Showing posts with label Documentaries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Documentaries. Show all posts

Friday, May 19, 2017

"LA 92" and The Week in Reviews

[I review the new documentary on the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict "LA 92" as well as DVDs "Miss Sloane" and "Gold."  The Book of the Week is Paula Hawkins' latest "Into the Water: A Novel."  Yes, people, it's a novel.  I continue to expand my horizons. This is the follow-up to Hawkins' best-seller, "The Girl on the Train."  I also bring you up-to-date with "My 1001 Movies I Must See Before I Die Project" with "Head-On."]



LA 92


A documentary about the aftermath of the verdict in the trial of the four police officers charged with beating Rodney King.

Rodney King? 

That name may not resonate with today's young people, but for those of us who were around in 1992 when that infamous video of Rodney King being beaten by four police officers was shown all over the world, the name Rodney King was on everyone's lips.  And when those police officers went on trial for the beating and were acquitted despite video evidence of what they had done, we were glued to our TV sets as South Central L.A. went up in flames and the ensuing riots resulted in the most widespread racial violence in U.S. history.

Early in the film, Oscar-winning directors Daniel Lindsay and T.J. Martin ("Undefeated") lay the groundwork for what happened in 1992 by starting the film with the 1965 Watts riots and the ascension of hardliner, Daryl Gates to Los Angeles police chief. The Los Angeles police already had a reputation for police brutality in black neighborhoods, and Police Chief Darryl Gates was an unrepentant hardliner.  

On March 3, 1991, Rodney King was stopped by Los Angeles police officers after a car chase. Four police officers surrounded King and beat him unconscious and continued to kick and beat him over 50 times after he was down with other officers standing by. Little did they know that a witness, George Holliday, was videotaping them.  He sent the footage to a local news station, and it caused a furor around the world. Four officers were charged with assault with a deadly weapon and use of excessive force.

Today, using our smart phones to record anything and everything that happens is commonplace but back in 1991, seeing that video was revelatory.

So there those police officers were on tape.  It was clear that Rodney King was unarmed and down on the ground with the police officers continuing to beat and kick him.  It's a no-brainer, right?  Those police officers are going to jail.

Think again.

Ironically it was felt that the trial was so volatile that the police officers couldn't get a fair trial in Los Angeles, so, gee, let's move the trial to Simi Valley, a predominantly white city where many police officers lived.  Do we think they can get a fair trial there?  So, duh, it's no wonder that all four were acquitted, despite the video which was basically proof of what happened. All of the country and even the world were transfixed by this trial, and as the verdicts were read, the whole world was watching. The film shows the reactions of black people vs. white people and the progression of emotion and events leading up to the riots.

What started as peaceful protests organized by the AME Church quickly escalated. Within hours of the acquittals, the six-day 1992 Los Angeles riots started, in which 55 people were killed and over 2,000 were injured, ending only when the California national guard was called in.  It was the most destructive civil disturbance in U.S. history.

One of the most horrific bits of footage was the beating of Reginald Denny who just happened to be driving his truck through the riot zone.  He was dragged out of his truck and beaten over the head with concrete blocks, kicked when he was down with his attackers rejoicing.

Stores were set afire. There were many Korean-owned stores in the area and many of those owners were seen as a sort of merchant class who were against the blacks.  There had been an incident 13 days after the videotaped Rodney King beating, but before the Rodney King verdict, where a 15-year-old black girl - Latasha Harlins - was shot in the head by a Korean store owner for supposed shop lifting despite store surveillance video  showing the girl had money in her hand.  Though the shopkeeper was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, she served no jail time.  So there was already deep resentment and this incident was considered a precursor to the subsequent riots.

Using archival footage, interviews and appropriately dramatic music, Directors Lindsey and Martin skillfully weave all of these events together to tell this important story that still resonates today.  There are no talking heads, no narration, no omniscient voice-over, just the horrific footage of the escalating tensions, the police retreating and the ensuing out-of-control rioting.  It is shocking to learn that the police left the area and did nothing - ON PURPOSE - a certain kind of reverse racism, a let's- leave-"those people"-to-tear-up-their-own-neighborhood attitude. A we-don't-care attitude. But it was also cowardice.  Sure, we are happy to beat up an unarmed man but when it's time to keep the peace and save innocent bystanders?  Nope.  That footage is very hard to look at.

But at the same time, the film footage is amazing.  You can't help but wonder who was able to get all of that footage of the looting and the arson and not get beaten up or killed.  Whoever those photographers were had more courage than the cops.  And the filmmakers must have dug deep to find all of that footage and edit it so skillfully into this fine, important film.

The film is summed up at the end in a flashback to a newsman reporting on the 1965 Watts riots:

“What shall it avail our nation if we can place a man on the moon but cannot cure the sickness in our cities?”

I want to add:

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The Rodney King riots were in 1992 and it seems we have not learned that lesson. Can something like the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict happen again?  Hell, yes! It already has. Does Ferguson ring a bell?

As you know, if you have been following me over the last four years, I am a documentary junkie.  I wrote about some of my favorites in my blog post "15 Must See Documentaries" and I should add this one to my list. I have always believed that real life is far more interesting, inspiring, thought-provoking and disturbing than any fictional story.  And this documentary makes that case.  It is highly interesting, highly thought provoking and highly disturbing.  And yes, it's inspiring too.

Not every great film is to be found in the theatre.  More and more, companies like Netflix and Amazon are underwriting the distribution of films or making them themselves.  This wonderful documentary is one such film. This film debuted on the National Geographic Channel and is now available on their website (click on the link) as well as on Xfinity On Demand, Amazon, Hulu and Vudu and is worth looking for.

Rosy the Reviewer says...an important and timely film that is Oscar-worthy and needs to be seen.

 
 


***Some Movies You Might Have Missed***
(And Some You Will Be Glad You Did)!

On DVD



Miss Sloane (2016)





Elizabeth Sloane (Jessica Chastain) is considered one of the most formidable lobbyists in Washington D.C. but when she is lured away to another lobbyist firm to take on the gun lobby, has she met her match?

The film begins with a close-up of Miss Sloane saying:

"Lobbying is about foresight. About anticipating your opponent's moves and devising counter measures. The winner plots one step ahead of the opposition. And plays her trump card just after they play theirs. It's about making sure you surprise them. And they don't surprise you."

She is under investigation by the Senate, but let's flashback to three months before that.

Miss Sloane has been working at her lobbyist company for ten years and is well-known to be hard as nails and good at what she does.  Right now she is lobbying for palm oil for the Indonesian government.

It is established early that Miss Sloane is a hard-working pill popping workaholic. She is also an insomniac who is not above blackmail.  She lives and breathes her job so doesn't have time for relationships, unless you consider hiring a male prostitute a relationship. As the film unfolds, we get glimpses into why Miss Sloane is so good at what she does as in lying and coercing and twisting the truth.

However, despite being a tough cookie, Miss Sloane does actually have opinions and works for causes she believes in.  Now her firm wants her to work with the gun lobby to get women to buy guns.  She is against guns but is threatened with the loss of her job if she doesn't "Start getting women into guns."

So it's a no-brainer when she is lured away from her job to work with the Brady campaign to get a gun bill passed that requires universal background checks when buying a gun. It's too much of a challenge for her to pass up. She leaves and takes her team with her.

Now her old company wants to see her fail hence her being up in front of a Senate investigation committee. Seems that the lobbying she did for palm oil for the Indonesian government involved some misdeeds on her part. 

Will she fail or will she blow the whistle on the congress people who are in the pockets of the lobbyists?  What do you think?

Watching this film, "Spotlight" and "The Big Short" come to mind, one a film about newspaper people investigating abusive priest in Boston and the other about the financial collapse of 2008.  You would think neither of those films would be particularly riveting because so much of those kinds of films involves talking heads and topics that are not, shall we say, classically, compelling, but they were. "Spotlight" used the personal dramas of the abused and "The Big Short" used humorous cameos by celebrities to explain financial jargon.

So now we have another iffy subject: Washington lobbying. 

Sounds like a big snooze, right?  But it's not. This film is a primer on how lobbying works in Washington, how lobbying is all about money and nothing about morality and it's scary as hell. And Jessica Chastain's powerful performance turns what could be a dry subject into a compelling story. This film lives or dies on Chastain's ability to get us to care about what goes on in Washington to get bills passed and she does.

Directed by John Madden with a slick script by Jonathan Perera, this film did not do particularly well at the box office, which could be a statement on how many people want to see movies about gun control.  It was billed as a thriller, and I think that might be part of the problem because it's not really a thriller.  When you see how lobbying is done in Washington, it's more of a horror film.  

So this film is less about the Second Amendment and more about the evils of lobbying.  Not doing well at the box office is not necessarily a sign of whether or not a film is good.  And this film is good primarily because of the performance by Chastain and the excellent ensemble cast, and the subject which basically exposes the real way our laws are passed.  It's a sad truth that many of our laws are actually passed well before they are voted on in Congress.  They are figuratively passed by these lobbyists, who put the pressure on our legislators.  The case is made that we the people don't really run our country, the lobbyists do, which in turn means the corporations do.

Rosy the Reviewer says...Not a thriller, more of a horror film about how things get done in Washington.  But it's worth seeing, especially for Chastain's amazing performance.






Gold (2016)


Kenny Wells (Matthew McConaughey) is the owner of a mining prospecting company, and he needs a lucky break, so he teams up with a geologist and the two go to Indonesia to find gold.  They find more than that.

It's Reno, 1981. Kenny is a wheeler dealer, living with his girlfriend, Kay (Bryce Dallas Howard), and after inheriting his Dad's thriving mining company has managed to run it into the toilet.  He can't get investors.  Then the 1989 recession hits and it hits commodities hard.  Now he is losing his house and to make matters worse, he's old and fat and drinking too much.

Then Kenny has a dream about finding gold in Indonesia, and he becomes obsessed with the idea.  He pawns his gold watch as well as the one he gave Kay and goes there.  He meets Mike Acosta (Edgar Ramirez), a geologist with a reputation for finding gold.  Acosta also believes there is gold to be found in Indonesia, so Kenny decides to back Acosta and starts to raise money to find the mines. He wheels and deals and gets investors but they run out of the money and Kenny's dream begins to fall apart.

But then, amazingly, they do strike gold and Kenny is back in business. Washoe Mining goes on the stock exchange and everything is hunky dory for our hero. It's celebration time. Let the spending begin!

And then about 40 minutes into the film we realize that Kenny is being interviewed by cops.  Oops.  What's going on?

I found that to be a bit jarring because that should have been established early on and despite the flashback being a cliché move I think this film would have benefited from it.

Anyway, back to our story.

At the height of his success, Kenny is offered $300 million for his mines, but he won't do it because he doesn't want to give up naming rights.

Then the worst happens.  Indonesia seizes his mines. It's always risky doing business in another country.  Turns out the money men had ties to Suharto.  Kenny doesn't sell?  Well, they will just steal the mines from him.

"Pride goeth before a fall," right?  Kenny, why didn't you take the money?

"It was a pride thing.  It was my dream.  I dreamed it.  If you sell your dream, what do you have left?"

Now Kenny is depressed again and drinking. But it's not over for Kenny yet. This guy is like a cat.  He has nine lives.  Mike saves Kenny from his depression and drinking and the two concoct a plan to get their mines back by hooking up with Suharto's profligate son.  They strike it big but then...BIG TWIST. 

We find out why Kenny is being interviewed by the FBI.

McConaughey and his make-up people have certainly done everything they can to make McConaughey look unattractive or rather he has done it to himself.  He gained 50 pounds for this role and wore a bald wig and false teeth.  I think that's a trend when actors want to win Academy Awards.  Think Halle Berry's nude scene in "Monster's Ball" and Charlize Theron's make-up job in "Monster." What good-looking actors have to do to get noticed! McConaughey also gets to give an Academy Award style speech at the end:

"What is a prospector?  He's someone who believes it's out there."

Sadly, no Academy Awards for him or this film.

Directed by Stephan Gaghan, this film is based on the Canadian Bre-X gold mining scandal (note:  if you click on the link, major spoiler) and adapted for the screen by Patrick Massett and John Zinman.  This film reminded me of "American Hustle," where Christian Bale also got fat and there was a con going on, but it doesn't have the zing that "American Hustle" had.  The film definitely has some high moments, but it also has some lows and dragged in the middle.

Rosy the Reviewer says...if you like McConaughey, you might find this entertaining, but I am still recovering from seeing Kenny/McConaughey in his tighty whities.



***My 1001 Movies I Must See Before I Die Project***


202 to go!

Have YOU seen this classic film?




Head-On (2004)


A young Turkish woman living in Germany marries a much older man to free herself from the restrictions of her family.

Cahit (Birol Unel) is a German immigrant living and working in Hamburg.  He is an addict and a loser, and he knows it, so one night he drives his car into a brick wall. But he recovers and meets Sibel (Sibel Kekilli) at the psychiatric clinic where they are both recovering.  Sibel has issues too.  She tried to slash her wrists because she just couldn't conform to her traditional Turkish family's needs for her to conform.  Sibel just wants to party and have as much sex as possible with as many men as possible. Though Cahit is 23 years olden than Sibel, when she finds out he is Turkish, she asks him to marry her and he asks her for a beer.

These are two wacky kids, but she is actually more nutty than he is.  She actually cuts her wrists in front of him, because she doesn't want to live with her family.  I don't blame her. Her brother has already broken her nose for her supposed bad behavior, and he is not above a little honor killing should she step out of line again.  I would want out of that family too!

So Cahit is finally convinced that to save Sibel he should marry her, and they enter into a marriage of convenience.

And he is hardly a catch.  He's a drunk, a layabout, likes cocaine and has a dead wife he won't talk about. He also likes to have rough sex with Maren (Catrin Striebeck), a woman friend of his. Cahit and Sibel get married, but on their wedding night, Cahit gets drunk and kicks Sibel out of their apartment, so she goes to a bar and picks up a bartender. 

The two have a sort of a marriage except they are both having sex with other people and not each other.  They had no intention of falling in love - this was a marriage of convenience for Sibel - but of course they do and when Cahit overhears that same bartender that Sibel had sex with on their wedding night saying bad things about Sibel he kills him.  Sibel's family finds out about this "jealousy killing" and now her brother is after her to kill her for the family honor.  Cahit goes to jail and Sibel goes to Istanbul to stay with a friend and hide out from her family.

So will these two crazy kids ever get together?

Written and directed by Fatih Akin, the film employs a sort of Greek, or should I say, Turkish chorus that sings Turkish songs to show the passing of time and to break the film into scenes. This film is not just a love story between two lost souls, it also explores the clash of Turkish traditional cultures and Western culture, and the stars, Unel and Kakilli are mesmerizing, he with his craggy handsomeness and she with her vivacity. 

Why it's a Must See:  "A nervy, unsettling, sometimes bleak drama of two outsiders (vividly) played, with unwavering intensity and conviction, by the two leads, the film in fact continues a vital strand of provocative, post-punk creativity in contemporary European cinema..."
--"1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die"

Cahit crashes his car into a brick wall early in the film, and Sibel's and Cahit's relationship is like that same head-on car crash, and like a car crash, you can't look away.

Rosy the Reviewer says...an astonishingly dark but poignant story.


 

***Book of the Week***






Into the Water: A Novel by Paula Hawkins (2017)


Several women have mysteriously died over the years in the river that runs through a small English village, but when two die there over a short span of time, there is a mystery to be solved.

Jules Abbot has come back to Beckford.  She left never wanting to return but her sister Nel has drowned in the river and Jules has come to take care of Nel's teen-aged daughter, Lena.  Jules and Nel had been estranged for years and Jules accepts that Nel was a suicide until Lena tells her she was pushed, and Jules becomes embroiled in the mystery of her sister's death as well as the mystery of why Lena's young friend, Katie, also jumped to her death in the river.

Did Nel kill herself by jumping into the river or was she pushed?  What about Katie?  Why would a young, beautiful, smart girl choose to kill herself?  As the secrets of the villagers are revealed, so are the reasons for Nel's and Katie's fates.

This is author Paula Hawkins' second book, following her "The Girl on the Train."  It's a gripping story that, like "The Girl on the Train," is all very British.  Similar to "The Girl on the Train," Hawkins also uses different points of view to tell the story.  Hawkins does a good job of slowly revealing the characters and their stories, letting each talk for a chapter or two and then another character jumps in to pull the story forward.

However, this time Hawkins uses an irritating device, changing each character's points of view, sometimes the character speaks in the first person, sometimes from the omniscient third, and I could not figure out what that device was supposed to tell me.  At first I thought she changed points of view depending on whether the character was in the past or the present, but that didn't bear out.  So it was distracting. This book also feels more like a British detective series than "The Girl on the Train."  Each character tells his or her story and each is under suspicion until the secrets and twists are revealed.

Rosy the Reviewer says...an enjoyable mystery but if you are expecting another "The Girl on the Train," I think you will be disappointed.




.

Thanks for reading!


See you next Friday 

 
for my review of  

 
"Snatched"


and



The Week in Reviews
(What to See or Read and What to Avoid)


 and the latest on



"My 1001 Movies I Must See Before 

 I Die Project." 


If you enjoyed this post, feel free to copy and paste or click on the share buttons to share it on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and LinkedIn, email it to your friends and LIKE me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/rosythereviewer


Check your local library for DVDs and books mentioned.


Next time you are wondering whether or not to watch a particular film, check out my reviews on IMDB (The International Movie Database). 

Go to IMDB.com, find the movie you are interested in.  Once there, click on the link that says "Explore More" on the right side of the screen.  Scroll down to External Reviews and when you get to that page, you will find Rosy the Reviewer alphabetically on the list.

NOTE:  On some entries, this has changed.  If you don't see "Explore More" on the right side of the screen, scroll down just below the description of the film in the middle of the page. Click where it says "Critics." Look for "Rosy the Reviewer" on the list.

Or if you are using a mobile device, look for "Critics Reviews." Click on that and you will find me alphabetically under "Rosy the Reviewer."




Friday, May 12, 2017

"The Beatles: Eight Days a Week - The Touring Years" and The Week in Reviews

[I review the new Ron Howard documentary "The Beatles: Eight Days a Week - The Touring Years" which was in limited release and is now streaming on Hulu as well as DVDs "A Monster Calls" and "The Edge of Seventeen."  The Book of the Week is "The Curated Closet."  I also bring you up-to-date with "My 1001 Movies I Must See Before I Die Project" with "Ikiru"]





The Beatles: Eight Days a Week - The Touring Years


A documentary about the 250 concerts the Beatles performed from 1963 to 1966 that includes never-before-seen footage and interviews.

Most of us Baby Boomers were Beatles fans. 

John, Paul, George and Ringo.  The Fab Four.  We all had a favorite (mine was Paul).  I can remember exactly where I bought my first album, how I felt when I saw the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show (and who I was with - Hi, Linda!) and the thrill I felt at one of their concerts in Detroit in 1965.  The Beatles so affected my young life that when I first started writing this blog, I was compelled to write "Why the Beatles Matter."



And yes, that's me in my bedroom with my girlfriends!

America was in mourning for President Kennedy and the Vietnam War was looming, so with their "long" hair, cheeky attitude and upbeat music, the Beatles brought excitement, happiness and hope and made my generation, the Baby Boomer Generation, feel like we could do anything. 

Using never-before-seen concert footage and interviews, as well as present-day comments from Paul and Ringo and other artists such as Elvis Costello and Eddie Izzard, this documentary was a labor of love from director Ron Howard, who captures that special moment in time when the Beatles were first starting out and took the world by storm.

When the Beatles first got together, things were really simple for them. They paid their dues in the dingy bars and sex clubs of Hamburg.  George reminisces about being 17 in "the naughtiest town in the world."

And Ringo remembered when "Playing was the most important thing."

John recalls that when they would get depressed, he would ask them, "Where we going, fellas?" and they would answer "To the top, Johnny!"  "Where's that, fellas?"  "To the toppermost of the poppermost!"  "Right!" And then they would feel better.

See why we loved them so much?

John was also known for his wit, and in one press conference, they were asked "How do you keep up the zest?" to which John replied "We do the zest we can!"

He was a genius at playing on words.

The film also briefly profiles Brian Epstein, whose parents owned a record shop in Liverpool.  So many people started asking for records by The Beatles that he decided to check them out and when he did, he saw their potential and signed up as their manager.  He thought they had an "untidy stage presentation" so he put them in suits, "Beatle boots" and invented that hair.

By mid 1964, The Beatles were the world's leading band.

When Paul was asked about their impact on Western culture, he replied "How can you ask me that?  What do we have to do with Western culture?  We're just having a laugh."  Little did he know how much influence they would have and how many other young men would become musicians because of the Beatles.  Even women were not immune to that dream.  Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart wrote in their book "Kicking and Screaming" (co-authored by Charles Cross) that they didn't want to be groupies for the Beatles, they wanted to BE the Beatles.

When George Martin came on board as their record producer, he decided that the Beatles would put out a single every three months and an album every six months.  That and the touring took its toll.

And as they became more and more successful, things got complicated, as happens with immense success. 

Eventually, they got tired of all of the publicity and everyone wanting a piece of them.  The movie "Help" was an anthem to that.  They really did need help.  The touring and performing and not being able to hear themselves over the screaming, weighed on them.

In 1966 they had three months off, the first time in four years they had any time off and the four all started to develop other interests.  George had developed an interest in Indian music, Paul was painting and for the first time their personal lives started taking precedent.

Then came the shocking butcher album cover and John's remark about their being more popular than Jesus and a back lash began along with anti-Beatles demonstrations.  It's interesting that the Jesus remark went practically unnoticed in the U.K. but here in the U.S. our Puritan roots got the better of us, especially in The South, where there were widespread record burnings.

By mid 1966, the Beatles were not happy.  George said it was starting to feel like a freak show and they all decided "That's enough of that" and they performed their last show in August of 1966 at Candlestick Park in San Francisco.

The film makes the point that because the Beatles started touring at such a young age, their growing up years were stunted, and it was not until after they stopped touring that they started to live, and some of their most creative years took root with the "Revolver" album and culminated in the Sgt. Pepper album, where they musically liberated themselves from the burden of being THE BEATLES.  Sgt. Pepper was on the record charts for three years and in 2012 "Rolling Stone" named it one of the best albums of all time. 

The film also shows the impact the Beatles had on people of color (Whoopi Goldberg shares a moving story about going to see them with her mother), and their refusal to play in front of segregated audiences.  At a concert in Jacksonville, Florida in 1964, seats at the Gator Bowl were to be separated by race, but the band refused to perform until they were assured that the audience would be mixed. Rather than risk a riot of disappointed Beatle fans, the promoters relented and the venue was integrated, setting a precedent for all future Beatle performances.

Paul said, "It's a bit silly to segregate people. I just think it's stupid. You can't treat other human beings like animals. That's the way we all feel, and that's the way people in England feel, because there's never any segregation in concerts in England – and if there was we wouldn't play 'em."

"We played to people," Ringo Said. "We didn't play to those people or that people – we just played to people."


The Beatles only performed live one more time and that was January 30, 1969 on a rooftop in London and fittingly that's how the film ends, the Beatles playing for the last time and people down on the sidewalk listening and looking up, not quite believing what they are hearing.

Director Ron Howard has put together a fascinating look back at a time that is so meaningful for us Baby Boomers and at a band that changed our lives. If you are a Beatles fan and lived through Beatlemania, there might not be much here that you don't already know, but you will delight in all of the performance footage, the never-before heard recording sessions and interviews and the behind-the-scenes look at the making of "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help," and getting to relive it all over again.  But Howard didn't just want to appeal to Baby Boomers.  He made this movie for the younger generation, too, so they could see the impact the Beatles had on an entire generation and how much fun their parents had!

Rosy the Reviewer says...treat yourself to this.  It's a delight!
(This film had a limited theatrical release and is now available exclusively on Hulu but it's worth making the effort to see. If you don't have Hulu, go for the free 30-day subscription).



***Some Movies You Might Have Missed***
(And Some You Will Be Glad You Did)!

On DVD



A Monster Calls (2016)


A boy with a dying mother gets help from a tree monster.

We first hear Liam Neeson's rich baritone voice say at the beginning of the film:

"It begins with a boy too old to be a kid, to young to be a man...and a nightmare."

And young Conor's life is indeed a nightmare.

Conor's (Lewis MacDougall) mother (Felicity Jones) has been diagnosed with terminal cancer and Conor is devastated, but he has learned to take care of himself when his mother is at her worst. He doesn't want to face what is really happening.  Besides, he has other problems. He is lonely and isolated, he has nightmares, and he is being bullied and beaten at school.  And when Conor's grandmother (Signourney Weaver) comes to take charge, she isn't much help either.  She is stern and cold towards him.

Lewis's father (Toby Kebbell) arrives to say his last goodbye to his ex-wife, though he doesn't say that to Conor.  His Dad lives in L.A. and has remarried and Lewis wants to go live with him but it's clear he doesn't want Conor to.  Instead Conor is to live with his grandmother.

Everything is unsaid. Nobody, not even Conor, acknowledges the monster in the room - death.

Conor is dealing with a lot of monsters - bullies, death, a mean grandmother, and a Dad who doesn't appear to want him.

And as if Conor didn't have enough to deal with, one night at exactly 12:07am, the large yew tree that Conor can see from his bedroom window transforms into a huge monster with tree branch tentacles and glowing eyes and the voice of Liam Neeson and the tree monster pays Conor a visit. In his loud, booming Liam Neeson voice, he tells Conor that he will return four more times to tell him three stories, and that when he is done, Conor will tell him a fourth.

On each of the next three visits, the monster relates a story that is depicted in the film through animation.  These stories appear to be fairy tales but they all relate to Conor's life and are paradoxes meant to help him see the ambiguities of life and help him cope. Through the stories that the tree tells Conor, he is able to express his anger.

Finally, the monster calls to say that it's time for Conor to tell him the fourth tale.

Now Conor must face the nightmare he has been having, a nightmare in which he tries to save his mother from falling into a dark hole, but he can't, and through the telling of the tale, he finally acknowledges that his mother is dying, that he doesn't want to lose his mother but he wants the dying to be over. Another paradox. Another lesson for Conor. The tree has appeared to save Conor from being consumed by his mother's death and to help alleviate the guilt he feels.

"I did not come to heal her.  I came to heal you."

It's huge praise from me to love a film starring a child actor, but Lewis is wonderful here.  I believed every word.  Directed by J.A. Bayona with a screenplay by Patrick Ness (based upon his novel), this is a powerful film about death and grieving, and be warned.  Despite the animation and the monster motif, this is not a film for the very young.   

Fecility Jones has few lines but is very affecting as the mother.  Her quiet presence in the film is the centerpiece and being such a strong presence through her expressions alone is the sign of a wonderful actor.

The film is an allegory for the anger and fear of a young boy whose mother is dying and he has no way to express that anger and fear. Our lives are full of monsters but there is no monster worse than being a little child and watching your mother die followed by the monsters of anger and guilt. But in times of crisis, we create what we need to help us through. The tree monster appeared to help Conor face his monsters which in turn allowed him to finally express his love to his mother and say goodbye. Conor was able to hold his mother tight so he could let her go.  

At the end of the film, there is a bit of a twist.  Was the monster real or a figment of Conor's imagination? Let's just say that a mother's love is very powerful.

This is a three hanky film. I think I started crying about 20 minutes into this film, and I'm crying right now remembering it.  Conor is heart-wrenching, and from a young boy's perspective, it's almost inconceivable that his mother would die and that whole concept makes this film a tear-jerker.  And Liam Neesom's voice? Stentorian but kind.  I am starting to cry right now just remembering it.

Do you know the book "The Giving Tree?"  That is a book that I can't even think about without crying.  This movie is like that, and I haven't cried this much in a movie since "Titanic."

Rosy the Reviewer says...if you want a good cry - in a good way - this is a must-see film and one of the best films I have seen that deals with death in such an honest and compelling way.  It's a film you won't soon forget.





The Edge of Seventeen (2016)


Nadine (Hailee Steinfeld) is having a rough time in high school and it doesn't get any better when her best friend starts dating her brother.  Ew!

You might ask why I would watch this film.  I am decidedly NOT on the edge of 17.  I fell over the edge long ago.  But I'm not so old that I am no longer interested.  I can remember. 

Nadine lives with her widowed mother (Kyra Sedgwick) and from an early age was bullied at school but then she met Krista (Haley Lu Richardson).  A bestie can solve a lot of problems.  Fast forward and now Nadine and Krista are both 17, still friends, talking about losing their virginity and lusting over cute boys.

Nadine's mom goes away for a couple of days and Nadine and Krista have a two girl party and get drunk.  Despite the fact that Nadine had called dibs on the house from her older brother Darian (Blake Jenner), he shows up and Krista ends up sleeping with him while Nadine is throwing up in the toilet.

So Krista and Darian become an item, and it doesn't help that where Nadine is unpopular and an outsider, Darian is very popular and hangs with the cool crowd, so when it looks like Krista has moved into the cool crowd with Darian, leaving Nadine behind, Nadine is bereft.  Meanwhile, Nadine's mother is having problems of her own and shares them with Nadine, showing that while our teens are struggling with the onset of adulthood, we adults are not making adulthood look very attractive.

Nadine is jealous of Krista and her brother and tries to get Krista to choose between them.  Turns out that Nadine has a bit of a nasty side, but didn't we all when we were teens?  She doesn't have any friends so about an hour into the film she goes to see her teacher, Mr. Bruner (Woody Harrelson). I was wondering why Woody was in this movie and when he was going to get something to do.  So Nadine rants to him about her problems in a scene that does not ring true to me. Despite the fact that Mr. Bruner is one of those really hip, cool teachers that kids wish they could have, I can't believe he would get away with his teaching techniques today. 
When I was in middle school, one of the most popular teachers we had used to have a name plaque on his desk that said "God." But today, that kind of stuff just doesn't fly in today's PC public schools.  Anyway, she goes to see him and they have one of those witty give and takes that really is unlikely to happen in the real world.

In the end, Nadine finally has sex with the hot guy and has a kind of epiphany.  Do 17-year-olds really have epiphanies? That's probably not fair, but like I said, I am not this movie's demographic.

I have not been a big fan of Woody Harrelson (he seems to play the same kind of smart assed stoned or clueless character all of the time), and you know how I feel about child actors, especially child actors who are nominated for Oscars when they are way too young to have paid their acting dues (Steinfeld was nominated for "True Grit" in 2011 when she was only 13).  I also don't like angst-ridden smart-mouthed teenagers.  Been there, done that.

So we have the smart ass Woody, the angst-ridden smart-mouthed teen and a script full of zippy smarty-pants lines. My idea of hell.  But, actually, I was surprised. The movie had some sweet moments.

Written and directed by Kelly Fremon Craig, the film definitely captures the hell that is high school - Steinfeld is very good here, full of teen angst with a combination of self loathing and arrogance - but some of the stuff in this film is kind of cutesy.  I know this film was not aimed at my age group, but I would think some of the scenes would even be too cutesy for 17 year olds.  But you should probably take everything I say about this movie with a grain of salt, because like I said, I am not this movie's demographic.  I can only guess if these kids and their interactions are authentic teen things, but one thing we know for sure.  Being a teen ain't easy and this film nails that. 

One odd thing, though.  This film is aimed at teens and yet it has an R-rating, rated R for sexual content, language and some drinking - all involving teens. Seems counterintuitive that a film aimed at teens would restrict teens.  And what are we protecting them from with this rating? Teens don't have sex, swear or drink? As if.

Rosy the Reviewer says...despite some things that didn't ring true to me, this is a sweet film.




***My 1001 Movies I Must See Before I Die Project"



203 to go!

Have YOU seen this classic film?





Ikiru (1952)

When a bureaucrat locked in a soulless job discovers he has stomach cancer, he decides to seek meaning in his life before it's too late.

If, when you think of Akira Kurosawa, you think of "Roshomon" or "The Seven Samurai," you will be surprised by this tender drama. Considered one of auteur director Akira Kurosawa's greatest films, this is the story of Kanji Watanabe (Takashi Shimura), a bureaucrat who has been toiling in a Kafkaesque job in a Kafkaesque city office for years, the kind of place where if citizens have a complaint they are sent to one office after another with no one taking responsibility and no action is ever taken.

The film is broken into two parts. The first half of the film shows Watanabe's grim existence, a life with seemingly no meaning. When Watanabe discovers he has stomach cancer and not long to live, he realizes that he is going to die before he has really lived and he decides to change his life.

We can all relate to this story.  What if you discovered you only had six months to live?  Would you continue your life as you have always lived it?

Ikiru means "to live" and that's what Watanabe decides to do. He realizes that he is already dead and decides that he needs to do something important with his life.  He feels that he started out caring about others, but the bureaucratic machine has beaten him down.  He is merely a placeholder in his job, mindlessly stamping forms that will never go anywhere.

As Wantanabe starts to think about what to do with the rest of his life, he forms a relationship with a young girl (Miki Odagiri), who had quit a job in his office because she was bored.  Her quitting reminds him that if he had had the courage, he could have done that too. She is vivacious and full of life. She makes him laugh with her imitations of the people at work and the nicknames she had given everyone. She admits that she had called him The Mummy. He spends the day with her, buys her stockings and takes her to lunch. Watanabe says to her "Why are you so incredibly alive?"  He wants her to teach him how to live. But she is suspicious of his intentions and thinks he is kind of a perv.

When Watanabe tries to tell his son and daughter-in-law that he is dying, the son berates him about the young girl, worried about his inheritance and Watanabe's spending so much money on her.

Things look pretty bleak for Watanabe, but he wants to do something meaningful before he dies.  So he goes back to work but this time to make a difference. He decides to break the chain of bureaucracy and not just be a paper pusher anymore.

One of the complaints that had come to his desk was about a cesspool that had formed in one of the neighborhoods.  The townspeople wanted the city to build a children's park over it so Watanabe takes up that cause with a vengeance.  He cuts through all of the red tape and wills that park into existence.

The second half of the film, after Watanabe has died, shows his legacy.  Watanabe had discovered himself by actually doing something with his life, he had learned that doing was to live, but at his wake, he doesn't get the credit for what he did do.  Even his own son and daughter-in-law aren't sure. The bureaucrats attending his wake get drunk and start to diminish his accomplishment. No one can quite understand how Watanabe changed from a "mummy" to someone who cared about doing something.  

But then the people who wanted the park show up and Watanabe's son and daughter-in-law see that he was beloved by the people for the park and the bureaucrats are chastened by this show of affection. As they are all getting drunk and trying to figure out why Watanabe cared enough to do something and whether or not he deserved credit, they then get into railing about their own boring jobs that are robbing them of their lives and their time. 

When a policeman arrives at the wake, he tells everyone the story of Watanabe's final moments.  He had died on a swing in the park.  He froze to death there sitting on the swing in the children's park that he had willed into existence, dying knowing that he had lived.

This story and Watanabe's efforts seemed to wake everyone up.  They are all fired up to change.  When they get back to work they are all going to make things happen too...but come Monday morning?

There is an existential quality to the film. Life is meaningless and no one really cares about you, but within that existential framework, there is also an affirmation of life here that says it doesn't matter what others think of your life, if you yourself felt it had meaning. 

Why it's a Must See:  Kurosawa was cinema's greatest humanist, and nowhere is this more evident than in Ikiru..[This film] is immensely life-affirming, even if it is about death and sorrow.  Kurosawa's gift was to show how these moods are not contradictory, but united as part of the cycle of life.  His sincere belief that small things make a difference is both refreshing and touching."
---"1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die"

Kurasawa is brilliant - from the framing to the actors to the editing - and so is Shimura's quiet and touching performance, an incredible tour de force.

Rosy the Reviewer says...an absolutely beautiful and inspiring film. I am glad I saw this movie before I died.





***Book of the Week***





The Curated Closet: A Simple System for Discovering Your Personal Style and Building Your Dream Wardrobe by Anuschka Rees (2017)


A closet full of clothes and nothing to wear?  This book is for you.

Well, I thought it was for me, except I am having a problem with the word "closet,"  -- singular.  You see, I am dealing with closets -- with an "s."  But the same question still holds true.  I have more than one closet full of clothes and often lament that I have nothing to wear so I was drawn to this book. 
But let's start at the beginning.

To curate:  When I look up the definition, there are a couple of different ones. I don't think this book is about being a member of the British clergy, so, this book is using the word "curate" to mean "to take charge of (a museum) or to organize (an art exhibit) and for many of us who love our clothes, our closets are our museums and our art exhibits, and Rees promises to help us use our closets to discover our personal style and build the perfect wardrobe by using her simple system.

However, I have to say that Rees' system for discovering my personal style and building my dream wardrobe is hardly simple.

Here's why:

First of all, she expects me to take pictures of myself in every outfit that I wear for a two week period.  Since I am retired and don't do much, I hate to see what that would look like: nightgowns, fuzzy slippers, and sweatpants.  Not a pretty sight. Then I am supposed to look at every item in my closet(s) (my god, that would take me weeks) and make some decisions.  She is also addicted to pie charts and graphs and I have to answer all kinds of questions and make lists and mood boards.  I'm too old for this.

But, OK, I'm game.  I am willing to try to take her advice.

First step - Define your personal style. 

She walks you through figuring out what your clothes say about you.

Not sure what this says about me.





She also tries to get me inspired, help me discover my personal style and put together a style profile.

Then it's on to Step 2 - "Closet Detox:"

Now I am supposed to go through my closet(s) piece by piece and decide on which items are not working, which items I really love, which items are keepsakes and which items I are not sure of. 

This is the hard part for me because, as I have written in the past, I am not just a fashionista, I am a clothes collector...alright, a clothes hoarder ("Confessions of a Clothes Hoarder").  I might not wear that cute little dress but I HAVE TO HAVE IT.

 


So discarding items is particularly difficult for me, but OK, I did it and I have three boxes to take off to the local consignment shop. (By the way, I have the consignment thing down and if you are interested, I wrote about that too in my blog post "Confessions of a Baby Boomer Consignment Queen.)"

Next, I am supposed to pack away the keepsakes (check!), donate or sell the pieces that aren't working (check!) and of course keep the pieces I really love (check!) 

But here's my favorite step:  For the items I am not sure about, I am supposed to have a "trial separation."  I put them out of sight and once I do that in most cases they really will be out of mind because at my age, it doesn't take long for me to forget about things.  I am still looking for a velvet coat that belonged to my mother that I can't believe I would have sent to Goodwill.  So, OK, I put some things in a box for a "trial separation" and put the box out in the garage.  I do that and it works.  In fact, I can't even remember what I put on trial separation.  So when I remember them again, off those will go, too, to Goodwill or the consignment shop.

At least her method for "detoxing" my closet isn't as scary as Marie Kondo's "Tidying-up" and "Spark Joy" books where I was supposed to talk to my clothes and thank them for their existence and pack my drawers like bento boxes (I rant about her books in my blog post "How to Turn Your Undies into Origami...")

Step 3 - OK, I have done Step 1 and Step 2, so now it's time to build my wardrobe. 

Is this where I get to buy more clothes?

No, this is where I have to analyze my lifestyle by making a list of my activities.

Sheesh!

"Repeat after me: Your dream closet should be tailored to your personal style and your lifestyle."

Right, my lifestyle.

My lifestyle consists of getting up at somewhere between 9 and 10am, reading the paper and the odd gossip magazine, shuffling upstairs to make the bed and watch "The View," shuffling back downstairs to have lunch, then heading to the gym (if it's a good day), going back home to watch "Dr. Phil (I am interested in psychology and the misery of others), fixing dinner and then settling in for a night of TV or a movie with the occasional happy hour or concert night out.  Doesn't seem like I would need more than gym clothes, slippers and jeans for that lifestyle. I'm retired, and my personal style is retirement chic on my good days and retirement slob the rest of the time.  But she's right.  My clothes need to fit that lifestyle, so I guess I no longer need my power suits or my pointy-toed high heels...

or these.




Next, she defines key pieces, statement pieces and basics and helps me discover a color palette to build on.  It all culminates in "outfit formulas," a specific combination of items I can wear in different versions, go-to outfits that will help me get ready fast in the morning (for those of you who need to get ready fast in the morning.  As I said, I don't).

But my favorite part of the book is putting together a "capsule wardrobe," 20-40 pieces (not counting accessories, underwear, gym clothes or sleepwear) that is a stand-alone wardrobe.  Other than tweaking it as the weather changes, these are the clothes I would wear most of the time and that I don't mix with my other clothes.  All of the other clothes are on hiatus until the next season or until I get tired of what I am wearing.

And so now after I have done all of the work to define my personal style, detoxed my closet, created a color palette, pinned down my lifestyle (which isn't hard because I don't really have one), etc., I finally get to buy more clothes!

Well, only clothes that fill in some gaps for my perfect wardrobe.

In addition to cleaning out my closet and putting together a wardrobe, Rees also tackles dealing with stress while shopping, how to shop like a conscious consumer and how to stop over-spending. 

Much of the book is just common sense, e.g. when she talks about fit problems and how to fix them.

"The waistband is uncomfortable."  Fix - try a bigger size.  Duh.

But, seriously, if you need to clean out your closet(s), love clothes and want to come up with a basic wardrobe that you will actually wear, this is a helpful tool.

Here is one outfit that made the cut!



Rosy the Reviewer says...though I question that anyone would go through all of the steps that she recommends, if you are serious about your clothes and about having a workable wardrobe, there are certainly many helpful tips and inspirational ideas to be found here.  In fact, I was so inspired, I bought the book (because it's going to take me forever to go through all of the stuff she wants me to do and the book was due back at the library)!



Thanks for reading!


See you next Friday 

 
for my review of

"LA 92"


and


The Week in Reviews
(What to See or Read and What to Avoid)


 and the latest on



"My 1001 Movies I Must See Before 

 I Die Project." 


If you enjoyed this post, feel free to copy and paste or click on the share buttons to share it on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and LinkedIn, email it to your friends and LIKE me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/rosythereviewer


Check your local library for DVDs and books mentioned.


Next time you are wondering whether or not to watch a particular film, check out my reviews on IMDB (The International Movie Database). 

Go to IMDB.com, find the movie you are interested in.  Once there, click on the link that says "Explore More" on the right side of the screen.  Scroll down to External Reviews and when you get to that page, you will find Rosy the Reviewer alphabetically on the list.

NOTE:  On some entries, this has changed.  If you don't see "Explore More" on the right side of the screen, scroll down just below the description of the film in the middle of the page. Click where it says "Critics." Look for "Rosy the Reviewer" on the list.

Or if you are using a mobile device, look for "Critics Reviews." Click on that and you will find me alphabetically under "Rosy the Reviewer."