wikip] [DC] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] created by Paul Norris [wikip] [IMDb] and Mort Weisinger [wikip] [IMDb]), is one of those films that one has to "enter the story" as a wide-eyed 10 year old (boy) with the pages of an Aquaman Comic [wikip] [DC] in his hands for the very first time. If you're not willing or unable to do this, you'll neither be able to understand this story nor be able appreciate the film's manifold technical achievements.  For the film makers were able to breathe life into those already spectacular / fantastic comic book pages.

That said, the story-telling here suffers IMHO (!) from the _same deficiencies_ as other adaptations of DC comic book characters (as compared to the storytelling of its Marvel Comics rivals).  While the characters of Marvel's comics (both good and evil) have compelling/conflicted, eminently relatable, if perhaps exaggerated ("operatic," well, "comic book" ;-) backstories, character development in DC's universe seems intentionally BESIDE THE POINT.   In DC's universe, the superheroes (and supervillains) are above all SIMPLY AWESOME (beyond our reach).

So in this story, we watch a battle develop between TWO factions of undersea kingdoms who trace their roots to the lost civilization of Atlantis, and, again, to ask too many questions (beginning with WHY?) is BESIDE THE POINT / to be almost WILDLY "UNGRATEFUL."  We're just invited to be THRILLED by the clash of two factions, one riding elaborate 25' tall sea horses and the other riding on the backs of armored sharks.

Again to a 10-12 year old boy, especially with all the young women, all quite amply endowed, being dressed in the tightest of formfitting gear, embellished with shiny, mermaid-like scales (and armed with exploding tridents, or underwater laser blasters) WHAT POSSIBLY COULD BE MORE AWESOME THAN THIS??  But ... well ... is there anything more ...?

As far as I could see ... no.

So I honestly liked Marvel's development of Thor, also a demigod, if from "a different realm" so much better than the simple if ... after a while, tired ... AWESOMENESS here.


< 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! :-) >

Bohemian Rhapsody [2018]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (O)  RogerEbert.com (1 Star)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

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

Bohemian Rhapsody [2018] (directed by Bryan Singer screenplay by Anthony McCarten story by Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan) tells the story of Freddie Mercury (played in the film by Rami Malek) lead singer of the British 1970s-80s rock group Queen.

First some disclaimers (seriously).  I realize that for many Readers here -- it's a blog written by a Catholic priest after all -- that the man who came to call himself "Freddie Mercury" came out as gay and later died of AIDS (specifically of AIDS related pneumonia) would be probably all that one would need to know about the film.  Indeed, though rated PG-13 (and having, of course, seen the film, I think it basically meets _the technical requirements_ of the rating) I struggle to understand why a teenager today would want to see a film about a rock star who _may_ have been important to his/her parents' (my) generation but who in the mind of a teenager today might as well have been "born before time itself."  So I wonder if the true reason for making this film a PG-13 movie rather than an R-rated one was that the necessary sanitization of the material allowed for a more sympathetic portrayal of Mercury and his friends than an R-rated version would have.

THAT ALL SAID, I do believe that there is a compelling story to be told here ... one in which Mercury's strange, often (WAY, way) "over-the-top" behavior becomes quite understood.

Born Farroch Bulsara of Indian Parsi origin (neither Hindu nor Muslim but Zoroastran in religion) and immigrant to London from the former British colony, er, "Protectorate" of Zanzibar (an island nation off the coast of East Africa), Mercury's life would have been challenging (in London, England, Europe) from the get-go.  He survived at least partially by _embracing_ indeed EXAGGERATING his almost "out of this world" origins, dressing flamboyantly (portrayed in the film as almost like a young Mummar Gadaffi), wearing eye-makeup and speaking with an _exaggerated_ accent.  To his parents, Parsis, yes, but CONSERVATIVE (and I don't care what religious background one comes from, Rule #1 of religious conservatism is almost _always_ DON'T STICK OUT) their flamboyantly dressed and extravagantly accented son was growing up to be an abomination.  They certainly would have blamed his outward behavior on "(cosmopolitan) London" / "Western values."  Yet, to his English friends, his flamboyance actually made him "interesting" as opposed to "scary."

And so coming out of this background, the rock group Queen's eventual flamboyance (Mercury became its lead singer) makes a lot of sense, even as the group's other, English, members themselves are portrayed as finding Mercury's antics, partying and eventual open hedonistic homosexuality increasingly too much for them as well.

Is there a lesson there?  Boy there is.  IMHO it is a reminder to all of us that there's _almost always_ "a story" behind someone's behaving strangely, "outside the norms" and if one knew "the story" one would better understand that person.

In that regard, truly AN EXCELLENT 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! :-) >

Vice [2018]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  RogerEbert.com (1 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Turan) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallarico) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Vice [2018] (written and directed by Adam McKay) a film about the very private / secretive GW Bush-era V.P. Dick Cheney (played in the film by Christian Bale) did not seem to me nearly as coherent in both theme and content as McKay's previous laser-sharp / damning cinematic exposé (on the 2008 Financial Crisis) The Big Short [2015]. 

It seems clear to me that McKay initially intended the film to be an i-s dotted /t-s crossed damning hatchet job against the former V.P.  BUT either he himself flinched as he started to truly understand his subject matter, Cheney, or perhaps he was ordered to stand-down "a bit" by the studios / their lawyers  (I'd go with the former explanation, with McKay realizing that Cheney was far more human / lamentable, less simply "Evil," than he had initially believed). 

In any case, the Cheney here who emerges is something of a human mess, whose decision guiding principles were limited, perhaps quite severely, by his own intellectual and perhaps even physical limitations / short-comings.  So ... in an Administration, GW Bush's, not known for its intellectual prowness, he was one of its brighter lights / beacons, BUT ... that wasn't necessarily saying much, and yet ... could he honestly have done any better?

Let me explain.  We are told that Dick Cheney, growing-up in the cattle-ranching state of Wyoming, began his young adulthood first getting accepted and then quickly flunking-out of the East Coast Ivy League University of Yale.  Why he got there at all was through the help / connections of his future wife Lynne (played in the film by Amy Adams).  Lynne, convinced that as a woman still of her 1960s generation she could not "be somebody" on her own, felt that she needed at least her husband to be "somebody."  At the time Dick looked apparently like a lug, but a BIG (homecoming quarterback-like) LUG, so ... she wasn't necessarily choosing her man in this regard badly.  He just needed to be encouraged, pushed-forward to ... "become the man" that she hoped for.  (This kind of thinking is, perhaps thankfully, becoming "old hat." BUT ... back in the Dick and Lynne Cheney's young adult years, that actually still made a lot of sense.  Women back then did become (or at least hoped to become) "somebodies" through their men).

Through another connection of Lynne and her family, Dick Cheney got an internship in Washington D.C. to work in Congress, and meeting among other people, a young "North shore" Illinois Republican Donald Rumsfeld (played in the film by Steve Carrell) THIS TIME, HE NEVER LOOKED BACK.

But ... Dick, never a particularly sharp tool, came to learn TO PARROT (very well) the ideology and  values of the people around him (in his case ... that of Nixonian republicans).  As a result his values came to be LOYALTY, SMALL GOVERNMENT, and a questionable increasingly dogmatic belief in the UNITARY POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE (basically that the President simply because he was President could do no wrong or at least could not be held to account, except _perhaps_ by the ballot box).   How such a view would work inside a Party "of small government" is remarkable.  However one supposes, going back to essentially A KING _could_ make "government" "smaller" ;-).

And the rest of the story then follows...

Now fascinatingly, those three pillars of Cheney's political ideology, DON'T necessarily point in the same direction all the time.  So there are honestly surprises, moving surprises in this film.  And Cheney was ALSO famously limited by his own health issues.

The result is ... perhaps a film about a "good old boy" who went, WAY, WAY HIGHER than anyone with his capacities / limitations really should have.

So ... what to finally say of the film?  It's something of a mess, but ... it gives Viewers, perhaps, a lot to think about as they go home.  So a decent enough, if not exactly great 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! :-) >>