The Dark Tower [2017]

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

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


The Dark Tower [2017] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Nicolaj Arcel along with Akiva Goldman, Jeff Pinker and Anders Thomas Jensen, based on the series of books [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Stephen King [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]), given its tortured production history -- the project began in 2007 (!) -- can perhaps be forgiven for feeling exactly as it does ... a tired survivor of a Hollywood meat-grinder.

Yet given both the truly legendary successes of previous adaptations of Stephen King's commercial "magical realist" works to the silver screen (oh my, where does one start? -- Carrie [1976] [2013], The Shining [1980], The Shawshank Redemption [1994], complete / continuing (!) lists are maintained on both IMDb and Wikipedia) as well as the specific success of the Dark Tower series of books [wikip], a fertile vein of King's cross-genre (Fantasy, SciFi, Western and Horror) speculative fiction that grew into an OCTOLOGY (!), it was inevitable that _eventually_ A FILM (of some sort...) would be made.  And perhaps the best news for Stephen King fans and then fans of the Dark Tower series in particular is that a parallel television series starring a fair number of the actors in the current film is scheduled for release in 2018.

SOOO ... the final and yet (coming full circle) now _primary_ purpose of the current film comes to be to simply introduce Viewers who haven't have the time (or interest...) to read the whole eight volume series (+ the graphic novels [GR] that apparently the series inspired) to the "world" in which the Dark Tower series plays out.

So then ... said "world" in which the Dark Tower series plays out is actually a MultiVerse (a series of discrete universes that can be passed through, from one to another, through various portals.  At the center of this MultiVerse is a beacon / "tent pole"-like Dark Tower, which (for reasons / by means unclear) keeps the forces of Evil (Entropy?) "outside" the MultiVerse structure allowing it to exist.

The grand conflict in the current story is between an Evil / Nihilistic "wizard" named ... there are SOME who call him "Walter" and others who call him "The Man in Black" played actually quite well by Matthew McConoughey ... who wants to knockdown said tent-pole-like Dark Tower, AND Roland Deschain (played by Idris Elba), the sole surviving Western-style (yet "Knight-like") "Gunslinger" of his world, entrusted to protect his world (and hence, though he does not completely realize this yet, ALL THE OTHER WORLDS of this MultiVerse, including those of Earth AND of that the Dark Tower) from the forces of Evil.

Now why would "Walter" (aka "The Man in Black") want to knock down The Dark Tower?  Well, given his Nihilism, "because it's there" (to be knocked down) and at least in part because he sees this as "inevitable" (and if it's going to be knocked down _eventually_, why not be the one to do so).

The problem is that to knock "The Dark Tower" down, one needs to shell it with _the minds of innocent children_.  So the now Evil and always Nihilistic wizard "Walter" (and his minions) hop (through portals) from one universe to another TO ABDUCT CHILDREN who they then strap to a monstrous machine that would hurl their innocent minds (in SciFi-like catapult fashion...) against this Dark Tower at the Center of "All that Is" (that Tent-like MultiVerse).

And so then this brings the story "down to earth" specifically into the world of random 14-year old New York residing Jake Chambers (played by Tom Taylor) who's being tormented by dreams of a "Dark Tower," a "Man in Black" and a "Gunslinger" and "does not know why," causing him, unsurprisingly, trouble both at home and at school ...

Of course poor-troubled/confused Jake becomes a key figure in "saving the MultiVerse" (even BIGGER than our Universe ;-) from a Fate that most of us, let alone Jake's parents / teachers could POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND ... ;-)

Much, much, much naturally must ensue ... ;-)

Introduced like this, in the fashion above, it does make for one heck of a story ;-) ... but after 10 years of studio-infighting, one just hopes that the ensuing television series does it justice.    

Good job, sort of ;-)


<< 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! :-) >

Atomic Blonde [2017]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Abrams) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Atomic Blonde [2017] (directed by David Leitch, screenplay by Kurt Johnstad based on the graphic novel The Coldest City [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Antony Johnston [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] and Sam Hart [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) can perhaps be understood as a true contemporary successor to hard-boiled Hollywood detective stories of the past.

Set nominally (_very_ nominally) in Berlin during the week just before The Wall came down, an early credit "assures" Viewers that this film is not going to tell "that story."  Instead, it would tell a classic (and formulaic) hard-boiled tale of corruption and mayhem, set this time among the neon lit clubs, short skirts, mohawks and platinum hair of 1980s-era West Berlin and the crew-cuts, drab concrete-based architecture and Trabants (those ridiculous 2-stroke lawn-mower-engine-driven cars of the since thankfully gone and buried DDR) of East Berlin.

And this of course bothers someone like me, of Czech decent, my Czech name Zdenek given to me in honor of my uncle who had been jailed by the Communists because _there was_ A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between the East (under the yoke an arrogant and totalitarian ideology) and the West (where ideologies no matter the loudness / arrogance and self-certainty of their proponents still had to _and still have to_ compete for their citizenry's votes).

Perhaps in the midst of the intrigues of "the spy game" the concepts of Right and Wrong "get lost." However, there's no doubt in my mind that the World's a better place that The Wall came down and that hundreds of millions of people of Central and Eastern Europe are now _free-er_ than they ever were under the Communists.

But rather than focus on the Freedom won by common people, the film _chooses_ to focus back on the "Power comes from the Barrel of a Gun" intrigues of the spy-vs-spy world of the Cold War Era where fundamental concepts like Freedom apparently become "blurred" or even "quaint."

But then, the makers of "hard-boiled spy / detective fiction" -- one thinks here of the Humphrey Bogart "Sam Spade" [wikip] [IMDb] movies of the 1930s-40s or the Clint Eastwood "Dirty Harry" [wikip] [IMDb] movies of the 1970s-80s -- don't exactly seek to compete for "human rights awards."  Indeed, the film here spins a quite classic Noir tale with its big "unspeakable secret" being that at least among the Cold War's spy-game warriors there really wasn't much difference between the "Good Folks" and "Bad ones."

Still, it irritates me that _this tale_ was set during the Berlin Wall's final week (when to everybody the story ought to be, the Wall's coming down) rather than setting it a few years before hand, when the argument that "Evil exists on Both Sides" would seem more palatable.

Incidently, a FASCINATING COUNTERPOINT TO THE CURRENT FILM (whose point seemed still so clearly to be that "in many ways both sides were the same") is the CZECH Noir classic Alois Nebel [2011] [Amzn-Video] which ALSO originated first as a graphic novel and was set ALSO in the final months of Communism BUT with that story's "unspeakable secret" being the still largely not dealt-with sins of the Communist Era notably that (1) the Communist Regime's opponents were often _thrown into_ Psychiatric Institutions ("Electric Shock Treatments" and all...) for being unable to "appreciate" the "wonderfulness" of the Communist Regime and that (2) all kinds of people had been expelled / jailed / deported (including three million ethnic Germans out of Czechoslovakia) for all kinds of still never openly admitted-to reasons.  Alois Nebel [2011] [Amzn-Video] indeed spins truly ONE HELL OF A TALE.

All this taken into account, Charlize Theron's role in the current film as MI-6 superspy Lorraine Broughton DOES MAKE for an _utterly unforgettable_ "no nonsense" indeed _ice cold_ (she literally takes a bath in ice water ;-) "hard boiled" character WORTHY of entering into the world's collective subconscious archetype ensemble along side Dashiell Hammett's Sam Spade / Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer and Ian Fleming's MI-6 superspy James Bond.  Indeed, that Ms Broughton is portrayed as a Lesbian or at minimum "Bi" seems to fit the icy/piercing character -- this woman is _clearly_ "her own boss" and (as we've allowed James Bond to do similarly) "for King and Country" she's willing "to go to bed with anybody."

And so when she arrives in Berlin during those fateful days in November, 1989 to "retrieve a master list of spies" feared to be in the hands of the Soviets, while ALSO looking out for the "Mole" who may have facilitated the capture of said list by said Soviets, much mayhem has to ensue.  And yes, many / most Viewers will watch mesmerized (and probably smiling, internally, "from ear to ear") as we watch this superspy WOMAN "take-out" (usually male Agents) with her RED STILETTO HEALED SHOE, or BASH THEIR FACES IN WITH FIRST _THE DOOR OF A MICROWAVE_ AND THEN TO FINISH HIM OFF WITH THE MICROWAVE ITSELF  ;-)

Indeed, for what this film is, it is a wildly entertaining one, well shot, paced and choreographed,   I just wish that it was set in November 1985 rather than November 1989.

 So more or less good to GREAT job ;-)


ADDENDUM:

Another film that would be fascinating to watch in conjunction to the current one is the recent CUBAN film (financed by crowd-sourcing, hence largely with WESTERN (Spanish) and even _some_ CUBAN EXILE money ;-) named Dark Glasses (orig. Espejuelos Oscuros) [2015].  Directed by a young female Cuban director named Jessica Rodriguez, it tells in classic "1001 Nights" fashion the stories of a variety of Cuban women over the course of Cuba's history (including during the most recent Communist Era) who cleverly outwitted the men they encountered oppressing them.  Presently unavailable _anywhere_ the film's official YouTube website can be found here (and it'd be worth pressing the film's owners to find a way to make it available on any number of streaming services, including, of course, YouTube).  It's truly _an excellent film_ and again wonderfully fits some of the thematics of the current one 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! :-) >

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets [2017]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets [2017] (screenplay and directed by Luc Besson [wikip] [IMDb], based on the comic book series Valérian and Laureline [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Pierre Christin [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] and Jean-Claude Mézières [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) should, if nothing else, become a _must see_ for Sci-Fi fans.

The mostly American born critics above complain about the (lack of a) plot (they have a point, there isn't much of one...).  But honestly I say: FORGET ABOUT THE PLOT AND JUST _GLORY_ IN THE WORLD(S) PORTRAYED.  This film is like the entering the audience hooking / utterly unforgettable "Space Bar" scene in the original Star Wars [1977] movie (upon which the Valerian and Laureline [wikip] comic books apparently had an influence), passing through a Harry Potter-like portal into a distant / presently utterly unfamiliar part of the universe and ... gleefully _staying there_ for the rest of the experience, err ... film ;-).

Honestly, if a video-game comes out based on this film, especially one that allowed one to just "travel its universe" I'D BUY IT.  (Similarly I'd also be willing TO PAY for the experience of spending a night of "bar hopping" on the circa-1920s Parisian street of Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris [2011] chatting it up with actors playing the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway and Salvador Dali ;-)).

Indeed, my main criticism of the recent Star Wars based film Rogue One [2016] was that it still adhered too slavishly to the Star Wars story arc.  Here was an entire galaxy in which the film-makers could have gloried in, and they chose to focus yet again on "the Empire's" "Death Star."

So I didn't mind that the current film didn't have much of a plot.  Indeed, I would have preferred even _less_ plot and just be allowed to explore the world(s) portrayed -- the tranquil, white-sanded / baby blue ocean "beach planet" of "Müt," a virtual bazaar (located in a dimension only perceived when one put-on a special pair of glasses) on a seemingly a (Casablanca [1942]-evoking) French Colonial desert planet, and then a shape-shifting / pole-dancing curvy-to-blobby blue alien that could be characterized as a smurf crossed with a Na'vi from Avatar [2010] named Booble (and played in show-stopping fashion by Rhianna)! 

In any case, in my dream Sci-Fi film festival, I would include George Lucas' Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope [1977], late Russian director Aleskey German's ponderous Hard to be a God [2015] and now the current film.  All portray unforgettable worlds "far far away" but with strikingly different concerns and priorities.

Weakness of plot in the current film aside (and again, is plot necessarily all-important in a visual medium?) this film remains a stunning visual feast.  HENCE, AN AWESOME 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! :-) >

Dunkirk [2017]

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


Dunkirk [2017] (written and directed by Christopher Nolan [wikip] [IMDb]) I came to with some trepidation as well as some biases:

As a person of Czech descent who remembers that Britain essentially gave my parents' country of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis _on a platter_ two years before the desperate battle portrayed in the current film, I came to this story with some anger because this battle need not have happened _at all_ if then Prime Minister Chamberlain had done the right thing and stood with Czechoslovakia (the only remaining democracy in Central Europe at the time) in the 1938 Sudeten Crisis.  Instead he handed my parents' country over to a Dictator, Hitler, again, _on a platter_, who, of course then only wanted more ...

But that said, and after the British / French endured some crazy "Rules of Engagement" restrictions (imposed by the Belgians -- who didn't let the Brits / French even come into their country until Germany actually invaded them ...) helping to precipitate Brits / French armies' encirclement at Dunkirk ... this becomes a GREAT STORY OF NATIONAL SURVIVAL:

No matter what the circumstances were that got the Brits (and the French) into this horrific mess, this was now WAR and a War with the stakes as high as they could possibly be ... Honestly, it's hard to imagine what the world would be like today if Britain had been unable to successfully evacuate 400,000 of its soldiers encircled around Dunkirk.  Yes, the British army lost the greater portion of its heavy and mobile weaponry there in the Dunkirk pocket.  HOWEVER, it was able to save a good portion of the soldiers, and thus be able to continue to defend Britain from invasion.  Had those 400,000 soldiers been captured, Britain would not have had a credible army to defend itself with.  And if Britain had fallen in 1940, THE WORLD WOULD BE UTTERLY DIFFERENT THAN IT IS TODAY.

So writer-director Nolan portrays in this film THE TRUE DRAMA of the TRUE HEROICS that it took to get those 400,000 British (and hundreds of thousands of French) soldiers, ever under enemy fire, from Dunkirk and back to Britain.

Stylistically Nolan does so by telling three intertwining (and at times admittedly confusing) stories (because the timeline of each of the three stories was different) -- (1) "from the mole" (from the perspective of the soldiers _on the ground_, and more specifically _on the beaches_ in and around Dunkirk, (2) "on the sea" (presenting the story of the civilian (!!) boat owners who were called by the British Navy to cross the English Channel to get to Dunkirk in whatever boats that they had -- from yachts to sailboats to fishing trawlers -- to evacuate the soldiers trapped there), and (3) "in the air" (telling the story of the RAF pilots at the time who risked and sacrificed their own lives for the soldiers and sailors _below them_ by scattering / fending off Nazi Luftwaffe attacks during the height of the evacuation).

Again, it all makes for a great and compelling story, reminding us of the heroism of these men, and ALSO of the ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY RALLYING / _CHEERLEADING_ of the great Winston Churchill who succeeded the disastrously naive / incompetent Neville Chamberlain as Britain's Prime Minister and who really did _step up_ when the country and even THE WORLD needed him.

As a War movie (and then made, again, in a somewhat confusing intertwining style) this film is not necessarily for everybody.  However, if one wants to see a movie about STEPPING-UP / bravery when the stakes truly are high, this is it.  GREAT, 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! :-) >

War for the Planet of the Apes [2017]

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

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


War for the Planet of the Apes [2017] (directed and cowritten by Mark Reeves along with Mark Bomback based on the characters created by Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver), block-bustery though it is, is not exactly (the recent) "Spider-Man" ;-), neither is it intended to be.  So Dear Readers, if you think that you can "put aside your mind" as you watch this film, smiling from ear-to-ear with a big tub of popcorn in your lap, that's probably not going to happen.  That will probably disappoint / anger some, while others will make the best of it, saying to themselves "Okay, this is not a pure entertainment flick, let me then try to reflect on what the film-makers are trying to say."

The current film, the third of a series of "prequels" [1] [2] to the famed 1960s-70s era Planet of the Apes [wikip] [IMDb] film-franchise inspired by the novel (1963) [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by French author Pierre Boulle [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb], explores the Rise of a new Civilization of the Apes (as well as the simultaneous / corresponding collapse of the Human one): It would have had to have been an "Apocalypse" -- or as a graffiti in the current film declares it to have been an "Ape-ocalypse" ;-).  Postulated in this series of prequels is a human Mass Extinction Event brought about by a viral "simian flu" which simultaneously killed the vast majority of humans while greatly increasing the capacities of Apes (allowing them to walk erect as well as develop true language -- some Apes in the current film were able to speak while most others could communicate by means of a by now well-developed sign language).

The current film is set in that transitional period when the numbers of both remaining humans and (rising) intelligent apes were small.  The resulting _lack of noise_ (because of a _lack of a lot of people_ (and still a relatively small number of intelligent, but mostly sign-language communicating, apes) is probably the _most memorable aspect_ of this film.  (It will also be the aspect of the film that will probably most frustrate casual Viewers...).

That much of the film takes place _in winter_ in and around a human citadel based up in California's (High) Sierras adds to THE COLDNESS / DREARINESS of the Time -- one Civilization was Dying and another completely different one was Rising.

The Human Citadel in question had apparently been intended to be a "quarantine facility" for first "infected humans" but had been converted instead into "a safe zone" for those (few) humans who were not.  The few crazed but highly armed humans who lived there were making their "last stand" and ... in as much out of weakness / dread as out of their (remaining) strength (the humans were still heavily armed while the apes were not), the crazed humans there, led by a head-shaven former "Special Forces" Colonel (played quite realistically by Woody Harrelson in a manner clearly intended to evoke Marlon Brando's portrayal of the crazed Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now [1979]) ran the Citadel as a "Gulag-like" "Ape Concentration Camp" (as a last gasp effort to "keep the (rising) Apes down").

I don't think that it's much of a Spoiler to tell Readers here that this "last gasp effort" (to keep the Apes down) did not succeed ... And a fascinating final "Act of God" (or at least Act of Nature...)  finally settles the Story.

It's all very remarkable, if DEFINITELY NOT simple "Blockbuster Fare" ;-).

Striking to me, though I _don't_ think it was directly intended, is that the "Ape-ocalypse" presented in this recent series of films plays out in quite similar fashion to the European Conquest of the Americas:

After all, it's becoming increasingly clear (as per a remarkable book called 1491 by Charles C. Mann) that what happened to most of the Native Peoples in the Americas (and did not happen the same way in Africa or Asia) was that the Native Peoples of the Americas were, above all, _decimated_ (reduced to 1/10 their strength) by the _inadvertant_ arrival of European-brought DISEASE (mostly small-pox) and that, only _afterward_, the remaining Aztecs or Incas were not capable of putting up an effective resistance to encroaching Europeans. (In contrast, the Native Peoples / Civilizations of Africa to say nothing of South / East Asia were not destroyed in the same way.  Yes, many were conquered and endured decades or even (a few) centuries of Colonial rule, BUT ... the native peoples of Africa / Asia didn't disappear completely as they largely did in large parts of the Americas).

In the current series of films, the successful Rise of the Apes comes about only after the decimation of Humanity by a (similar) plague ...

Again, fascinating, thought-provoking, but ... not exactly what one would expect to contemplate after a "light" summer movie ;-).  Good job, I 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! :-) >>

Spider-man: Homecoming [2017]

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

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

I came to Spider-man: Homecoming [2017] (directed and screenplay co-written by Jon Watts along with Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Christopher Ford, Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers, screen story by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley based on Marvel comics' Spider-Man [Wiki] created by Stan Lee [IMDb] and Steve Ditko [IMDb]) wondering WHY there'd be a need for a full reboot of this superhero (sub)franchise for the third time in fifteen-years (!) and left once again _in awe_ of Marvel Comics' (since 2009 a Disney Company) vision / humor and wisdom.  They pulled it off: This film both "moved the ball" in the MC's Avenger story / Universe and, even on its own, "deserved to be made."

What do I mean?  After last year's Captain America: Civil War [2016], I complained ("mildly" I recall ;-) to my friend of 40+ years from high school and my go to expert on "all things Comics" that I was getting tired of the ridiculous amount of destruction left behind by the various battles in the Superhero films, and he replied that _already decades ago_ Marvel Comics had an answer to this problem -- a line of comic books about a company called "Damage Control" [MC] [wikip] which specialized in "fixing things" after a bout between superheroes / supervillains ;-).

SO ... this film BEGINS (it would seem) in the aftermath of the first full Avengers [2012] movie after a thwarted Loki (brother of Thor...) led alien invasion of New York.  A quite sympathetic (and quite  _local_ contractor) named Adrian Toomes [MC] [IMDb] (played wonderfully by Michael Keaton) had run-around and gotten the contracts _from the city_ to start "cleaning-up the mess" when "the Feds" (with troops) roll-in, tell him and his people "to step away from the rubble" (which, of course, included _alien technology_) and tell them "not to worry about the damage" to the city anymore as a company called DAMAGE CONTROL [MC] [wikip] had been contracted "to fix things."  Adrian Toomes pleaded with the commanding officer in charge, telling her "I sank everything I've ever had into getting this contract from the city."  But to no avail, "the Feds" have decided.

When the previously mild-mannered if perhaps hustling Toomes sees that "Damage Control" is "a division of Stark Industries" (Tony Stark played by Robert Downey, Jr is Iron Man [MC] [IMDb], one of the Avengers [MC] [wikip]) he is disgusted and tells his colleagues: "PERFECT, first these people destroy our city and then _they_ hire themselves to rebuild it ..."  Toomes orders his people to keep hidden at least a truckload or two of alien debris that that they had collected... and ... he's soon on his way to become a scrappy if enterprising local super-villain who comes to be known as "TheVulture" [MC] [IMDb] building contraband super-weapons from the "scraps" of alien technology that he's able to get his hands on before Stark Industries' "Damage Control" does.

Enter the similarly quite local (and teenage) Peter Parker (aka Spiderman) [MC] [IMDb] (played by Tom Holland) who though still "a sophomore in high school" (in my recollection, the worst / most boring year of High School's four ;-) has "an internship" with Stark Industries.  Something of a "nerd" and certainly socially awkward, he notices some rather strange things happening in his neighborhood -- a local heist which utilized strangely sophisticated (out-of-this-world) tools / weaponry.  He reports this to Tony Stark [MC] [IMDb] / the good folks at Stark Industries, who, of course, ignore him (he's just a teenager, after all...).  Well, of course, much further ensues ...

But ... Peter, is of course, a teen.  So ... ;-) ... while spending his "off time" with "Saving the World" (or at least "Saving / Protecting his Neighborhood" ;-), he has a normal teenager's life with normal teenage concerns / pursuits.  Did I mention that he was "kinda a nerd"?   But add to that, since he had that "internship with Stark Industries," and then ON HIS OWN spent a good part of his remaining off time "Saving / Protecting his neighborhood" THAT'S A LOT ON ONE'S PLATE FOR A TEENAGER ... and hence ... still lacking _super human_ "time management skills" ... he's OFTEN LATE for the various functions that he's part of.  And in typical teenage fashion, he suffers for this: Those who already don't like him make fun of him for this, and those who do like him are consternated when he does not show-up on time (or doesn't show up at all...) for his commitments.  High School ;-).

But he's not totally alone.  He's being raised by A BRILLIANTLY RE-IMAGINED still mid-40 something May Parker [MC] [wikip] [IMDb] (played simply BRILLIANTLY by Marisa Tomei).  He also has a BEST FRIEND, Ned [wikip] (played wonderfully by Jason Batalon) presented here as vaguely Asian Pacific and he A DEEP CRUSH on Liz Allan [wikip] (played again wonderfully by Laura Harrier) a bright, beautiful, popular girl, here presented as African American and portrayed as having her own insecurities -- she's "a bit tall."

I LOVE WHAT MARVEL COMICS DOES WITH ITS CHARACTERS.  Every one of these characters, May, Ned and Liz, I KNOW.  Plus, I can not but APPLAUD Marvel Comics' decision here to widen the ethnic / racial mix.  The Spiderman story plays out in QUEENS, New York, one of the most diverse parts of the most diverse city in the country.  HOW WONDERFUL IT IS THAT MARVEL / DISNEY have _chosen_ to portray this diversity _RIGHT_ and give ALL CHILDREN, both in the United States AND BEYOND a chance to _see a bit of themselves_ in the story.

Much then plays out ... all WONDERFULLY APPROPRIATE _TEENAGE FARE_ often done with a smile (Captain America [MC] [IMDb], another "once local boy" played by Chris Evans, shows up _repeatedly_, appropriately and amusingly throughout ;-)

Again, I left the movie and finish writing my review ... in awe.  Simply a great, 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! :-) >>

The Big Sick [2017]

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

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


The Big Sick [2017] (directed by Michael Showalter, screenplay by Emily V. Gordon and Kumail Nanjiani) is a crowd-pleasing (and at times challenging) contemporary romantic dramedy that actually tells the story, okay somewhat fictionalized, of "When Kumail met Emily" ;-) -- the film tells the story of how the film's screenwriters met, fell in love and eventually married.

Kumail Nanjiani plays himself, Emily's role is played quite wonderfully by Zoe Kazan.  The challenge of the story to North American audiences is that Kumail is, of course, a Pakistani-American, while Emily is native born and white.  So viewers are reminded, repeatedly, of the quite literally pre-judices that Kumail faces in day-to-day life.  In one instance, when asked _yet again_ what he thinks of 9/11, exasperated, Kumail, a comedian both in the film and in real life, responds: "Yes, it was a tragedy.  We lost nineteen of our best people that day..." ;-) AND THEN HAS TO EXPLAIN (QUICKLY) THAT HE WAS JUST KIDDING, that OF COURSE the tragedy was that thousands of people, overwhelmingly Americans were senselessly murdered by those 19 terrorists.

But to its credit (on multiple levels, including simply a much needed _informative_ one) the film ALSO presents the expectations / prejudices that existed in Kumail's own home: Kumail's parents and especially _his mother_ (played wonderfully by Zenobia Shroff) simply expected him to marry the PAKISTANI WAY (by arranged marriage).  And since Kumail's family was quite wealthy ... the parade of eligible young Pakistani women that Kumail's mother was constantly inviting over to their home for Kumail to meet was _not_ exactly "bottom of the barrel."  These were attractive, educated, young women from similarly wealthy Pakistani-American families wanting their daughters to also marry well.  But there certainly was a prejudice in the culture against "marriage for love" which was quite clearly being dismissed as "marriage for lust."  Interesting.

Anyway, much takes place in the story of Kumail's and Emily's romance.  And it was actually Emily's parents (played wonderfully by Holly Hunter and Ray Romano.  If the Academy chose to be brave this year, Holly Hunter honestly deserves a look for a Best Supporting Actress nomination) who, if initially wary / distrustful of Kumail's presence / intentions, come around to his defense.  Kumail's parents are the ones who seem to dismiss even the possibility that their son marrying outside their ethnicity / religion (as Pakistanis, they were, of course, Muslim) could be a good thing.

So honestly this is a contemporary dramedy, aimed at millennials and their parents, that seriously "moves the ball" in Western / Muslim dialogue.

Honestly a brave and 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! :-) >>