GAME NIGHT – VERY FUNNY ADULT ROMP

SHORT TAKE: Game Night is a raucous adult comedy which should have been far more family friendly had it not been for a lot of gratuitous profanity and a several adult themed discussions.

WHO SHOULD GO: Because of the considerable amount of bad language and some of the topics discussed by the characters I would recommend Game Night only for older teens and up. There are no overt sexual activities and the violence, while significant in places, is cartoonish and played mostly for laughs.

CHECK OUT DETAILED AND SPECIFIC CONTENT STATISTICS AT SCREENIT.COM.

LONG TAKE: I have gotten quite fond of Rachel McAdams. Her career has been prominently punctuated by playing characters attached to men who either have very unusual powers or end up in weird circumstances…or both. She has been: married to a time traveler (The Time Traveler’s Wife), married to a man who has the ability to go back in time to change events (About Time), the romantic interest, Irene Adler, of none other than Sherlock Holmes (the Robert Downey, Jr franchise version), and engaged to a superhero (Dr Strange). Contributing to this list is her stint as Annie in Game Night. She is married to Max (Jason Bateman) and they are definitely soul mates. Both live for the thrill of game competition – be it as mundane as table top football or open as a bar room Trivial Pursuit or routine as their weekly game night with two other couples, the drive to win defines who they are and their relationship to the world.

So when they can not conceive a child they wonder if it is linked to Max’ feelings of inadequacy towards his older brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler). To rub salt into this wound Brooks arrives suddenly to announce that he is going to take their game night “up a notch”. He has arranged for one of their group to be kidnapped and it will be up to the three remaining groups to find and rescue the victim.

When Brooks himself is unceremoniously taken in a surprisingly violent altercation with two intruders, the group takes it in stride as part of the game. But soon both audience and characters are left wondering whether something has gone horribly wrong.

In another scenario this could have been a horror movie, or an Alfred Hitchcock mystery or a tragedy. But Game Night is a slapstick comedy and all violence is cartoonish, and the considerable and mounting dangers are played for laughs.

There is a lot of heart in the script with some pleasantly unanticipated mature themes including: longstanding sibling rivalry, forgiveness of your spouse’s past mistakes, choosing partners for more than fleeting narcissistic beauty, whether to compassionately welcome their socially awkward neighbor Gary (Jesse Plemons), and putting aside one’s selfish impulses to accept the responsibilities of parenthood. In other words, during the course of this special event evening while playing a game, the adult characters have to – grow up.

The script is clever and intricate enough to distract the audience from noticing the thinner spots in the plot. Aside from the unnecessary bad language, if I had one complaint it would be that – while the story has plenty of twists – the writers set up several hairpin turns that they never follow through with. For example, without giving anything essential away, there were times when it appeared that Annie might have had a separate but related agenda to help Max overcome his insecurities, but didn’t. Her part is played straight up as a partner to Max knowing no more or less than he does. I thought it was a shame, as it might have been fun for her to have pursued a parallel set of tricks.

Putting that aside, Game Night is a funny romp. And if the story sounds familiar – brother sets up a scenario wherein the sibling doesn’t know what to believe and what is real and what is part of the game – it is. 1997's The Game with Michael Douglas and Sean Penn fleshed out a similar storyline, only against a far darker gameboard. Game Night is, essentially, a variation of The Game but played out as a slapstick comedy.

Notably the leads, Bateman and McAdams, are usually supporting actors but are leads in Game Night and they do a good job investing energy and believable chemistry into their marital couple. All the friends in the ensemble are likeable and each couple has its own set of issues to work out during the course of the evening. Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury play Kevin and Michelle – a couple working out some past history which has suddenly emerged. Sharon Horgan and Billy Magnussen play Sarah and Ryan – a couple mismatched in both age and intellect who nonetheless manage to surprise each other with their mutual attraction.

The cinematography was especially clever. Using a technique called tilt-shift, the establishing shots (overhead scenes showing you where the characters are) were filmed tilting the plane of camera focus and moving the lens parallel to the image. This creates the peculiar effect of making everything appear to be in miniature – like the landscape to a train set – until the zoom in and closeup resolve themselves back into “reality”.  This gives the effect of making it appear that our intrepid cast is moving entirely on a very large game board.

Aside from the limits I described in language and topic subjects, I enjoyed Game Night but, because of those same limits, I do not recommend it for younger teens.

Overall this is a funny and worthwhile, but adult, outing.

BLACK PANTHER – GOOD BUT FLAWED

 

SHORT TAKE

A solid entry to the Avengers universe and enhanced by the sterling performance of Chad Boseman as Black Panther, though handicapped by mistakes made by other sci-fi franchises.

WHO SHOULD GO: Family friendly with cartoon violence, no sexual activity, a few minor profanities, but has very loud music and special effects sounds.

CHECK OUT DETAILED AND SPECIFIC CONTENT STATISTICS AT SCREENIT.COM.

LONG TAKE

It is unfortunate that there has been SO much hype leading up to the release of Black Panther. For one thing there is no way any movie could possibly live up to everyone's world wide expectations. For another it leaves no room for analysis. Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, let me go on record as saying I liked Black Panther. I have been a big fan and advocate of Chad Boseman since I saw him in Marshall and I think the Black Panther character will be an excellent addition to the Avengers franchise.

That being said let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was a British  actress comedian named Jennifer Saunders. She and Dawn French were staple comedians in the 1980's and by 1992 Saunders and the replacement co-star for French, Joanna Lumley, were able to parley a 14 minute1990 skit into a 6 year BBC show called Absolutely Fabulous. However, as my son has pointed out about the Roman Empire, in her victory was her downfall. By the early 2000's she had become so popular no one wanted to criticize her and her comedy had become so strident, bitter and redundant she lost  the audience she had worked so hard to gain. But during this fall she had so much clout no one had the nerve to tell her she was making mistakes. So the Emperor – or the Empress in this case – continued to wear "invisible" clothes and no one dared say she was naked.

Raise your hand if anyone reading this has even heard of Jennifer Saunders. Point made. Saunders became so successful that everyone thought it prudent to keep what should have been helpful and constructive criticism to themselves.

And so, I fear, it could go with Black Panther if reviewers are not honest and thoughtful. There has been so much wildly anticipated excitement about the “first” black super hero – everyone seeming to forget collectively the awesome Idris Elba’s Heimdall from the Thor franchise – that no one wants to take an objective look at it.

Don’t get me wrong – it is a welcome addition into the superhero universe, but it isn’t perfect. While there is much to commend it, it suffers from weaknesses other similar movies have had.

SPOILER WARNING

I want to lead this review by saying that the plot was very good. When contemplating the premise – that Wakanda is a secret kingdom flourishing in impoverished Africa – one might reasonably wonder why the beneficent leaders did not work to improve the plight of their desperately poor and suffering countrymen over the last several hundred years. The compelling theme of Black Panther examines why clandestine African Wakanda withholds aid from other Africans while the rest of the world donates billions in food and medical supplies? FYI the pictures of suffering Africa are not from the movie but real photos.

Does one keep such high tech secrets from the rest of the world or risk exposure and possible plunder in an effort to bring aid to others? And if one DOES decide to reveal the Wakandan advancements to the outside world should it be under the flag of conquest or compassion? Do the Wakandans emerge into the rest of the universe as prideful aggressors or humble aid workers?

This is the struggle which is personified  between T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) the rightful king successor to his father, murdered during Captain America: Civil War, who longs for peace, and his opponent/cousin Eric Killmonger (Michael Jordan) who hungers, like the Biblical Ishmael, to use these wonders to make war against the entire world.

And it would make an interesting sequel to explore the fall out from the Wakandan neighbors when it is discovered that much of the death, disease and starvation of their fellow Africans could have been ameliorated by a watching but silent Wakanda.

I think Chad Boseman is great. He is a joy to watch and can effortlessly generate chemistry with any actor he works with whether he is King of a futuristic African nation or a cortexaphan subject with powers to control energy in Fringe or Thurgood Marshall. Not bad for a fellow southerner. (Boseman is from South Carolina.) Like Michael Caine, Meryl Streep or Bruce Willis he brings a natural ease to his characters which makes him likeable and three dimensional. And yes, I know – Willis is not in the same league as Caine or Streep. Willis is a one note actor who plays the same person in every movie he is in with variations. But it’s easy to enjoy that one character and Willis does it extremely well. In addition, Willis creates that wonderfully comfortable ebb and flow with his fellow performers which Caine and Streep also manage that make it fun to watch them in whatever they are in. You don’t have to be a brilliant actor to be one who can create good chemistry with their fellow actors. And by the other side of the same coin, even some brilliant actors can not manage it – like Lawrence Olivier who was gifted but stiff…….but I digress.

 I want Black Panther with Boseman to be a successful franchise. And when the dust has settled down from the novelty of this movie there needs to be some close examination of its flaws if it is to do better than the first stabs at Spiderman or Hulk.

First  – if you have to do five minutes of blunt exposition just to bring your audience up to speed before the first scene of the movie, then you’re not being very clever with your story telling. This is the same weakness in Thor: The Dark World. Lengthy exposition marred the beginning of Dark World and helped relegate it to the weakest of the Thor outings and Black Panther makes the same mistake.

Second –  it is about 45 minutes too long. Some of that is due to the excessive emphasis on showcasing Wakanda and the tribal costumes, dances, accessories and artifacts. One is reminded of the first Star Trek movie where there were nerdgasms over the extensively long and loving fly over of the Enterprise  as well as extremely long sequences of the planet-sized V’ger. In an effort to overwhelm the audience with the splendor of both the flagshp and the opposing mechanical nemesis, the result, in 1979's Star Trek,  was ultimately the opposite and did not age well, weighing that first Star Trek movie down to one of the lesser ranked installments. There is only so much build up and pay off of the same material you can sit through until, like surfing a wave which eventually crests, after a while you wonder when the ride will be over.

Similarly, there is too much dependence on the “wow” effect of Wakanda and repeated recurrences of the character-citizens commenting about how beautiful it is, how much they longed for another view of it, how much they missed it – all followed up by multiple extended views of it.

    The presentation of the African color and lore and costumes, tatoos and plates in distended lips, ancient impractical traditional garb and spirit walks get to be so much that after a while it becomes at risk of being a parody of itself. It is understandable that the film makers wanted to take full effect of their first opportunity to demonstrate and showcase this new universe, but, as Donald O’Conner once said – you should always leave the audience wanting more. Instead the writers of Black Panther went at the movie like an excited child who tries to tell of an adventure in one breath as though afraid people will stop paying attention before he gets to the end.

Another problem with the length is the same flaw found in the Man of Steel – too much fighting. There are two lengthy hand to hand combat scenes, one very exciting car chase, as well as battles royale (literally) between the two princes, along with various and sundry skirmishes, an aerial combat and the final confrontation between the two opponents on a magnetic monorail. There are high tech spaceships shooting tasers and cables, power staffs, Bullet/ French Connection quality car chases, Spiderman quality leaping and jumping during the car chases, photon firing artificial arms, and – I kid you not – vibranium armoured rhinoceroses. While all super cool it was just…too…much for one movie. 

The writer and director should have had the confidence in their story to not bury it under so much of what Bishop Barron refers to as “whiz bang”.

Third – there were unnecessary incongruities in the Wakandan kingdom. While their labs, travel modes and medical facilities would rival those at Star Bases, their exchange of goods took place routinely in outdoor marketplaces wound through with dusty dirty streets. This didn’t make sense.

And the uniforms of the Amazonian guardswomen were too culturally reflective of Africa to be practical. All this high tech and the best they could do was sticks with a sonic boom effect? Now to be fair the island from which Wonder Woman emerged was similar in its cultural armament impracticalities and Asgard of the Thor franchise also had an odd juxtaposition of high tech and ancient (in that case medieval) trappings. But both Wonder Woman and Asgard were alien cultures, and both based in familiar Earth mythologies, so can be given a wider range in suspension of belief and peculiar behaviors and traditions. But Africa in general and Wakanda in particular are right here on Earth so can’t get that much leeway.

Fourth – Thor, Wonder Woman and Aquaman, for example are based respectively on established: Norse myth, the Greek Amazons and the Roman god of the sea Poseidon, all of which date back thousands of years and are part of the shared cultural background noise. So when origin stories are concocted using them as foundations it is an easy bridge into that world. There is no corresponding panther myth that I could find in Africa outside of the Black Panther comics which came upon the scene only about 50 years ago in 1966. The only established mythology I could find in Africa revolved around reptiles. So unless you are a serious comic book afficiando you wouldn't have known what they were talking about in Black Panther without exposition. But the writer, instead of weaving the background into the warp and woof of the story inelegantly chose to dump the entire story on the audience's head like — well — Thor's Hammer.

All that being said Black Panther is a fun though flawed adventure. I look forward to future installments and hope the film makers will gain confidence from the warm open armed reception they have received from the wider movie going audience and do a better job with the next one. Otherwise Black Panther will not age well or inspire longevity for the franchise – and that would be a shame.

WEIGHING IN ON THE PETER RABBIT “CONTROVERSY”

On the Peter Rabbit bullying controversy. This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of or read. It only goes to prove that some people have way too much time on their hands. Perhaps in responding to this it indicates that I do too. However, I review movies. What's their excuse?!

If you have not heard of this dumb thing: Peter "bullies" the younger McGregor by capitalizing on his allergies and slingshotting a Blackberry into his mouth. They call it "allergy bullying". Of course, McGregor was, at the time, trying – with cause – to kill Peter and his siblings. At first I thought the protestors were kidding but then I realized that people who gin up this kind of complaint generally do not have a sense of humor.  

I got news!! Peter and Thomas McGregor are in MORTAL COMBAT. We're talking Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd, Sylvester and Tweety, Tom and Jerry, Daffy Duck and Yosemite Sam. Peter is a 5 pound rabbit. Thomas McGregor is a 170 lb 6 foot one inch grown man.  They are trying to EXTERMINATE each other!!! And to see this rabbit get the best of McGregor and watch as McGregor attempts to retaliate is very very funny.

To paraphrase John Cleese from Monty Python's the "Dead Parrot Sketch" Peter and Thomas are trying to enroll each other in the Choir Celestial. They're engaged in attempting to make each other push up daisies. They are trying to introduce each other to our Creator. They are, with great earnestness, endeavoring to KILL EACH OTHER.

Thomas McGregor tries to chop the bunnies in half with with a hoe! He sets up fatal animal traps in hopes of breaking their necks. His Uncle ATE Peter's father! Peter on the other hand tries to electrocute, trap, and beat Thomas McGregor to death. At one time he and his friends successfully manage to get the young McGregor to fall off the roof of a two-story house. Had he fallen onto something harder than the turned earth below him it would have been a lethal fall. As it is he is rendered unconscious and the animals all comment about how it will be lovely when the ice cream truck comes to pick him up – referring to the ambulance that came and took away the late Elder McGregor.

This is Shakespearean level tragic stuff. Two males vying, with different but equally compelling motives, for the same woman's affections, try to murder each other in a variety of ways and in the attempt almost succeed! AND, as a side effect, almost kill the young lady as well. Had this not been a child's movie it is likely all three would have ended up dead.

To then be concerned about a relatively minor, but honestly clever, attack with a blackberry is ludicrous – which is really an insult to genuinely ludicrous things. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch "Self Defense Against Fresh Fruit" where an incompetent self defense instructor explains the fine points of defending oneself against a banana! SEE SKIT HERE

Peter Rabbit is SLAPSTICK. Do these people have no sense of humor!? (Rhetorical question.)  Have the "protestors" never seen what the Three Stooges do to each other?! I have family members with serious food allergies too and I took ZERO offense. To paraphrase John Adams from the musical 1776 – It's a comedy – you have to offend SOMEBODY!

What I am sorry for is that Sony actually apologized for this scene and did not have the steel in their collective important body parts to tell the boycotters to GET A LIFE! I am all out of patience with oversensitive snowflakes who run around looking for some reason to be put out. And frankly I'M OFFENDED BY THEIR BEING OFFENDED!!! How about THEY apologize to Sony and the other members of the audience for being so boorish?

I'm not condoning the behavior of EITHER characters in the movie but neither do I suggest children or other adults should: set animal traps in beds, electrify door knobs, use slingshots in an effort to emasculate someone with vegetables or blow each other up with dynamite – ALL of which happen in this movie! If you don't want your children seeing this then use a bit of parental discretion and do not go! But don't make the world more peevish and unpleasant for the rest of us.

I can only hope that in the future the people who spent effort stirring up this silly controversy manage to find better things to do with their time….then I can too.

PETER RABBIT – CHARMINGLY PRESENTED RABBIT … TAIL

 

SHORT TAKE:

Lovely and fun family friendly homage to the classic story of the mischievous rabbit, using all the talents of the modern animation techniques as well as some very skillful voice and pantomiming actors.

WHO SHOULD GO: Very family friendly for all ages (despite the stupid controversy about the "allergy bullying" – see my other blog on this: WEIGHING IN ON THE PETER RABBIT “CONTROVERSY”). Take everyone from the youngest who will sit through a feature length film to the Grandparents. Everyone will find something to enjoy.

CHECK OUT DETAILED AND SPECIFIC CONTENT STATISTICS AT SCREENIT.COM.

LONG TAKE:

Domhnall Gleeson is a good sport. Son of the immensely talented Brendan Gleeson who has appeared in everything from Tom Cruise's sci fi Live, Die, Repeat to Mad Eyed Moody in the Harry Potter franchise, Domhnall does not fall far from that gifted tree.

star warsDomhnall Gleeson has appeared in Star Wars as the new and somewhat comedically incompetent baddie, General Hux, occasionally thrown unceremoniously around by a miffed Kylo Ren. He has appeared often with his brothers and father in genres from dark comedy (Calvary) to about timerom-com fantasy (About Time) to an true gritAmerican western (True Grit). He's been shot, tossed, wolf bitten, has murdered his own real life brother as a modern day Cain in Mother! and fallen in love with an android (Ex Machina).

Irish born and naturally heavily accented, he nonetheless has solid command of a variety of accents. He's been an iconic upper class British writer (A. A. Milne in Goodbye, Christopher Robin) and an over the top American CIA agent (American Made). There's a boyish charm he exudes, even in his darkest roles, which makes his characters inherently likeable, especially as he endures whatever indignities required of his roles with an amused sangfroid even when it's against a green screen necessitating pantomime.

But no where is he required to endure more humiliations with a smile against an imaginary antagonist than in Peter Rabbit.

The premise is that Old Man MacGregor, portrayed briefly in broad good natured ranting and raving by

Sam (Jurassic Park) Neill, bequeathes his farm to his great nephew, Thomas. My daughter, Elizabeth, pointed out that once again, in Peter Rabbit, Sam Neil tackles intelligent animals out to get him. LOL

gleeson at harrodsDomhnall's Thomas is as precise in his habits as Phileas Phogg and as cantankerous and anti-wildlife as his rabbit pie eating Uncle. He moves into the MacGreor house with the intention of selling it but the anthropomorphized animals will have none of it. Peter's coat wearing, wise cracking, English speaking rabbit family are as anxious to be rid of this new human interloper as he is of them.

The adorable complicating factor in all of this is Bea (presumably a version of "BEA"atrix Potter, the author of the original Peter Rabbit stories, who mothers the rabbits and lovingly paints them, with whom Peter has attached and in whom Thomas falls immediately in love. peter and beaThis sets off a series of comical incidents where each side tries to do away with the other all while pretending to be pals for the sake of Bea.

While the stuff of Shakespearean tragedy, this is a kids' film and, as such, you can be sure that subsequent to a series of outrageous hijinx all will be well that will end well.

Domhnall, during the course of the film is beaten, tripped, electrically shocked, subjected to animal traps, used as a bulleye's in uncomfortable places with well aimed vegetables, kicked, bitten and wrestled with by —- nothing. He didn't even have the benefit of the voice actors nearby.

James Cordan (who appears in two Dr. Who's as a love lorn fellow tenant of a town house then again as the same character, now as a well meaning but overwhelmed father) does the voice of Peter. By his own description, Cordan was working in his pajamas in England, while the intrepid Mr. Gleeson was sweating it out in 100 degree Australian heat pretending to be in the far cooler northern rural U.K.

In interviews, Gleeson good naturedly describes how he hurt himself early and often during the course of the filming – wrenching and bruising ankles, back, ribs – as hegleeson flying leaps, gleeson with trapsfalls,

slams into furniture and generally gets banged around.

All for a good cause as my two grandsons loved the movie. gleeson and pigThe littlest laughed hardest whenever Pigling Bland appeared to aristocratically gorge himself on whatever happened to be within reach.

The movie is good natured and silly, Peter on steroids, as the slightly mischievous bunny of the books becomes a Gleeson and rabbitsninja-like, almost superhuman terror, turning the young MacGregor's modern gizmos back onto his unwary human antagonist.

Both Thomas and Peter must ultimately come to terms on behalf of the sweet Bea but it's their rivalry that provides the most entertainment as Peter is more Bugs Bunny than Potter and gleeson with hoeThomas would definitely be able to empathize with Elmer Fudd.

The voice acting is enthusiastic and bright.

Margo Robbie of Suicide Squad narrates and speaks for Flopsy.

Elizabeth Debicki from both Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and Valerian is Mopsy. And in a creative, if not physical, reunion

Daisy Ridley rejoins her Star Wars alumni, Domhnall, in the cast as Cotton-Tail. Each actress provides a cute and distinctive personality to the triplet sisters.

Take your little ones to go see this adorable homage to the classic rabbit tail — I mean tale. Although, honestly, some of the sight gags are repeated a bit too much as though they are dragging out their run time, at the end the audience I attended with applauded. My grandsons enjoyed it and that is endorsement enough. And rest assured, this Peter Rabbit will find something for every age in your family at which to chuckle.

 

SECRET GARDEN AT MCNEESE UNIVERSITY ONLY THROUGH FEBRUARY 11, 2018

The Secret Garden – a musical – is playing through February 11, 2018 at the McNeese University "Tritico" Theater here in Lake Charles.

This is an ambitious project taken on by Jessa Lormand inspired by a childhood attachment to the story.

SOME SPOILERS

The premise of the story is about a young British girl, Mary Lennox, living in India, whose military based parents die during a cholera epidemic. The sole survivor of the village she is brought to live with one of her only two remaining relatives – Archibald Craven, a reclusive hunchback still grieving ten years after the death of his beloved wife, Lily, a death brought on during the birth of his only child, Colin. Everyone is so anxious about Colin's frail health that they have, foolishly, but with good intentions, hidden him away until he develops rickets. It is only when Mary comes to the manor and befriends the boy, stealthily bringing him out into the fresh air and the secret garden which Mary has rediscovered, that Colin begins to recover.

The book presented the garden with its fresh air and breezes as an analogy for the Holy Spirit. However, later versions of the story, including the movies released in 1987 and 1993, and this musical, point out the spiritual vacuum in which these children were raised. Both neglected by their parents – Mary's out of selfishness and Colin's out of fear – they seek to fill that vacuum with the misplaced and misinterpreted mythology and childish mimickery of the Indian dances which Mary remembered seeing performed when she was in India. Without appropriate loving adult guidance the children revert to made up pagan rituials, instead of the Christian faith to which they were born, for solace.

It is not until the proper child-parent relationship is healed that the garden's newly refurbished beauty is or can be celebrated.

Both the story and the music are challenging and often dissonant. But our community players and McNeese students meet up to this demanding production. Archibald is performed by Tyler Brumback who we saw recently in McNeese's Kiss me Kate as Fred/Petruchio. Archibald's brother, Neville, is well done by Timothy Smith. Lily, the deceased mother of Colin is played by Amy Phillips. Martha, the maid, who is the only optimist in the crowd, is sung by Lara Connally, also recently from Kiss me Kate as Lois/Bianca. Dickon, Martha's brother and Mary's first friend at the manor house is Timothy Cural. Clay Corley dances as the robin who leads Mary to the garden. Heather Partin, veteran of many productions at both McNeese and Lake Charles Little Theatre, as well as the traditional Mistress of the Community Band concerts, plays Mrs. Medlock, the housekeeper. Seth Trahan is the comic relief groundskeeper whose Irish wisdoms brighten the stage. And the adult Kaitlyn Colby, petite and charming, is inexhaustible as the nine year old Mary Lennox. There are over a dozen other players who fill out the cast of ghosts and dancers and guests in flashback of the manor. But I have to mention that our own son, Louis, plays Lt. Wright, one of the first on the scene at the cholera stricken household.

The cast brings all the youthful enthusiasm and energy needed for this difficult musical and, as you can see, injected an infectious enthusiasm into their coming together as a tightly knit cast as well.

WARNING

Not for younger teens as it is a long musical and deals with a lot of serious content, including death, ghosts that haunt the mansion, a brother who coveted his brother's wife, pagan rituals and neglected children.

BE SURE TO GET YOUR TICKETS HERE AS THE RUN IS VERY VERY SHORT: Tickets for Secret Garden

LOVING VINCENT – AN ANIMATED BIOGRAPHY IN VAN GOGH’S PAINTINGS

SHORT TAKE: Astonishing and beautiful, one of a kind film in which a reluctant messenger plays detective in an attempt to parse out the circumstances of Van Gogh's death, animated in the style of Van Gogh's paintings!

WHO SHOULD WATCH:  Anyone interested in classic art, though younger audience members might get bored. Adult themes of mental illness, prostitution, alcoholism and, of course, the death of Vincent Van Gogh – the main topic of the film – are points of discussion, though there is no graphic content of either a sexual or violent nature, and little or no prafane language.

UNFORTUNATELY, SCREENIT.COM HAS NO DETAILED CONTENT STATISTICS ON LOVING VINCENT YET.

LONG TAKE:

The word "unique" is too often blithely thrown around. If you go online you'll find "unique" hair styles and "unique" ice cream stores. "Unique," in fact means "being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else". And there are really only so many ways you can manipulate your hair before redundancy becomes an issue and I'm afraid a truly "unique" ice cream might not be edible. Even so, there are still a few things that genuinely qualify as "unique": Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, each and every individual human soul, Shakespeare's Hamlet, the Mona Lisa and….Loving Vincent.

Loving Vincent is a movie of which there is only one of its kind. Not just different or unusual, though it is that, but actually unique. Loving Vincent was animated by over 100 professional artists using 853 backdrops and over 66,000 paintings which, if laid out like a carpet would cover both the entire United Kingdom and the Island of Manhattan. 80 of the artists were chosen for their professional technique, facility with computers and ability to accurately recreate Van Gogh's style.

This technique has never before been used. The effect is mesmerizing, like watching one of Van Gogh's paintings come to life before your eyes.

The plot follows Armand Roulin, the son of Joseph Roulin, a postmaster who had been a friend of Vincent's. Armand is portrayed and captured as a facile youth who matures during the course of the movie by Douglas Booth who was Romeo in the 2013 Shakespeare film, Shem in Noah and Titus in Jupiter Rising. Booth carries the water of the narrative beautifully as we see the story unfold through his eyes like the petals of the irises featured in one of Van Gogh's paintings.

Joseph is captured using  Chris O'Dowd, a charming and gentle British comedian who has appeared in roles as varied as Thor: Dark World, the dark and theologically intriguing murder mystery Calvary, the most recent space oriented sci fi installment of the Cloverfield franchise called Cloverfield Paradox, and was in a quirky British comedy about time travel called FAQ About Time Travel.

Joseph tasks his drunken aimless son with transporting the last letter Vincent wrote to his brother Theo. This begins a journey for Armand which will change his perception of the world and himself for the better. Vincent has been dead for two years by the time Armand starts out and during the course of his travels Armand's adventures transform from a simple delivery to an inquiry into the master painter's life and mysterious circumstances surrounding his death. Armand finds out as much about himself as about those who knew Vincent well as he tries to uncover what truths he can concerning the premature demise of this, at that time, unappreciated genius.

This film would have been an achievement in storytelling had it been done live action and would have rivaled Immortal Beloved whose main protagonist sought the identity of the Immortal Beloved to whom he wished to deliver Beethoven's remaining post mortem letter. Or even the curiosity piquing Citizen Kane as one journalist interviews everyone who knew Kane to try to determine the identity of Rosebud. The script is written with sensitivity and three dimensional prose to tweak out the tangles of conflicting evidence amidst the testimonies of those whose only connection was their acquaintance with or love for Vincent. This, as a tale, would have been a great story by itself.  But to use the UNIQUE and brilliantly appropriate, though massively ambitious, technique of animating it with Van Gogh style paintings was itself, if you will excuse the intentional pun, a masterstroke by the writers/directors Dorota Kobiela, Hugh Welchman and Jacek Dehnel. This is as different in its own way as the one take-one unbroken shot that Russian Ark was (see a previuos blog).

Armand seeks out and questions a number of others. Pere Tanguy (John Sessions) was a friend of Vincent's.   Dr. Gachet (played by Jerome Flynn), who appears in Portrait of Dr. Gachet, had cared for Vincent in his last few months and during the gunshot and subsequent infection that killed Vincent. Louise Chevalier, housekeeper to Dr. Gachet (Helen "Narcissa Malfoy" McCrory), who had no use for Vincent and his odd ways. Adeline Ravoux (played by Eleanor Tomlinson) was an innkeeper's daughter who ran the hotel Vincent last stayed in. Adeline was featured in Van Gogh's Portrait of Adeline Ravoux. Saoirse Ronan (Ladybird) portrays Marguerite. Marguerite Gachet was the daughter of Dr. Gachet, and is the girl in Van Gogh's painting Margueite Gachet at Piano. And Robert Gulaczyk, a Polish theater actor, plays Vincent himself and bears a more than passing resemblance to the shy, kind, sensitive and tormented painter. All the actors were chosen, not just for their acting (for the capture) and voice talents but for their resemblance to characters in the actual paintings by Van Gogh.

Even the title is creative, evocative and chosen with care. Your "Loving Vincent" is the way Vincent would sign his letters to his brother, Theo. Loving Vincent could refer to the way the painters are expressing their respect and affection for this great artist, as in – this is how we are "loving Vincent", by creating this beautiful movie about him. Or it could be a command to the audience as a demonstration of the way we could appreciate the man and his work – as in, if you watch this movie with the appreciation it deserves you will be "loving Vincent". Or it could simply be a description of the man himself. Loving –  as an adjective to describe the great, generous and open heartedness of the man who was the genius master craftsman of the easel – as in – he was a great, a creative, a brilliant but also a loving Vincent.

It is unfortunate and shortsighted by the Oscar committee that Loving Vincent has been selected to compete in the Oscars as "only" in the animated feature film category. There is precedent to allow animated features to compete in the "Best Picture" category – Beauty and the Beast, Up and Toy Story 3 all were accorded that respect. Loving Vincent MORE than deserves the acknowledgement to be included in the Best Picture category.   This is a serious film about the creative life and mysterious death of one of the world's most beloved master painters. It also only HAPPENS to also be an animated movie. We learn not just about the circumstances of his death but of the complex man whose life was cut far too short from those who knew him best and in conversations that appear deceptive or misleading at first, as in the style of an Agatha Christie novel, and all come together like some lovingly sculpted three dimensional puzzle.

Not only is this movie made WITH beautiful paintings, it IS one big gorgeous animated painting. This is a remarkable work of startlingly pure love – a love letter from these hundreds of artists and actors and seamstresses and animators, caterers and drivers, electricians and sound technicians, not to mention the writers and directors …… to Vincent Van Gogh

Watching this movie gave me a new appreciation for Van Gogh's paintings and has inspired me to seek out and learn more about this great man's work.

It also couldn't help but remind me of two other lovingly created items which focused on Vincent Van Gogh. The first is one of the most moving three and a half minutes of cinema I have ever seen.

It is near the end of the Dr. Who episode – Vincent. Dr Who and his companion Amy have traveled back in time to meet Vincent Van Gogh. They befriend him and come face to face with the mental and personal struggles of this gentle soul and decide to bring him forward in time to show him the Van Gogh exhibit at the Musee d'Orsay. Tony Curran, as Vincent, does a magnificent job as Van Gogh and the scene is touching, funny and deeply moving. .  Dr Who excerpt – Vincent at the Musee d'Orsay.

The other bit of Van Gogh fandom which occurred to me was Don McLean's song Vincent. McLean is probably best known for American Pie. The song Vincent came out in the same year, 1971, when I was twelve: "Starry Starry Night, paint your palette blue and gray…how you suffered for your sanity…flaming flowers that brightly blaze, swirling clouds in violet haze…and when no hope was left in sight on that starry starry night you took your life as lovers often do…." The melancholic and beautiful tune sums up the feel of this visually, emotionally, narratively and lyrically moving film. LISTEN TO VINCENT HERE: VINCENT by Don McLean

WARNING: I really have none except that the topic of suicide may upset the very young.

This film is a gorgeous masterpiece which I like to think that Van Gogh, himself, would have appreciated.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS AMAZING MOVIE AND ITS CREATION HERE: LOVING VINCENT WEBSITE

SEE IT ON AMAZON HERE: LOVING VINCENT

WINCHESTER – VERY SCARY MOVIE WITH A SURPRISINGLY THOUGHTFUL THEME

SHORT TAKE:

Extremely effective ghost story about the real life Winchester House, well told with a class cast and a pleasantly unexpected underlying thesis.

LONG TAKE:

SOME SPOILERS!

I truly believe that God puts people in your life that you need when you need them. It can be as small as a smile from a stranger when you are feeling blue or directions from a police officer when you are lost in a bad neighborhood or as significant as a chance encounter with someone who will become your lifelong friend.

In my case it was two obnoxious fellow moviegoers during Winchester. You see, it so happened that the night that worked best for my schedule for one of the scariest movies I have seen in a while, was the one night when NO one, because of either opportunity or preference, could go with me.

Winchester’s story is based upon the real house in San Jose which was built and rebuilt during a 38 year construction marathon by the heiress to 50% of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company fortune. Sarah Winchester inherited the today equivalent of a half billion dollars with a continuous income of $25,000 per day. She put this vast wealth to use in moving from New Haven, Connecticut to San Jose, California where she purchased and remodeled an unfinished farm house into a seven story mansion with 161 rooms, 2 ballrooms, 47 fireplaces, three cutting edge elevators and rare indoor conveniences for the era like forced air heating and indoor plumbing. An innovative floating foundation preserved the house from collapse after the devastating 1906 earthquake. In addition to these far thinking aspects to the house, and working without an architect, Sarah Winchester designed the home to     very peculiar specifications, sporting staircases which go nowhere    , rooms with windows which open into other rooms or  into the floor, labrynthian hallways which double back on themselves, a door which open to the outside from the third floor (think Roger Rabbit),  spiderweb motiffs,   groups of 13 items wherever possible and other bizarre features which seem to make no sense. Discount Hogwarts without benefit of movement in the staircases or animated portraits.

However, there are house ghosts.

The premise strives to explain the reason for the unique construction – that Sarah Winchester (Helen Mirren) built rooms to replicate those in which the "victims" of the Winchester rifle died, attract them to their room, then help them move on. She acts as sort of an afterlife psychotherapist – thnk the little lady in Poltergeist. After which, Sarah tears down the room and builds anew with a new tenant in mind. In this way she hopes to appease the angry dead and protect her niece and great-nephew Henry from their wrath.  Into this odd scenario comes Eric Price, a traumatized and opium addicted LIVING human psychotherapist (Jason "War for the Planet of the Apes" Clarke), a doctor who is unable to heal himself, hired by the Board of the Winchester Company to prove Sarah Winchester unfit to control her half of the Winchester stock. Although a wackier plot would be hard to find, the inimitable Dame Helen Mirren sells it with gusto and the director/scriptwriters, twin brothers Michael and Peter Spierig, do a good job of creating convincing back stories and atmosphere which make this all fit.

At this point I'm going to make a shameless fangirl plug for Dame Helen.

I have been following her career since I first saw her as Morgana in Excalibur and have loved everything I have seen her in since. (Please note the knight Mirren is holding hands with is an equally young Liam Neeson.) Some beautiful young women, if they are lucky, become handsome older women. Dame Helen stayed, simply, beautiful. I have seen her in really great movies and some truly tatty ones, but she always brings style, grace and skill to every transfigurative role she chooses.  (2010) (Fate of the Furious)(Gosford Park(Hitchcock) (The Madness of King George(National Treasure 2(The Queen(Raising Helen(Red) (as Prospera, in a female version of The Tempest

She is even teaching a Master Class in acting which is publically available online. AND a friend of mine once sought her out early in her career for an interview for the paper at which he was working. While refused, the refusal was in person…so he did get to meet her….. so that gives me only two degrees of separation, RIGHT????

One of the things I especially liked about the movie, Winchester, was the way the writers-Spierig kept us up in the air as to what is really going on. Is Eric having opium and withdrawal induce hallucinations or is he really in commune with the dead? Is Sarah just a batty old lady or is she really constructing half-way homes for the unquiet deceased? Is the boy truly possessed by an angry ghost or is he traumatized from having seen his abusive alcoholic father die? Was the mansion damaged by the fury of a thwarted poltergeist or did the 1906 earthquake wreck the havoc?

  The Winchester Mansion does exist and it really was severely damaged in 1906 – rending it from its pinnacle of seven stories down to its current four. Construction stopped the day Sarah Winchester died in 1922, afterwhich it was leased in 1923 and eventually purchased from her niece and heir by John and Mayme Brown, who opened it to public display. Dubbed the Winchester Mystery House by Harry Houdini during a tour in 1924, it is still an attraction to this day.

With set designs featuring beautifully period detail, effectively claustrophobic sets, and enough jump scares to unnerve even Beetlejuice, this movie is quite effective for the task to which it applied itself – namely scaring the living snot out of anyone who sees it.

But at the heart of the movie I found another far gentler theme. That God will send you those you need at just the right time. Without giving away too much, Eric, despite his addiction, self doubt and brokenness, heros up for Sarah’s family. And Sarah, despite her looniness, extreme eccentricities and decidedly peculiar guests, is just the friend Eric needs at this bottomed out moment of his life. In many ways, both save each other from fates arguably worse than death.

And this is when I realized….

You see, when I say I went to the movie by myself, I mean not only did I go with no one, but that the theater I was in was completely empty but for me. Row upon row of vacant seats greeted me and sat staring at my back while I endured half a dozen previews fitting for the main attraction, about demonic possession and murderous games. I was tempted to watch the intro credits with laced fingers. So when two people who failed to understand they were not watching the movie in their living room sat nearby, proceeded to make occasionally loud comments to each other, and texted throughout the movie, neglecting to even turn off the slight pinging sound announcing an incoming response, I was actually quite grateful. Every now and again one NEEDS to have their suspension of disbelief interrupted.

And if the oblivious persons in question just happen to read this blog – thank you – BUT – while your intrusiveness was quite helpful in this one instance……..for the next movie – keep it down and at least turn off the danged chime!!!

WARNINGS:

There is a lot of violence and, as I have mentioned, jump scares. Though no bad language, there is use of opiates and the presence of prostitutes though no nakedness or activities. So, obviously, I do not recommend this for young teens.

I also recommend AGAINST the movie for anyone theologically unformed or immature. On the one hand, there are no seances and an atheist does come to understand there is an afterlife. On the other, there is no mention of or appeal to God. But there is a lot of vague talk about spirituality and the ability, without reference to Divine assistance, to command and control unclean spirits, which could be very misleading, disquieting, and even dangerously influential to the vulnerable in mind or soul.