Francofonia [2015]

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

IMDb listing
Allocine.fr listing*
KinoPoisk.ru listing*
Kino-Teatr.ru listing*

Gazeta.ru  (J. Zabaluev) review*
KinoAfisha review*
KinoArt.ru (V.  Rutkowski) review*
Lumiere-mag.ru (X. Ilina) review*
RossiyskayaGazeta.ru (V. Kichin) review*
Seance.ru (M. Kuvshinova) review*

aVoir-aLire.fr (V. Morisson) review*
Critikat.com (J. Morel) review*
LaCroix.fr (J.C.  Raspiengeas) review*
LeMonde.fr (J. Mandelbaum) review*
Liberation.fr (C. Gallot) review*

APUM.com (L.E. Forero Varela) review*
KinoZeit.de (P. Weillinski) review*
Slant Magazine (S. Nam) review
The Guardian (P. Bradshaw) review
The Hollywood Reporter (D. Young) review


Francofonia [2015] [IMDb] [AC.fr]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* (written and directed by Aleksandr Sukorov [IMDb] [KP.ru]*[KT.ru]*[AC.fr]*) is a remarkable FRENCH / DUTCH / GERMAN docudrama-tic / documentary-esque co-production originally commissioned by the Curators of the Louvre Museum in Paris of the renowned RUSSIAN director, already famous for this kind of work, to tell the story of The Louvre during the period of Nazi Occupation (from June 1940 - August 1944).   The film premiered to both acclaim and controversy (some of the Russian critics cited above _gleefully noted_ that the Louvre's curators didn't necesssarily like the final product ;-) at the 2015 (72nd) Venice Int'l Film Festival.

The film recently played in Chicago at the 2016 (19th Annual) European Union Film Festival (a submission to the Festival by FRANCE) and subsequently returned to Chicago's Gene Siskel Film Center for a two week run.  (The film, whose distribution rights are owned in the United States by Music Box Films is currently making a run of similar "Film Centers" and "art houses" across the U.S.)

Again, the Louvre's enlistment of Sukorov [IMDb] [KP.ru]*[KT.ru]*[AC.fr]* for this project was NOT "a random one" as he was already famous for a remarkable docudrama-tic cinematic reflection -- entitled Russian Ark (orig. Русский ковчег / Russkiy Kovcheg) [2002] [IMDb] [KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* -- about the similarly world renowned Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia.  (Though not necessary to appreciate the current film, it's certainly worth the effort to find / view this film as well.  It's available for streaming via Netflix / Fandor as well as for rental in DVD format via mail rental service offered by Facets.org).

The story that Sukorov was enlisted to present here -- how ever one looks at it -- is TRULY an INTRIGUING ONE: Here was The Louvre, both then and now, ONE OF THE FAMOUS MUSEUMS IN THE WORLD one whose collections were/are considered PRICELESS many times over (containing among other things Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa...), UNDER FOUR YEARS OF NAZI OCCUPATION, that is under a Regime whose leaders were INFAMOUS for LOOTING art (from museums, private citizens, etc) ALL OVER EUROPE.  And YET ... the Louvre's collections SURVIVED the War INTACT.

The big question, of course, is WHY?

To the Russian director Sukorov, it was clear as day that the (French) Director of the Louvre at the time Jacques Jaujard [fr-wikip]*[IMDb] (played in the film by Louis-Do de Lencquesaing [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) and Nazi Era German Cultural Attache to (Occupied) France Count Franz Wolff-Metternich [de-wikip]*[IMDb] (played in the film by Benjamin Utzerath [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) CONSPIRED indeed CONSPIRED TOGETHER to protect The Louvre's Collections from the prying hands of the Nazi leadership.

And the Historical Record does largely bear this out.  In 1938-39, The Louvre's collections had already been evacuated from Paris as a precaution in preparation for War.  When Occupation came, Count Metternich [de-wikip]* just made it "really hard" for the top Nazi leadership to get their hands on them, assuring them simply that the Collections are 'safe'..."

What however bruised / scandalized the Russian director of the current film's sensibilities was that while the Nazis seemed to treat the French art treasures with such respect, they certainly _didn't_ treat the treasures of other nations, NOTABLY of those of the East (... those of the RUSSIANS) with anything EVEN REMOTELY APPROACHING that kind of respect as well

Indeed, in the later part of the film Sukorov narrates (and shows documentary footage of) what happened to the Hermitage Museum (and Leningrad as St. Petersburg was called during the Soviet Era) during the War.  Yes, the Hermitage's art treasures ALSO were evacuated prior to the Nazi two year long siege of Leningrad.  But the Hermitage Museum itself was bombed repeatedly during said siege a siege in which more than a million residents died often of starvation, and many survivors doing so by resorting to cannibalism (at times) to make it through.

The question that Sukorov asks again is: Why?  Why were the French (and THEIR art) respected while the Russians (and theirs) not.

And this is where his film gets controversial: His answer was that the Germans always respected the French MORE than the Russians suggesting that EVEN THE NAZIS were ultimately looking for a "French-German" alliance against ... the Russians.

AND ONE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN LIVING IN A CAVE for the last several years to NOT understand the Putin era propagandistic messaging being proclaimed here: Russia "once again" is being "punished" / separated from Europe because "Europe has always thought" that it is "better than Russia."

So this was a film about The Louvre that Sukorov somehow made about The Louvre" vs "The Hermitage" and thus even about "The French / Western Europe" vs "The Russians / Eastern Europe."

What I can say is that at least Sukorov did this with some humor ... something that _I do appreciate_ (because often enough Russian films that make it to the West are simply deathly serious and actually perpetuate negative stereotypes that many Westerners would hold against Russians).

Still, the whole episode reminded me of the incident in which Mexican muralist (and leftist) Diego Rivera, commissioned to paint a mural for the then new Rockefeller Center in New York, took the opportunity to paint a mural he entitled Man at the Crossroads that "called on the working man to overthrow the capitalists" ;-).  The Rockefellers refused to allow the mural to be displayed in THEIR BUILDING ;-) and ordered it DESTROYED.  So today, a copy of said mural is PROMINENTLY / PROUDLY displayed in the Palacio de Belles Artes in Mexico City and to this day a fair number of residents of Mexico City still smile-from-ear-to-ear retelling this story of how "one of them" Diego Rivera "stuck it" to the "Gringo Rockefellers" ;-)

So here Sukorov kinda stuck it to the French.  "Za Putina ...!" (OMG, have we come to _that_? ;-)

Still this is a very interesting, surprisingly entertaining, ever thoughtful and ultimately quite provocative film ;-)  Honestly, _if you love movies_, what more can you ask for? ;-)

Great, great job! ;-)


* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using 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! :-) >>

Baahubali: The Beginning [2015]

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

IMDb listing
FilmiBeat.com listing

Forbes (R. Cain) interview w. writer / director S.S. Rajamouli

Hindustan Times (M. Fadnavis) review
The Hindu (S. Devi Dundoo) review
Indian Express (S. Gupta) review
Times of India (R. Vyavahare) review

The Guardian (M. McCahill) review

FilmiBeat.com (P. Anjuri) review
The Hollywood Reporter (S. Tsering) review

Baahubali: The Beginning [2015] [IMDb] [FiBt] (directed and screenplay by S.S. Rajamouli [IMDb] [FiBt], story by Vijayendra Prasad [IMDb]) is the first part of a planned two part Telegu /Tamil (South Indian) historical adventure saga based on the revered Jainist religious figure Baahubali.  The film became THE MOST EXPENSIVE INDIAN MOVIE EVER MADE (with a budget of about $40 million USD) but it also became the 2nd highest grossing Indian film in 2015 and the 3rd highest grossing Indian film ever.  (The film is available in the United States on various internet streaming platforms for a reasonable price).


I decided to view/review this film TO BEGIN my 2016 Indian Film Tour which like my 2015 Russian Film Tour I've decided to undertake for similar reasons -- I'M TIRED OF SEEING ONLY CERTAIN KINDS OF RUSSIAN / INDIAN FILMS BEING CONSIDERED by American Film Critics -- ponderous and PONDEROUSLY BORING Russian "epics" like Alexey German's Hard to be a God [2013] or Aleksandr Sokurov's Faust [2012] or Indian / India themed films that focus _only_ on "India's backwardness / poverty" like Slumdog Millionaire [2008] or Lunch Box [2013] (lovely even poignant movies, BUT ....)

Hence my 2015 Russian Film Tour included a Russian MOTHER'S DAY MOVIE Mamy [2012], a RUSSIAN RomCom My Boyfriend is an Angel [2012], and a spectacular RUSSIAN "Twilight Saga-like" movie called Dark World [2010] two of which produced multiple sequels in Russia / Russian television series spin-offs and ALL OF WHICH were FAR MORE COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL IN RUSSIA than the BORING EVEN TO RUSSIANS "epics" that pose as "Russian cinema" to Westerners here.

My intention here is to do exactly the same now with Indian films.  I wish to present in my 2016 Indian Film Tour to Readers here the recent INDIAN films that have found both popular / commercial success and critical acclaim IN INDIA.


What better way to start this 2016 Indian Film Tour than to view / review a critically acclaimed and successful 2015 Indian film that could be called India's answer to Thor [2012]? :-).  Indeed, BOTH the Nordic God Thor and India's Jainist hero Baahubali have previously become inspiration for comic books (Thor in the U.S. thanks to Marvel Comics) and Baahubali [AChK] [Indj] thanks to Amar Chitra Katha [Amzn] AND Indrajal [Amzn] comics in India).

Baahubali: The Beginning [2015] [IMDb] [FiBt], the first of a two part Indian historical adventure saga (Part II, Baahubali: The Conclusion is set to be released in 2017) is largely an "Origins Story" -- How did Baahubali (played in the film by Prabhas [wikip] [IMDb] [FiBt]) come onto the scene and become the stuff of legend?

So in the opening sequence of the film, we see the infant destined to become Baahubali being carried by a fleeing woman (his mother? a caretaker?) to a river at the base of an enormous waterfall from where he, the infant, is carried presumably by the hand of the Hindu God Shiva across the river to safety and into the care of a humble family residing at the base of the waterfall (whose power is somehow representative of the (destructive) power of Shiva).  The sequence carries obvious resonances to the story of Moses in the Book of Exodus in the Bible even though the similar "helpless infant destined for greatness carried on the waters to safety" motif can be found elsewhere in Ancient Near Eastern Literature including in the Legend of Sargon the Great.

So the future Baahubali, named by his adoptive parents Shividu (a derivative Shiva), grows up _strong_ ("the favor of the Gods were upon him...") and ever looking-upwards to the top of that impossible waterfall (named after Shiva) wondering what exists "up there," while his adoptive-mother (played by Ramya Krishnan [IMDb] [FiBt]) would really prefer him to "stop dreaming" (stop looking for his destiny at the top of that waterfall, which no one had climbed to anyway) and focus on the here-and-now.

Well, one day, Shividu, in heroic indeed Herculean fashion, fulfills a seemingly impossible oath that his adoptive mother had made to Shiva (hoping actually that her adopted son would once-and-for-all STOP "looking upward to the top of the waterfall") and ... Then, after he finds a mysterious MASK at the foot of the impossible cliff / waterfall that he had SPENT HIS LIFE gazing upwards toward, GUIDED BY DESIRE (in the form of A BEAUTIFUL MUSE) he finally manages to miraculously CLIMB the said cliff to reach the world of THE HIGHER PLAIN that he always knew EXISTED but HAD NEVER BEEN ABLE TO REACH BEFORE.

There he quickly meets (and falls in love with) a young female warrior named Avanthika (played marvelously by Tamanna Bhatia [IMDb] [FiBt]) who, along with her guerilla band was trying to free her Queen Devasana (played by Anushka Shetty [IMDb] [FiBt]) chained for 25 years in the Capital of a kingdom ruled by a quite Evil and as quite possibly usurper King (Rana Daggubati [IMDb] [FiBt]) who had been grooming his son (played also by Rana Daggubati [IMDb] [FiBt]) for the throne.

Obviously, this terrible state of affairs existing in this new world that Shividu has discovered is tied to his own orphaned "dropped out of the sky" ("dropped down a seemingly an impossible waterfall") past and his future destiny as (the Returning and presumably Regal) Baahubali.  But how?  And why?  The rest of the story ensues ...   

And yet, Readers remember, that Baahubali's destiny isn't simply to "Return / become a King."  If you've read the Wikipedia article about this Jainist hero, it becomes much more more than that ... ;-)  And much of that will probably play out in Part II of this Saga.

So this becomes one heck of a story and the cinematography, art & set design / wardrobe, battlefield choreography, etc, just plain general _direction_ meets the challenge of telling it right.  One really feels, repeatedly, that one's entered into another spectacular and beautiful world. 
 
The result is a truly spectacular film, worthy of its praise!


<< 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 Man Who Knew Infinity [2015]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChicagoTribune (2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmiBeat listing

ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (K. Rive) review

Hindustan Times (G. Bhaskaran) review
Times of India (TNN) review

The Guardian (P. Bradshaw) review
The Telegraph (T. Robey) review

The Man Who Knew Infinity [2015] [FiBt] (screenplay and directed by Matthew Brown based on the biography [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Robert Kanigel [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] of Indian-born mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan [wikip] [IMDb]) is an high quality / excellent biopic about a person, non-white..., that most of us should perhaps know more about, but ... probably don't, or at least not yet.

Srinivasa Ramanujan [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film by Dev Patel) was born in the 1887 near Madras, today Chennai in Tamil Nadu, India to a Brahmin (upper caste) family of Tamil origin.  As such, young S. Ramanujan was from a caste that both valued and had access to education, even if, still under British Colonial rule, the facilities available to young Indians of his time were limited.

So ... young S. Ramunajan did not necessarily have the _formal_ mathematical education that he would have had, if he had been born at the time in England.  Still ... he found himself fascinated by the abstract beauty of mathematics and became very, very good at it.

Early in the film, he explained to his wife Janaki (played by Devika Bhise) that he saw in Nature all around him "colors (mathematical patterns) that one can not see." Later to incredulous, famously atheistic "you can only trust that which you can verify (prove)" British professors of Cambridge University of the early 1900s, he declared every mathematical theorem that he discovered (OFTEN ENOUGH THROUGH THE MEDITATIVE PRACTICES OF HIS HINDU FAITH / UPBRINGING) "a thought of God" ;-).

He was thus -- to Western Eyes -- an unexpected genius, and fairly early on in his career as "a clerk by day" and "mathematician by night" he was encouraged by his Indian mentors / colleagues to send some of his work from Madras, India to England, eventually landing on the desk of G.H. Hardy [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film by Jeremy Irons) of Trinity College, Cambridge who while lamenting the S. Ramanajan's "lack of vigor" (Ramanajan would conflate 5, 10 steps of a proof into one) appreciated the beauty even audacity of his results.

Thus eventually S. Ramanajan was invited by G.H. Hardy to Cambridge to work with him and a fairly interesting / honestly-portrayed friendship (of sorts) / collaboration (again, of sorts) proceeded from there.  This was, after all, a gradual "meeting of minds" and, indeed, a "meeting of cultures" one that IMHO we're still not even close to completing.

Throughout the story, G.H. Hardy is repeatedly confronted by the twin realities that S. Ramanajan is both BRILLIANT and VERY DIFFERENT than he is and that S. Ramanajan had very different (and often VERY PRACTICAL) problems than he had: (1) S. Ramanajan was a VEGETARIAN.  A good part of the story plays out during World War I (during a time of quite severe rationing in England).  The logic of Britain's war-time rationing simply did not take into account the needs of some like him.  (2) S. Ramanajan didn't just "drop out of the sky" when he arrived in Cambridge.  HE HAD A FAMILY (wife and mother) "back home" in Madras, India.  In contrast, G.H. Hardy, a quite typical "Western Intellectual" of his time, was "married to his work" and hence had NO ONE really to worry about (or even _care about_ ...) "back home." So S. Ramanajan's quite practical and very _human_ needs were often incomprehensible to Hardy.

All this reminded me quite well of a still quite recent Provincial Chapter that we had in my Order (the Servants of Mary) in which one of our South African (Zulu) Servite Friars (my Province, the USA Province of the Servite Order is responsible for Servite Missions in Kwa-Zulu, South Africa) noted that when it comes to "cultural adaptation" it seems always to be easier for those coming from the poorer countries to "adapt" to the ways / customs, etc of the wealthier ones than the other way around ;-).

And so it was here ... S. Ramanajan was being asked repeatedly, even by fairly sympathetic people (including G.H. Hargy) "to adapt" to the ways of the British.  And yet, he had things to offer, and not even just "his mathematical genius," to his British patrons / (sort of) colleagues.

It all makes for a great story ... and one that continues to unfold today.  One hopes that we are a few chapters further into the story of "the meeting of cultures / civilizations" but it's still an ungoing process.  Excellent film!


ADDENDUM:

As "quite excellent" as the current film is, to anyone truly interested in movies today, it is obvious that India (with a larger film industry than even Hollywood's) is more than capable of telling its own story.  As such, in much the spirit of last year, when I did a "Film Tour of Russia" (so that Readers here would get exposed to _more_ than just "ponderous" and _extremely boring/depressing_ Russian / or even still Soviet-era "epics"),  I'm going to do a "Film Tour of India" this year as well, focusing on the INDIAN FILMS that "made it" both _critically_ and _popularly_ IN INDIA in the past year.  I hope to do both such contemporary film tours (of India and Russia) annually from now on ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Captain America: Civil War [2016]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (M. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Captain America: Civil War [2016] (directed by Anthony and Joe Russo [wikip] [IMDb-1] [IMDb-2]  screenplay by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely based the Marvel Comics based graphic novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Mark Millar [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] characters by Joe Simon [IMDb] and Jack Kirby [IMDb]) left me MARVELING anew at the sensitivity / brilliance of those working for the Marvel Comics trademark.  For their products, certainly their films, are "comic books with a conscience."

For nearly a generation now, we've been inundated with comic book superhero movies.  And it has been _largely_ fun _watching_ various "superheroes" be they from the Marvel or the DC Comicbook Universes doing all sorts of feats that we, mere mortals, could never do.  Yet interestingly enough, both Marvel Comics here and DC Comics a few months earlier (with its Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice [2016] offering) have quite bravely sought to confront head-on the nagging questions: Would actual "superheroes" be worth it?  Would we _really_ want them around?

In Batman v Superman, BOTH Bruce Wayne/Batman and Clark Kent/Superman MISTRUSTED each other (as did many other "civilians").  Both saw the Other as (at least potentially) UNACCOUNTABLE VIGILANTES who PERHAPS may "do good" for the "Average Joe" BUT THERE WAS NO _CERTAIN_ REASON TO BELIEVE that EITHER would have to continue to do so in the future. 

Near the the beginning of the current film here, Captain America: Civil War [2016], the Marvel superheroes, united under the title Avengers, are confronted by a perhaps "grateful" but also _frightened_ ("shocked and awed"...) humanity with the the COLLATERAL COSTS of having them around:  Yes, they do _seem to_ "save the world" from all kinds of strange / NEW Super Villains that now seem to arise / arrive OUT OF NOWHERE ...  BUT ... end up killing _a lot_ of innocents in the process.  So early in the film, after a botched Avengers' led anti-terrorist raid in Africa, the leaders of humanity, ask, nay DEMAND that The Avengers submit themselves to United Nations oversight, and ... SOME of the Avengers gang accept this, and OTHERS do not.

FASCINATING HERE is the composition of the two groups and their reasons for choosing one way or another..  My hat off to the makers of the film here.  THIS FILM can be used / REFERRED TO by Junior High / High school teachers ALL OVER THE WORLD to discuss the relative merits of freedom/sovereignty of the individual (or individual nations) vs responsibility to others / society ("to the collective") and to the other nations / peoples of the world.

IMHO this film _really is brilliant_ in pointing out that NONE OF US (or Nation) have the right to be COMPLETELY SOVEREIGN (to do whatever we like ...).  And yet, we have a Right even Duty (!) to be suspicious of those who lead Society ("the Collective") or the "Family of Nations."

So guess who chooses NOT to submit himself to United Nations oversight and WHY? ;-)  It's absolutely brilliant.  And yet the film also shows the cost, and the Avengers "on the other side" argue a good case as well (notably that A Just Order will have space for Conscience as well as the necessary checks and balances (if nothing else, bureaucratic levers / inertia) to keep the responsible (hopefully elected) Leaders of said Order (in Catholic parlance "Competent Authority") in check.  (So again, guess who's willing to submit to said U.N. oversight, while confident that there'd be NO "Order" that really could contain him anyway? ;-)  AGAIN, JUST BRILLIANT :-) ;-)  


Again, my hat off to Marvel.  This is one FASCINATING / FANTASTIC teen oriented film that teaches both responsibility to Others (Society / "the Collective" as a whole) and the need to _always be suspicious_ of the "Great Leaders" (perhaps even "really cool Super Heroes" ;-) of our World.

Four, Four Stars!  


<< 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! :-) >>

Mother's Day [2016]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (L)  ChicagoTribune (1 Star)  RE.com (1/2 Star)  AVClub (D-)  Fr. Dennis (1/2 Star)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW about the movie Mother's Day [2016] (directed by Garry Marshall screenplay by Tom Hines, Lily Hollander, Anya Kochoff and Matthew Walker) is that it's actually something of an UN-/ even ANTI-MOTHER'S DAY film.

So if you have a pretty good relationship with your mother, unless your mom has _a really good sense of humor_ AND _you honestly have next to nothing else to do_, I would _not recommend_ this movie as something for you to see with your mother on Mother's Day.

On the other hand, if you perhaps REALLY HATE YOUR MOTHER / ARE DEEPLY ESTRANGED FROM (NOT TALKING FOR YEARS WITH) HER or perhaps YOU ARE A MOTHER who REALLY FEELS THAT YOU'VE MESSED-UP YOUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH YOUR CHILDREN then this film COULD PERHAPS BE OF SOME COMFORT TO YOU (or honestly ... drive you over the edge).  It's _not_ a "happy film."

For NONE of the mothers in this "ensemble film" (set in and around up-scale Atlanta) are having a good time of it:

Sandy (played by Jennifer Aniston) is a late 30-something suburban divorced mom with two sons Peter and Mikey and (played by Brandon Spink and Caleb Brown) who, "yes we have a joint custody agreement, but can you _please_ make an exception here," is being asked to _share_ Mother's Day with her utterly emotionally tone deaf ex-husband Henry (played by Timothy Oliphant) AND HIS NEW still early-mid 20-something BOMBSHELL of a second wife Tina (played by Shay Mitchell), "It'd mean SO MUCH TO HER ..."   Honestly ('cept for the reality that one's going _have to deal with them_ for the rest of one's life anyway...) "F-you Henry and your cradle-robbing second wife..." 

Then there are grown sisters Jesse (played by Kate Hudson) and Gabi (played by Sarah Chalke) both in estranged complicated relationships with their "trailer trash / red-neck" mother Flo (played by Margo Martindale) and father Earl (played by Robert Pine).

Jesse simply broke-off her relationship with her parents rather than tell them that she was dating, let alone eventually married, an Indian doctor named strangely enough "Russell" (played by Aasif Mandvi).  And she apparently told Russell, who had never met her parents, that they were both "institutionalized" somewhere in Arizona and FOR SOME REASON that "story" was enough (rather than A RED FLAG) for him who didn't ask any questions / married her anyway because ... well, SHE WAS WHITE.  This plot point is absolutely ABSURD to me: "Honey, my family owns half of the Punjab, and I myself am a very successful Atlanta based medical doctor and could be set-up with / marrying any number of beautiful, young, rich, educated Indian women from good / similarly wealthy Indian families, heck perhaps even Bollywood starlets ... ) while I know NOTHING ABOUT YOU except for your blonde hair, skin color and  perhaps nice smile (and even that your family has a history of _severe mental illness_ ...), but hey you're WHITE so I'll present _you_ to _my parents_ and marry you.  THEY will be SOOO proud ..."

Gabi, on the other hand, still "skypes" with her parents (retired or just unemployed, driving around the country in their mobile home...), while lying to them about her life.  For she's a Lesbian with a wife named Max (played by Cameron Esposito) and an 8 year old son produced by artificial insemination.  Instead, Gabi's telling her parents that she has some kind of an investment banker (male) as her fiance', one who they, of course, have never seen.

Then there's Bradley (played by Jason Sudeikis) retired Marine now upscale gym owner with two young daughters Vicky and Rachel (played by Ella Anderson and Jessi Case).  He lost his wife / they their mother (played by Jennifer Garner) also a Marine while she was deployed in Afghanistan during the past year. 

There's also a young 20-something couple Zach (played by Jack Whitehall) and Kristin (played by Britt Robertson) who get by working in a bar.  Together they have a young baby.  Zach would like to get married, while Kristin, who was first adopted, then lost both of her adopted parents in her teenage / young adult years to illness has (unsurprisingly) abandonment issues.

Finally, there's Miranda (played by Julia Roberts) a "Home Shopping Network" celebrity who's hawking all kinds of  "Mother's Day" gifts on her show throughout the whole film BUT ... didn't seem to have a family of her own.

So these then are the characters inhabiting the 5-6 interweaving story-lines of this "Mother's Day" movie.   Again, this is NOT a film celebrating "the joys of Motherhood" ...

... but it may have a place (outside of Mothers' Day) if one's own relationship with one's mother / parents is not particularly good (or if one's felt that one's really messed-up in one's parental role...).

So ... "yuck" to this film at least as a "Mother's Day" offering and perhaps "yuck" to the film in general.  Sigh ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Eye in the Sky [2016]

MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (A-III)   RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jenson) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Cheshire) review
AVClub (A. Nayman) review

The Guardian (B. Lee) review


Eye in the Sky [2016] (directed by Gavin Hood screenplay by Guy Hibbert) is a TRULY EXCELLENT contemporary military thriller set around a fictionalized joint British-Kenyan capture / rendition operation assisted by real-time surveillance offered by an (armed if necessary) American drone set to take place in a Nairobi slum against a number of high value operatives from the Somali Al Shabaab terrorist organization (affiliated with Al Queda).

Among those slated for capture were the #2 man of Al Shabaab along with his British-born but radicalized wife (played by Lex King).  British / Kenyan intelligence had been tipped-off that they were to meet two arriving recruits, one from the U.S. and the other from Britain in a nondescript if (now that B/K intel knew about it) surprisingly insecure safe-house near the edge of a Al Shabaab controlled Nairobi slum. 
 
A British colonel Katherine Powell (played excellently by Helen Mirren) who had been tasked with  searching for / tracking the Somali-British terrorist power-couple for five years, is in overall tactical command of the operation from a British military base in Southern England.  She is in real-time communication with a staggering array of far-flung personnel:

(1) Kenyan intelligence agents Jama Farah and Damisi (played by Barkhad Abdi and Ebby Weyime) staking-out both Nairobi's airport (for the arrivals of the two recruits) as well as the said home where the meeting is to take place;

(2) the leader of the Kenyan Special Forces detachment (played by Bronson Mwangi) massed in a warehouse nearby awaiting her order to storm the house in question;

(3) U.S. Air Force personnel, 2nd Leut. Steve Watts and 1AC Carrie Gershon (played by Aaron Paul and Phoebe Fox), operating out of a self-contained 2-person air conditioned "module" (one of many) at a U.S.A.F. Base outside of Las Vegas, from where they pilot the armed Reaper drone flying 20,000 ft over Nairobi with its "television eye" fixed on the building in question;

(4) a U.S. presumably NSA imaging expert Lucy Galvez (played by Kim Engelbrecht) operating out of the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii tasked with giving quick confirmation of the presence of the people being targeted through the application of state-of-the-art facial recognition technology on images supplied to her by both the Kenyan intel operatives on the ground (at the airport / by the house) and the U.S.A.F. personnel operating the overhead drone; and finally

(5) her superior Lieutenant General Frank Benson (played by Alan Rickman) observing the operation from his office along with military lawyer Maj. Harold Webb (played by John Heffernan), the British Attorney General George Matherson (played by Richard McCabe) and finally a representative from Parliament Angela Northman (played by Monica Dolan) present in the room with him as well.


Jama Farah, the Kenyan intelligence agent at the airport, and then the operators of the U.S. drone are able send images to the NSA imaging expert in Hawaii that confirm the arrival of the two British / American recruits into the country and then to the house in question.  But who else is in the house?  Powell asks the Kenyan intel. agent Damisi staked out in a surveillance van nearby to investigate.  Agent Damisi then flies a hummingbird like drone by the windows of the house to try to peer in but to no avail.

Then, suddenly, the two recruits, said #2 man for Al Shabaab AND A WOMAN (but covered with a headscarf) appear to step-out of the building and into a van ... QUICKLY LEAVING the COMPOUND and heading into the Al Shabaab controlled slum nearby.  The aerial drone operators are able to keep eyes on the van until it stops at another house now definitely in the midst of the Al Shabaab controlled slum.  At this point, any "capture" option has become impossible (it would be a pitched battle in the middle of a heavily defended urban neighborhood).  HOWEVER a "drone strike" (targeted assassination) remains possible.  But ...

Do Col. Powell (and her superior Lt. Gen Benson) have the authority to do so?  Powell believes that she does, Lt. Gen. Benson is not sure, and the rest of the "observers" in his office are even less so.  After all, an attack on the said house would _kill_ two British nationals and an American one.  Yes, one was married to an Al Shabaab leader and two were recruits.  However, Maj. Harold Webb counsels "referring the matter up" to the British Foreign Secretary (played by Iain Glen).  They track him down AT A TRADE CONFERENCE in SINGAPORE.  He wants the affirmation of American support as well.  The U.S. Secretary of State (played by Michael O'Keefe) is at "a ping pong exhibition" in China and when he gets the call, doesn't understand the problem: The Al Shabaab leaders in question were already on U.S.'s "kill list" and the recruits were already considered enemy combatants.  Still the British were squeamish

In the meantime, Powell -- remember she's been following the two Al Shabaab leaders for years now -- asks the Kenyan intelligence people to get at least somebody close to the house in question.  Agent Jama Farah gets close and even flies a _insect (beatle) sized_ drone INTO THE HOUSE where TO THE HORROR OF ALL it's discovered that there are two suicide vests ready for the two new recruits to wear.  Al Shabaab itself seems to have something imminent planned ...

So ... the order is sent to the drone pilots there in Las Vegas that they want them to prepare to fire a Hell Fire missile at the house.  While certainly trained to do so, NEITHER of the two young pilots of the drone have actually been ordered to do this at an actual target ... and then ...

TO THE HORROR OF ALL ... the drone pilots spot A LITTLE GIRL (Alia was her name, played by Aisha Takow) SETTING-UP A TABLE RIGHT NEXT TO THE HOUSE IN QUESTION TO SELL BREAD.  What now???  The rest of the story follows ...


This is an excellent film, and I really do wish that EVERYONE that could conceivably be involved in a scenario like this SEE THE FILM -- Americans, Brits, RUSSIANS, CHINESE, AL SHABAAB, EVERYBODY.

It's such a tough call: Do you KILL _one kid_ TO SAVE _MAYBE_ 80?  (and of course, one is not targeting the kid, one's targeting the terrorists next door, but the collateral damage would probably kill the kid ...).

I thought that THE PILOTS (both YOUNG PEOPLE) played their roles EXCELLENTLY.  I thought that Helen Mirren played _her role_ EXCELLENTLY as well (after all SHE knew what those people inside the house were capable of).    I thought that Monica Dolan playing the representative from Parliament PLAYED HER ROLE _EXCELLENTLY_ telling the General that she did not come to this action to observe a targeted assassination let alone the slaughter of an innocent, that Parliament itself needed to discuss and Vote (!) on the "Rules of Engagement" for situations like this.   And Alan Rickman as SAID GENERAL played _his role_ EXCELLENTLY reminding the M.P. "not to lecture a military officer about the cost of war."

THIS BECOMES A VERY POWERFUL FILM that does not let ANYBODY escape without SQUIRMING.  THIS WOULD BE A REALLY TOUGH CALL.


<< 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 Meddler [2015]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review 


The Meddler [2015] (written and directed by Lorene Scafaria) is a Mother-Daughter film that's finding its way to theaters in the U.S. a week before Mothers' Day. 

And while there are aspects of the story that I'd change -- I do think that the title "Meddling" character, Marnie (played by Susan Sarandon), is portrayed as being WAY TOO RICH to be completely credible to most audience members.  Then the wedding of her daughter's friend that Marnie bankrolls (because she has the money to just "drop" on such things ;-) is, of course, _a lesbian wedding_ which while au courant (and I'm not necessarily entirely unsympathetic, I've written about the credibility-in-the-culture costs to the Catholic Church for its "self-boxing-itself-in" opposition to gay rights / gay marriage before) is not exactly (and probably will never be, because of demographic percentages) a "common experience" to most viewers or even a particularly "need driven" situation (she wasn't exactly bankrolling the wedding of a refugee couple from Honduras or Syria ...) -- it's _not_ a bad film, and certainly one that "rings true" in other aspects.

Marnie's a widow.  Her husband died two years prior and missing him / missing her sense of family that was built around him, she moves to Los Angeles from New Jersey to be close(r) to her daughter Lori (played quite credibly / marvelously by Rose Byrne). 

Lori's a struggling late 30-something Hollywood screenwriter who's also trying to get-over / move-on after a painfully significant loss in her life: Her appropriately aged 30-something actor boyfriend Jacob (played with plausibly sincere "that's just life" cluelessness by Jason Ritter) had dumped her sometime still fairly recently for a more attractive / significantly younger actress (played by Megalyn Echikunwoke).   Mom's emotionally sudden arrival (to stay...) in Southern California _wasn't_ experienced by (would have probably preferred to keep her basketcase-ness largely to herself) daughter as "helpful."  And mom, who of course _just loves her daughter_ "doesn't understand."

So Mom Marnie trying "to be helpful" spends the first half of the story crossing _all kinds of emotionally charged boundaries_:  She finds out about and goes to _a baby shower_ that her daughter Lori had been invited to, even though daughter Lori, depressed (and _not_ wanting to be around sincere / supportive friends who at the end of the day _wouldn't be able to help her anyway_ ...) herself did not attend.   And what does Marnie do?  She gets herself involved in the lives of daughter Lori's friends (including in the above mentioned wedding plans of one of them ...).  At one point, Marnie even finds THE PSYCHOLOGIST that Lori is going to and tries to talk to her (the _psychologist_) in hopes of "getting information out of her" about Lori's emotional state (YES, those are a couple of pain scenes to watch ...)

So, eventually Lori leaves Marnie to "watch her two dogs" and flies to New York to be present (for a number of weeks ...) at the taping of screen-pilot that she had written for some sort of a TV show.

That leaves Marnie, alone, in Los Angeles (remember she's come there from _New Jersey_, right next to New York, where her daughter has now gone to ...).

The rest of the story -- in somewhat "Forrest Gump-ish" fashion -- unfolds from there ...

Again, this is _not a bad film_.   And it's often quite emotionally charged with some very poignant and heart-rending situations.  And that's why I wish they had made Marnie "a little less rich" and perhaps resisted a bit more the temptation go give-in to needless cultural tendentiousness.  

At its heart though, this film remains a good Mother-Daughter film that will have the audience tearing-up in parts as well.

So overall 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! :-) >>