I know this production is not of a movie BUT Sleuth HAS been filmed. So – with that rationalization in mind:
The McNeese University Bayou Players in Lake Charles, LA have put on a brilliant production of Anthony Shaffer’s classic black comedy mystery play – Sleuth.
To tell much about it would be to give away too much of the plot and Sleuth is just too delicious to spoil. So I will tread lightly.
The story is primarily about two men, Milo Tindle and Andrew Wyke, who meet at a secluded English manor to discuss a delicate personal matter involving a woman who is important to them both. The cat and mouse game that emerges is the fascinating matter of the evening.
I am a BIG fan of the movie with Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier, which I first saw at the theater when it came out in 1972. (Please do not bother with the truly awful 2007 remake DESPITE it starring Michael Caine in the role of his antagonist from the original). And given the limitations of a live play, and allowing for a few tech glitches which I am sure they will work out for the Saturday/Sunday performances, I would hold this live McNeese Bayou Players production favorably up to that award winning movie any day.
The acting was excellent. Michael Davis presents a chilling but funny caricature of a posh British snob, and Eric Thibodeaux was extremely convincing in his role as Milo Tindle, at turns both hapless and frightening. The supporting cast listed as Joseph Pressley and Milton Hebert do a superb job of facilitating the tantalizing mystery.
The manor drawing room set was, of course, brilliant, headed up by the ever resourceful Randy Partin who, I think, if given the task of building a working rocketship on stage could do so with a sheet of plyboard and a box of crayons. In this case, he has created a working English manor drawing room, complete with stairs leading to a second floor, and aided in ambiance by a desk built sometimes between 1906-1910, brought out of the LCLT storage room.
Sadly, the production only goes for three nights, one having already passed.
So RUN, do not settle for walking, to see the McNeese Bayou Players production of SLEUTH at the Lake Charles Little Theater at 813 Enterprise Blvd.
You can buy tickets there, call them at 433-7988 or purchase tickets online.
"One shot is what it's all about," is a quote from Robert De Niro's character, Michael, in Deer Hunter. And that was the philosophy of director Alexsandr Sokurov’s vision of Russian Ark, an extremely unusual film for many reasons. This is an “art” film – quite literally, as well as in genre. Spoken in Russian, with subtitles, the entire movie is from the first hand point of view of a recently deceased unnamed man (voiced by the director) who finds himself following 19th century visitors into The Hermitage.
His companion is the ghost of the Marquis de Custine (played by Sergey Dreyden), a travelogue writer, much like a French mid 1800's Hemingway or an echo of Steinbeck’s Travels with Charley. The two meander through 33 rooms, watching vignettes from 200/300 years of history unfold before their eyes. The Ark is, of course, the museum, established in 1754 with around 300 paintings from Catherine the Great’s personally purchased collection, now a museum with over 3 million items. The Hermitage has housed and protected culture through the oceanic storms of time, ignorance, war and revolutions. For a glimpse of the inside of The Hermitage alone, not to mention a terrific sampling of its artistic denizens, the movie is worth the 96 minute commitment. Many items were removed in advance of the filming, however, and many costumed guards were present during the filming, under the guise of extras. Four years of preparation, two THOUSAND actors, 3 orchestras, hundreds and hundreds of specially made incredibly vivid and detailed costumes, a customized wearable Steadicam, dozens of electricians to hide the lighting equipment, and the music of Glinka were used to create this unique look at both one of the oldest museums in history and to reenact snippets of key historical moments: the presentation of the Shah of Iran to Tzar Nicolas the First, apologizing for the death of a Russian ambassador; the ceremonial changing of the palace guard; a play being directed by Catherine the Great; a man building his own coffin during World War II; a temper tantrum by Peter I; all culminating in the last Imperial ball to be held there in 1913.
And on December 23, 2001 this movie was made in ONE…UNCUT…CONTINUOUS…SHOT. Ergo the title to this review. Although they made 4 abortive 5 minute starts, as the natural light started to fade, batteries started to wan, and a once in a lifetime permit from the institute expiring at the end of the day, they dove into the fifth and last take knowing it was literally … now or never. Sokurov yelled “Action” for the one and only time during the final cut of this film – and they DID NOT STOP. Unlike Hitchcock’s Rope there were no cheats. I’ll be honest, I watched closely for them but during the passing of, say, a wall, it was clear there were no cuts. This has only rarely been done with a feature length movie, for obvious technical and pragmatic reasons. Andy Warhol made an “experimental” film, Empire, just showing 8 hours of real time footage of the Empire State Building but even it was busted up into 10 – 43 minute reels. Then there is Timecode, an improvisationally acted oddity which displays four 93 minute points of view, filmed and shown simultaeously. And PVC-1 is 84 uncut minutes of a Columbian made crime drama, mostly made in remote areas and with a small ensemble cast. But Russian Ark was carefully directed, rehearsed, filmed, and involved a massive cast – daunting even for a conventional film maker – and required immediate clean up in this venerated establishment even as they began filming in the next room. Director Sokurov walked behind and out of view yelling instructions, advice and guidance to the actors as they went. Sound was added afterwards in post-production.
I don’t often mention crew, but this film could not have been made without the heroic – not to mention athletic – contribution of director of photography, cinematopgrapher and Steadicam operator/wearer Tilman Buttner. During an interview, Buttner, who had to schlepp 83 pounds of equipment non-stop for the entire 96 minute shoot, admitted that when they got to the last scene, he did not think he could physically continue. He said he was hurting in muscles he didn't know he had and was genuinely concerned he might do himself permanent harm if he continued. So he turned to his assistant and confessed he did not think he could film the last scene. Fortunately, the assistant misunderstood, thought Buttner was referring to the mass of costumed and dancing people in the last major scene and encouraged him with concentrating on the beauty of the moment. Buttner had never seen the set before and said when he did he was overwhelmed by the beauty of the costumes and dancers so that this final rush of adrenaline gave him the strength to finish the filming. This gives an idea of the arduous task the cast and crew had set before them. Sokurov has played with this theme before in Francofonia, where the ghost of Napoleon wanders through the Louvre pointing out works of art. But that was only an overture to this extremely ambitious outing and not done in one cut. For the history and visual stun alone I would recommend this movie. But to get the full benefit I would read about the movie first and perhaps listen to the interview with Sokurov about the making of Russian Ark called In One Breath.
We do not know if there is extraterrestrial life. You can’t logically prove a negative, so unless one shows up in front of the Washington Monument like Michael Rennie in The Day the Earth Stood Still or waves at the Hubble Telescope from the porch of their little alien home on the beach front of their little alien planet we won’t ever know for sure.
But the debate rages nonetheless. Each camp passionately believes in their conclusions – whether it is that the Universe – based on its size – MUST be teeming with life with which we have just not made contact OR in the vast wasteland that is the universe we are just the lucky lottery winners. Most agree on the evidence available but DISagree on the interpretation of that evidence, depending on their frame of reference which in turn depends upon their point of view through which they will filter all of the information they have. For instance, one group may see a blip in the radar and conclude that it MUST be a planet potentially fertile with life. The other side is certain it is merely a glitch in the lens. One hears a rhythmic sound and thrills to the possibility it could be an attempt at communication from another civilization. The other group assumes it is a reflex sound coming from an unseen spinning pulsar.
And so the conversation goes on in healthy fashion, inspiring each side to hone their skills, challenge their preconceived notions and continue to seek for new evidence to support their side of the argument.
Now, let’s pretend that it has become politically correct to ASSUME there is NO life originating from outside the boundaries of our planet. That the barren Wasteland view is the only concept taught in schools, published in textbooks or discussed in polite self-described intellectual circles. And that anyone who even SUGGESTS the possibility of life originating outside our planet is to be derided, freely insulted, humiliated, ignored and looked down upon as hopelessly ignorant or a fool. No more debate, no more healthy self-skepticism from either camp, no more honest research. Because anything that could POSSIBLY be found to contradict the Wasteland theory would be immediately dismissed, no matter how potentially credible. It would be a bit like trying to play tennis by yourself. Your serves would be for naught so your offense would suffer, you would accept no lobs back so your defense would be non-existent, and you would become a pathetic tennis player. Actually you wouldn’t BE a tennis player any more. If you refused any competition then you would simply cease to play and you may as well turn the lights off and go home.
The “debate” over the origin of the universe has become that former player. Any ideas that compete against the theory of Evolution are rejected, any evidence which challenges that secular dogma is dismissed out of hand and all debate has been halted. Any real research has hit the dead end of blind obedience to an unproven theory.
Is Genesis History? turns the lights back on the court and calls challengers back into the game. Del Tackett interviews leading men in their respective fields of geology, marine biology, astronomy and palenotology – all of whom were trained in, steeped in and at one time confined by the limits of the demand that Evolution be the only theory allowed – like some kind of an intellectually biased club into which only the select few were allowed to play. Each has rejected this idea as inadequate, in their estimation, to explain the evidence concerning the beginning of life in the universe and the very coming into existence of the universe itself. By their own admission they are only able to scratch the surface of their findings during the film and invite entry into a deeper study of their scientific findings, citing access to websites and welcoming debate.
Many forget that our current scientific breakthroughs ALL stand on the shoulders of scientists – the vast majority of whom were devout Christians, most Catholics. So to dismiss the idea of Creationism is to dismiss the framework from which MOST of our store of scientific knowledge comes. And without that you are merely memorizing the formulas without really understanding the fundamentals which will allow for truly significant understanding of the concepts.
So — I challenge you to watch this film through to the end INCLUDING the table conference at the end with the interviewees.
Creationists have been forced to recite the Evolutionist's mantra for years as the new age gospel dictated into the school curricula, assumed into everything from commercials to comedy skits and demanded of allegiance – Creationists
are quite familiar with the dicta. .
As a result the Evolutionists have become intellectually lazy, for which they should chide themselves. Without competition, without self-criticism you will never improve.
Become more intellectually honest. Challenge yourself with Is Genesis History?.
Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children is, itself, just that – peculiar. That’s not to say it is a bad movie. But it is unusual – and a bit of challenge to watch at times.
The story is about Jake (Asa Butterfield) who feels very ordinary – until his grandfather (Terence Stamp) dies in a mysterious and horrible way – with his eyes sucked out by a shadowy monster. Returning to the place where his grandfather grew up, he comes across a Gothic but romantically beautiful house which serves as a “Home for Peculiar Children” run by an equally mysterious Miss Peregrine (Eva Green). And then strange upon strange, finds the home has existed in a time loop since 1943, where the world around them repeats the same day over and over. And while the children do not age, neither do they lose the memories of the things which happened on previous repeated days – like Bill Murray’s Groundhog Day. But instead of the loop being used as a learning tool, it is being used as a security measure. You see, Miss Peregrine is hiding some very unusual children from — monsters. Which is ironic as some of the children can be a bit off putting themselves: Claire whose mouth of monstrous teeth are hidden in the back of her head, and the twins who have a powerful force underneath a full body canvas outfit or Enoch who puts animal hearts in inanimate objects and brings them to life to fight each other. And others – with equally "peculiar" skill sets.
The acting is quite stylized. At first I thought the children had been under prepared for their scenes as their effect was just a bit stunted. But then other actors appeared who I know full well are at the top of their game, used the same approach.
SPOILERS!!!
Samuel L Jackson plays Barron, the head “bad guy”. The talented Rupert Everett has a surprise and tricky-to-recognize cameo as an ornithologist and Judi Dench – who could win an Oscar by reading a grocery list out loud – makes a departure so abrupt and unexpected that I wondered if it was a homage to Samuel L Jackson’s role in Deep Blue Sea. And all of them act with the same stilted style. I realized it was a deliberate choice by Burton.
Perhaps he intended to create a story book feel. The source material was a series of books originally meant to be a collection of odd photographs to which a story was attached.
The ambiance of the movie harkens back to the old Grimm’s fairy tale approach to children’s stories. When one thinks of children’s movies we think of Finding Dory and The Secret Life of Pets, where violence is cartoonish or mostly takes place off screen or is not visually repugnant or is comical. Even in Harry Potter most of the violence, even deaths, are pretty sanitized.
But in Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children the writer and director did not shy away from graphic – even brutal – showings of exactly what they meant. When someone says children’s eyes are stolen and eaten – they do not mean it metaphorically. At one point we watch as a group of well dressed evil "Peculiars" sit about a table and suck in a large pile of eyeballs one at a time. It’s kind of gross but Burton-stylized and fascinating, like a train wreck.
But then what are we to expect from Tim Burton? He, of the Corpse Bride, Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas.
Also following in the steps of the Grimm Brothers, Burton does not hesitate to show us a dead child or an evil character getting his eyes poked out. But none of it is gratuitous, which saves this particularly “peculiar” outing.
Bad things happen when bad people do bad things. But, also like the Grimm Fairy tales there is merit in heroism and redemption in using your talents for the good of others and love will eventually conquer all.
I do recommend this movie but with provisos for the squeamish and any child under early teen years.
What if Jason Bourne was autistic….and an accountant. This is basically the premise for The Accountant, a compelling who dunnit with intriguing twists and turns. While there’s nothing especially new under the sun with the basics of the plot – guy uncovers a conspiracy, is chased by bad guy’s henchmen, lots of violence, innocent girl in distress comes under the reluctant wing of our intrepid hero – there are surprises.
One of the most absorbing and unexpected set ups is the protagonist. Not exactly a hero in the typical sense, he has a moral code of honor which he is willing to both kill and die for. And — he’s autistic. I cannot think of a single other film where the kick-gluteus maximus lead has this particular challenge. Now – Mercury Rising, Rainman, The Boy Who Could Fly, and Snow Cake – all feature autistic characters but all are in need of support, rescuing or protecting.
In The Accountant, Ben Affleck plays the self described “high functioning” autistic Christian Wolff, as a man who needs assistance from no one. Raised by his military single father, and with his younger brother, to be self sufficient, and extremely tough – Christian’s eccentricities generated from his autism are not shied from. Neither are they the subject of any of the usual well intentioned amusement. This is a man at whom you would not want to laugh – for a variety of reasons. One of which is the dignity with which he comports himself. The audience is allowed to observe his world and is encouraged to respect it.
– AND HERE THERE BE MAJOR SPOILERS THOUGH I DON’T SPILL ALL THE BEANS –
While there are hit men, embezzlers, mafiosos, torturers, murderers, psychos and plain old bad guys, the person who, I believe is the BIGGEST bad guy, the one who commits the worst sin and who, actually, starts the chain of events TWICE which create pretty much every bad thing that happens in the movie is —– Wolff’s mother.
Early on Christian’s mother abandons the family — at Christmas. The distraught Christian frantically tears the house apart. His father is seen in the front of the house, from the POV of the younger and smaller brother watching from the window, practically begging his wife to stay. The father, military and having expressed a desire for structure and the importance of discipline in the home, enters to find Christian having broken every breakable and punched a hole in the wall. I expected there to be further anger and conflict.
Instead the father kneels and cradles his traumatized son on the floor, cooing to and comforting him. This scene informed much of the rest of the film as well as my reaction to the path the elder Wolff lays out for his vulnerable sons. For example, when he insists his sons continue training with a special martial arts tutor beyond even what the tutor thinks is the limit for the young boys, we understand the father is not being cruel – he is devoted to and loves his children but, as he openly points out – he knows what’s best for them.
Because the mother leaves the father alone to fend for the boys and himself, the elder Wolff has no choice but to make them rock tough. And the younger boy is left with some seriously unresolved anger issues. Had the mother not left, it is likely the path all three of the men would have taken would not have been as dark as the one on which they ultimately trod.
Near the middle of the movie we discover Christian father’s has died. The death came as part of escalating conflict at this same woman’s funeral. The two – father and son – attend in military dress. But the new husband with the new family and the two new “normal” children takes exception to the first, rightful, husband being at her funeral. Ironically, Christian’s father was only there at Christian’s request. A fight breaks out, the new husband calls the police, an over zealous police deputy takes a shot a Christian. The father – as he has done his whole life – throws himself in the way of the bullet and dies. Christian attacks the police officer and sends him to the hospital – and ends up in Levingworth prison, where he meets the whistle blower accountant to a Mafia family who takes him under his wing, teaches the genius savant everything there is to know about this extremely dangerous lifestyle AND accounting.
And — the rest is the movie.
But all the bad stuff can be ultimately laid at the feet of this terrible woman’s “choice” to walk away from her children and husband because the situation was just too darned cramping to whatever style she thought she wanted. Reminds me of that old Kenny Rogers song – “You Picked a Fine Time to Leave me Lucille”.
The “balance” of the movie reveals how Christian copes with the tragedies in his life despite his challenges. Some of the choices HE makes are difficult ones but usually made with the care of others foremost in his mind. While this hero isn’t without flaws, as all humans are, his strict moral code left The Accountant in the black on his balance sheet.
FYI – Despite the genre, there is no sex, though there is a good deal of violence and a LOT of profanity.
As Oscar time rolls forward it is to be noted that La La Land has garnered a record tying 14 nominations – an accomplishment only achieved by two other movies to date: Titanic and All About Eve.
La La Land is the best movie I’ve ever seen that I do not like. Please bear with me. There is nothing wrong with this movie. It is, in fact, an EXCELLENT movie. It is fascinating, well acted, beautifully filmed and I would see it again. But it’s just not my cup of tea.
Let me explain: La La Land is the ups and downs of a love story harkening back to the old song and dance musicals of Singing in the Rain where our protagonists and total strangers break into synchronized dances and “improvise” brilliant and witty songs on the spot.
Mia and Sebastian “meet” in a traffic jam subsequent to an amazing and almost bizarre dance routine spontaneously begun like a flash mob on a gridlocked Los Angeles freeway. We then observe them in their respective lives: Mia, an aspiring but failing actress who keeps her rent coming in as a waitress, and Sebastian a jazz player/composer who chaffs against the confines of the banal music he must play at the bar where he gets a steady pay check and tips.
Things just do not happen the way we expect. For example, other than Mia and Sebastian we never see the people in the dance troupe traffic jam again. When we see Mia in her apartment it is HUGE and you are left wondering how on Earth does this girl afford this place on a waitress’ salary only to suddenly find she has THREE roommates. Mia wants to be noticed and is left breathless by the appearance of a “fictitious” celebrity yet shuns the shallow Hollywood parties she finds she must attend to GET noticed.
Much of the story of the two lovers follows an expected thread – boy meets girl, they do not like each other, boy and girl find they constantly run into each other or are thrown together by circumstance, deny their attraction for each other but leave the audience winking as at Benedict and Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing knowing they will fall hopelessly in love. There are misunderstandings and blocked opportunities, Gift of the Magi-type sacrifices, and long lovely embraces.
But the story never quite goes where you expect it WHEN you expect it. Without revealing more than I have to about the plot or the ending, let’s just say there was more discord in the harmonies than is appealing to me. See I am a dyed-in-the-wool romantic. I write screenplays (completely unpublished and with large files holding many rejections) and I have a saying that I cannot write an unhappy ending. It’s just against my nature. There’s too much UNhappiness in the world so when I am waxing creatively I do not want to go down that road. That does not mean stories with unhappy endings are bad – Romeo and Juliet, Othello, Saving Private Ryan, much of Les Mis, Gone With the Wind – all are beautiful brilliant movies with much to cry about, but not what I like to WRITE about and not in my “go to” pile when I want to just relax with a friendly piece of entertainment.
Same goes for the music I enjoy. I like soft rock and Christian rock and even some of what used to be called Bubble Gum (Herman’s Hermits, Captain and Tennille). Now my husband LOVES the more discordant – both in movies and music. He thinks an unhappy ending is more realistic and therefore more satisfying and jazz is the sound that floats his boat.
Which brings us to the theme of the movie. Mia at one point at the beginning of their budding romance admits she does not like jazz. So, our smitten Sebastian takes her to a jazz club and explains his fascination. “It’s conflict and it’s compromise, and it’s very, very exciting! It’s new every time.”
Another place in the story, Sebastian uses the same metaphor to encourage a despondent Mia. Sebastian says: “This is the dream! It’s conflict and it’s compromise, and it’s very, very exciting.”
Which is an excellent point and another way to describe what I suppose is the attraction to jazz for aficionados.
The movie IS very much like jazz – a sweet musical line that runs through the film twisting and turning but staying true to its fundamental theme. But at the same time surrounded by, encased in and sometimes driven by the harsher realities around it. It’s tough to keep up an idyllic love story when you have to exchange your rose colored glasses for a hands on opportunity to pay your bills. And even harder when one of the duet just does not seem to be fully committed to the tune.
There’s a scene near the end which gives the audience the full blown unexpurgated full on dream of what you expect and want from a movie like this, but then in a slap in the face and what feels like condescension we find it is just a dream. As though the screenwriter was yelling at us – “This may be what you WANT, but this NEVER HAPPENS, so GET OVER IT!”
So as the credits rolled I was left dissatisfied, somewhat disappointed, unhappy, and maybe even a wee bit insulted while still admiring the panache, the vibrancy, the beauty of the film I had just seen. (I do not think I was alone because as the credits began rolling someone immediately behind me summed up my feelings in a conversationally loud: “What the H***?!”)
BUT — from a jazz point of view it stayed true to Sebastian’s devotion to the genre: The movie hinted at and teased about with a familiar theme but when all was said and done it ended suddenly and on a discordant note. “It’s conflict and compromise” – but alas, if you are expecting a happy ending — it is only a dream.
I’m going to do something I have never done. I’m going to review a movie I HAVE NEVER EVEN SEEN AND HAVE NO PLANS TO EVER SEE!!!
I was really looking forward to seeing Silence, about the missionaries who went to Japan and courageously stood up against the persecutions of the anti-Christian government in the 17th century. I sought out the review of Silence by Bishop Barron first as I often get far more out of movies after listening to his take on them and given the topic thought it best if I watched him BEFORE seeing the movie instead of afterwards. I am grateful I did.
SPOILERS….you’ve been warned.
Silence is about two Jesuit priests (Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver) who go looking for their mentor (Liam Neeson) in Japan due to rumors he gave up the Catholic faith. They can’t believe it and want to clear his name, even at the risk of their own deaths.
1.
The mentor DID renounce the Catholic faith to save his skin/because he genuinely lost his faith – whatever. Not exactly an inspirational or virtuous character and I’m disappointed in Neeson, who is supposed to be a practicing Catholic, that he would parade this flawed example onto the big screen.
2.
The main young Jesuit, played by Garfield, GIVES UP HIS FAITH. He renounces the Holy Mother Church, takes a Japanese wife and spends the rest of his life, with Neeson’s character, as a government drone. Only at the end is he shown in his coffin HIDING a crucifix. WORSE than too little too late, it is apostacy.
I was appalled upon learning this. It’s JUST the way the atheists and new agers and liberals WANT us to treat our faith – as something shameful or to be kept, if at all, very very quiet and to ourselves, privately so it doesn’t BOTHER anyone.
3.
THE LAITY AND FATHER GARUPE ARE THE TRUE HEROES. The small fishing village which shelters the visiting Jesuits keep the faith going for YEARS, even before the two young Jesuits show up, in the face of horrific governmental persecution. When it is discovered that Jesuits are among them they torture and kill the villagers but the VILLAGERS DO NOT RENOUNCE THEIR FAITH!! Neither does Father Garupe, who dies with the villagers, but precious little film time or attention is given to him. They are the true heroes.
DO NOT BOTHER TO SEE THIS MOVIE. ITS ANTI-CATHOLIC PROPAGANDA DISGUISED AS CATHOLIC FAITH HISTORY IS DISGUSTING.
Even if this movie is based upon a real person who turns his back on the Catholic Church, WHY would millions be spent lionizing this person and ignoring the hundreds and thousands of people who died under torture protecting and upholding the Faith? Because the makers of this movie represent the idolators of the god Political Correctness and wish to trivialize the Truth.
I am SICK of being told, as a Christian and more specifically as a Catholic that I should KEEP MY PLACE, in the back of the political and societal bus. To keep my faith privately hidden away and not have it influence or instruct any of my day to day interactions. All in the name of the lefts’ god – Political Correctness. ENOUGH!!!
I will not be SILENCED when Little Sisters of the Poor are forced out of their vocation because the liberals and liberals’ precious Obamacrap wish the nuns to push contraceptives and baby murdering abortificants on patients. I will not be SILENCED when mom and pop bakers are forced out of business by socially abusive people who require their sexual fetishes be advertised on cakes.
AUSTIN, TX – JUNE 27: Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott attends a press conference celebrating the U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows a Ten Commandments monument to stand outside the Texas State Capitol June 27, 2005 in Austin, Texas. A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays inside courthouses, saying they violated the doctrine of separation of church and state. (Photo by Jana Birchum/Getty Images)
I will not be SILENCED when judges try to force out the 10 Commandments from public displays. I will not be SILENCED when liberals lie about the definition of the separation of church and state when all the while THEY are the ones mandating their state run “religion” of environmental wackoism and cult of abortionism. I will not be SILENCED when extremist Muslims TODAY are committing genocide on entire Christian populations.
MAY THIS MOVIE’S THEATERS RUN TO AN EMPTY THEATER OF ………….. SILENCE.
BE COURAGEOUS AND DO NOT BE SILENCED BY THOSE WHO WISH TO CONDEMN THE TEACHINGS OF OUR JUDEO-CHRISTIAN GOD TO …………….. SILENCE.
There are some movies that are very hard to watch….but really should be seen.
Lone Survivor, Saving Private Ryan, The Passion of the Christ, all come to mind. These movies document the suffering and courage of people who fight against terrible evil: Al Queda, Nazis, the Devil himself. Patriots Day is such a movie.
Patriots Day revolves around the men and women involved as victims, first responders, investigators, or keys in the relay race of evidence and capture of the Muslim terrorists who set off bombs at the Boston Marathon 2013.
The title of this article is intended to be two fold. This movie is about survivors who are inspiring, who, in turn inspire other survivors. Every American, faithful to the tenets on which our country was founded, should watch this movie.
Mark Wahlberg plays Tommy Saunders, the main protagonist but also the only major character not based on a single individual, but who is a composite of a number of first responders and police. Every other featured character is based on an individual real person.
In a bit of humor and irony Saunders is a detective under threat of suspension for an undetailed error who is on his last day in the dog house – Saunders must, Providentially for everyone involved, spend one more day in uniform at the finish line of the Marathon. So a highly trained official is there at ground zero to help begin the coordination of the rescue and evidence gathering and ultimately the capture of the two bombers.
It starts slowly and plays out like a well edited documentary – which is meant to be a compliment. The film shows essential moments in time, at first seemingly unrelated, parsed from post-event interviews, surveillance camera footage, security reports and other such transcripts. So it also starts a bit jumpily – moving quickly from introduction of characters to first responder moments to investigators’ efforts and ultimately to the moments and people at the edges of the net which finally captures the Muslim terrorists.
While not as graphic as Saving Private Ryan, do be aware that there are moments and images which adults, much less young teens, may find visceral, so use caution in deciding who should attend. Also, the language is understandably rough. Sometimes it seems like the only adjective anyone in Boston knows begins with the letter “F”. However, under most of the circumstances it is certainly not gratuitous.
I once witnessed a car accident and watched as several men – bystanders – launched themselves towards the smoking car to aid the passengers. Such bravery is on display here.
We owe it to the real people involved in the 2013 attack on our fellow citizens to see this movie. We owe it to history to be witnesses even second hand. We owe it to the surviving victims maimed in body but undaunted in spirit. We owe it to the first responders – whether official or civilian – who ran TOWARDS the source of ultimate danger to do what they could for the injured and vulnerable. We owe it to the investigators who worked tirelessly to literally piece together what happened. We owe it to the men and women who stood their ground against monsters shooting guns and throwing bombs in normally quiet residential areas. We owe it to the police and soldiers who open doors and step into rooms, knowing it might be their last act on Earth, in order to stop terrorists. We, survivors ourselves of the great evils in the war against Western civilization in general and the Judeo-Christian faith in particular, owe it to ourselves to be inspired by the survivors’ tremendous courage, faith and valor, who lived to witness the 2013 Patriots Day terrorist attack. And we owe it to those who did not survive to witness for them.
When my husband and I had been married for 15 years we volunteered to go through an Engaged Encounter Counseling training session. During that period of time we learned things about each other that we did not know! For example, his favorite color is blue. I thought it was tan. He always WEARS tan. Who knew?!
The process also reminded me about the dating/mating process. The early years when you become irresistably attracted. Then you wonder if you should take the risk of being a couple. After a time, as you consider you may be spending the rest of your life with this person – have I done the right thing? The infatuation. The sexual attraction. The sharing and adventure. The fun. And then you find out things maybe you hadn’t realized about the other. You fight. Maybe the fight seems to herald in the end of the relationship. But at some point you realize you would much prefer to journey through life WITH this person than without them – warts and all.
Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt star in Columbia Pictures’ PASSENGERS.
Perhaps it takes a personal crisis. Perhaps there is a moment when you see the resilient admirable core at the center of their being – the stuff that, even unknowingly, attracted you to them to begin with. Their morality. Their love of life. Their sense of fun….their courage in the face of life’s adversity. Something to which you can cling during the dangers and storms of life.
SPOILERS
In short, I have just synopsized Passengers. This movie is a brilliant allegory about just such a meeting, discernment, set of crises, resolution, determination and resolve that describe the stages of coming together in a marriage – not just the wedding, but truly the union of two people through thick and thin who commit selflessly to each other to face the life and death trials the world – or space – can bring.
Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) and Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence) are strangers. Passengers on a deep space colony ship whose 5,000 colonists and 100+ crew are put into hibernation for the length of a 120 year trip. 32 years into the journey the ship has an unexpected, unplanned run in with a comet storm which causes damage which triggers the opening of Jim’s pod. It also causes other damage which will not be fully noticed for another 2 years. Jim finds himself alone on a 1,000 foot luxury cruise ship with every amenity except companionship. There is the quirky addition of an android bartender
(Michael Sheen) but that’s it. He spends much of his time for the first few months: trying to contact Earth (round trip answer to even his cry for help would take 55 years), accessing the bridge (NOTHING short of a proper access code will get him entry despite the fact he is a mechanical engineer), reading manuals, trying to reactivate his hibernation pod. Finally he resigns himself to at least enjoying the amenities on the ship but after another few months he begins the slow descent into madness. He ceases to care even about shaving or dressing and finally is inches away from suicide when he randomly, if not Providentially comes across Aurora’s pod. He checks out her video profile and the books she has written and falls in love with her humor, her writing and ultimately…her. He struggles for months with the idea of manually opening her pod – even consulting Arthur, but his desperation is too great and he does what he realizes is the unthinkable – he awakens Aurora 87 years too early.
And so the courtship begins. The details of how the potential tragedy plays out, what her reaction is when she finds out what Jim has done, the reason why Jim's pod opened to begin with, and the resolution to their relationship I will leave to your watching of this amazing film.
Suffice it to say that I was captivated by the special effects, delighted by the story and impressed with the acting of two Robinson Crusoes and their bartender “Friday”. Pratt and Lawrence were terrific and Sheen endearing.
But it was my husband who recognized the analogy to marriage – how two people, against odds, found each other. That despite the hundreds of people around them it was up to ONLY the two of them to make a life for themselves, to overcome seemingly overwhelming obstacles and to triumph by self sacrificing to and for each other, recognizing their union may require foregoing other possible choices, binding themselves only to each other, and spending the rest of their lives making a life with each other. The perfect analogy of a courtship and marriage.
My only regret is that religion was sanitized out of the equation. There were Biblical elements: Jim willing to lay down his life for Aurora. Aurora willing to forgive Jim completely and his life becoming her life. They ultimately chose to cleave to each other, despite the fact Aurora was provided, by Jim, with another option. But there were no visits to a chapel, no praying to God in what was emotional extremity for Jim. No acknowledgement of the Hand of God and His Providence in their miraculously timed awakenings, finding each other or escape from mortal peril. And that’s a shame. Because with inclusion of the recogniztion of God this marital analogy would have been raised to the level of a sacramental union. There was even a clergy of sorts in the form of a Senior crewman (Lawrence Fishburne), who stood in the way of Captain for a time and who – before his demise – gave his “blessing” to them.
Despite this lack Passengers is a lovely, inspirational movie about the adventure of two people who bond for life…and who bond FOR life.
In the brilliant musical 1776about the signing of the Declaration of Independence, as his fellow colonial representatives continue to remove portions of the first draft they deem too derogatory, John Adams, in the extremis of frustration shouts: “This is a revolution, we have to offend SOMEBODY!!!”
Well kudos to Assassin’s Creed. They have managed to OFFEND EVERYBODY!
The story is about Sofia (Cotillard) who “rescues” Cal Lynch/Aguilar (Fassbender) after he is executed for the murder of a pimp (which back story sounded far more interesting than the main story turned out to be). Her plan is to use a machine to get him to access the genetic memories of one of his ancestors, an assassin of the 11th century who she believes knows the location of the Apple of Eden, an unexplained anachronism – a highly technological ball which holds the genetic code to Free Will created around or even before the 11th century……and yes, I know how dumb this sounds, but I didn’t write this, I am only warning you about it.
According to my son, who is far more familiar with the source video games than I am, the first two Assassin’s Creed games explored a relatively straight forward good guys versus bad guys, trying to keep the peace during the time of the Crusades. The third version was a stab at anti-Catholic propaganda which game fell flat on its face. SO, of COURSE THAT’S the one they decided to sink a whooping $125 MILLION dollars into as well as waste the talents of: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons and Brendan Gleeson.
I take particular exception to the barbs thrown at Templars. Contrary to this mishmashed script, Templars were NOT lunatic totalitarians who sought to eliminate free will. They were monk-like warrior priests who were sent to protect the Christian pilgrims traveling through the Holy Land from attack by Muslims. The absurdist rewriting of history is both ludicrous and might have been insulting if it were at all effective.
The Catholics were treated, predictably, as megalomaniacs. The Muslims were portrayed as cowards. Capitalists as shallow dictatorial control freaks. And the Templars were led by a woman, played, inexplicably by a CGI enhanced Charlotte Rampling. I was so puzzled by her CGI appearance that I had to check to see if maybe she had died in mid production, but, no, she’s still quite alive. And the age of the “Excellency” did not matter and would have even been enhanced by old age. So — I have no idea why they did that very weird thing.
And apparently no one opened a history book, much less read one, because not only were women NOT Templars, Templars were not even allowed intimacies with women – NOT even their own WIVES! So it’s a cinch that a woman would not be leading the Templars. And finally, the Assassins were so shallowly drawn they were impossible to care about. Not even when the protagonist had a fighting companion at whom he continually made “goo-goo” eyes.
So, you had your choice between mind controlling totalitarian Templars, or complete anarchist Assassins who chanted that “there is no right or wrong…everything is permitted.” Hmmmm. So WHO are we supposed to be rooting for??!!
Continuing on the hit parade of stupid plot points was that the Templars spent billions of dollars building a machine to help them find the Apple of Eden, in order to eliminate Free Will, when the founder – the character played by Irons, readily admits that he thinks it is a moot point because people are so devoted to consumerism (a dig at capitalism, the other whipping boy of the liberals) that Free Will does not matter to them any more. At which point I wondered – well, then why don’t you just pack up and go home. What are you people still DOING out here!!??
Another dumb plot point is the keeping of the “rejected” assassin conduits in one security moderate facility armed with guards who will rush in single file towards a prison riot using only their batons into a facility FULL of display glass “protected” museum piece WEAPONS!!! What idiot would warehouse a gang of convicted (presumably executed) killers with swords and maces and knife studded gauntlets for crying out loud!!!
Meanwhile, from a purely plot-centric point of view the storyline wandered around aimlessly – from the inexplicable murder of our protagonist’s mother, witnessed by him as a young child, to the idea that there could exist, in the 11th century, a metal ball which could hold, or illuminate, or inhibit the genetic code of Free Will, to the concept that there IS such a gene, that the characters spend so much time fighting each other that you don’t really care who wins. Through most of the fight scenes, which in and of themselves were pretty well choreographed, I ended up just wishing ONE side or the other would kill the other side off so they would STOP JERKING AROUND THE CAMERA!!
I LOVE Jackie Chan movies, swashbuckling fencing matches, war films, super hero movies, and even the Rocky series. So I am no newbie when it comes to parsing out what is going on with quick editing action scenes. But the chase/fight scenes here were made of such short choppy edits that….let’s just say it’s a good thing I’m not prone to epilepsy.
The best – read ONLY — good parts of the movie were the interactions of Cotillard with Irons, as daughter and father Rikkins, cutting edge scientists working to locate the Apple of Eden so they can eliminate violence and…. oh who cares. It is the DUMBEST plot device ever. But I could watch Cotillard and Irons read the ingredient label to a box of cereal and they would find a way to make it interesting.
And, for the record, I just GOTTA include a couple more random points:
1.Rikkin tells Cal he is not in a prison but they won’t let him leave and essentially torture him – worst vacation retreat—ever.
DF-05268.tif
2. If Cal was a descendant of this Assassin – who was the mom? Assassin Cal/Aguilar’s only girlfriend died and I really don’t see him stopping to fight long enough to even breed.
3. When (SPOILER) Iron’s character is killed – how does he die? There is no blood when Cal “slits” his throat OVER Rikkin’s shirt collar. The collar is not cut, mussed or soaked in blood. Did he die by bow-tie-being-untied?
3. At one point we see Cal’s assassin ancestor leap off a tall building – Cotillard’s character even tells him “jump” but we never see how he survives this enormous fall but we do surmise he dies much later from an arrow wound.
5. And how DID he make it to a ship to give the apple to (wait for it) Christopher Columbus with an arrow in his side?
6. Why did the Rikkins think their search was over just because they saw Aguilar hand it over to Columbus. Columbus was an EXPLORER – he could have put it anywhere in half of the world…or dropped it over the side into the ocean?
6. How did they successfully conclude it was in Columbus’ grave? I mean Aguilar did tell Columbus to take it to his grave, but….literally??!!
As a side note —- Is there a REASON WHY Irons keeps doing these kinds of movies??!! Eragon, Dungeons and Dragons, now this. I must assume his answer would have to be the same one Michael Caine gave when asked why he made Jaws 3 in the SAME year he made the Oscar winning Hannah and Her Sisters —- “Because I had a mortgage to pay.”
The writer to this garage sale quality puzzle-with-missing-pieces spent so much time trying to dis the Catholic Church and send a message praising anarchy that they forgot to actually come up with an understandable plot. Perhaps they should have followed the advice attributed to Sam Goldwyn: “If you want to send a message, call Western Union”.
Ironically (a pun in and of itself given who plays Daddy Rikkin) Assassin’s Creed manages to bump ITSELF off.
I know this production is not of a movie BUT Sleuth HAS been filmed. So – with that rationalization in mind:
has a surprise and tricky-to-recognize cameo as an ornithologist and Judi Dench
