The persistent issue of homosexual pedophiles in the priesthood has been a devastating blight on the Catholic Church. To be fair, there are plenty of pedophiles in the clergy across all faiths and denominations. The rest of the denominations tend to get a pass on these crimes (in term of the media attention). It is the lurid acts of gay priests that really gets the attention of the press and activists.

The film industry, despite all of its self-created marketing to claim otherwise, is generally not a hot bed of gentleness and deep thought. A subject like a scandal involving a priest raping a boy is hardly something one would expect to be treated calmly with any measure of fairness. John Patrick Shanley, who wrote and directed this film, offers a careful film centered on such a sex scandal.

Father Brendan Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), runs a Catholic school. Father Flynn's collar is a bit loose and he tends to flaunt the tight rules of the institution in favor of a more personable approach to his mission. Countering him is Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep). She is wound tighter than an obsessive-compulsive's shoelaces. She is a law and order nun, down the line, who lords over her fiefdom with a scowl and iron fist. Beneath Beauvier is Sister James (Amy Adams) a mousy young nun who leans more towards Flynn's approach.

Beauvier comes to suspect that Flynn has been sexually abusing a student. She confronts him only to be rebuffed by his outraged denials. Lacking irrefutable proof, but knowing in her bones she is right to convict the man, Beauvier presses to have him removed. Flynn, not a completely innocent man outside of the accusations, tries to deny her moves.

Shanley wisely avoids digging too deeply into the sexual aspects of the charges and focuses on the subjects of pride, authoritarianism and justice. The rape accusation isn't pushed aside but it isn't the point. It is there to raise the stakes and give the conflict urgency.

Streep and Hoffman are a strong pairing and play off one another with impressive results. Streep's other partner, Amy Adams also work well. Adams is not of the same caliber, or at least doesn't appear to be, as her cast mates. She can play the doe-eyed innocent however and in contrast to Streep's sneering maternal figure, she fades into the background at times.
If you had been avoiding this film due to the assumption that it was little more than a strike against Catholics or Christianity in general, you can put those fears aside. The overall film has less to do with the clergy and more to do with the flawed people who hold the roles.


Related Reviews:
Meryl Streep movies
The Devil Wears Prada (2006)
Julie and Julia (2009)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
The Austin Chronicle
J&C's Movie Reviews




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: film, Meryl Streep, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman

At least they're portraying older people having relationships with older people.

That little bit of forced silver lining out of the way, we're still left wondering what could there possibly be in the film that isn't clearly laid out in the trailer? Always be wary of movies that feel the need to tip the whole narrative hand in order to get you to consider what they have to offer.




Screenwriter: Nancy Meyers (Father of the Bride)
Director: Nancy Meyers (What Women Want)
Actors: Meryl Streep (Doubt), Steve Martin (The Jerk), Alec Baldwin (The Shadow), John Krasinski (Leatherheads), Rita Wilson (Auto Focus) and Nora Dunn (Pineapple Express)





Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Alec Baldwin, film, John Krasinski, Meryl Streep, movie trailer, Nora Dunn, Rita Wilson, Steve Martin

First things first, Meryl Streep did not deserve an Oscar nomination for this performance. Yes, Streep gives a fun, bouncy performance as Julia Child. She is a delight to watch, but it is certainly not a great work of acting. She mimics the iconic chef but she never manages to disappear into the role. No matter how approachable she is, it is always Streep dressed up like Child.

Perhaps Streeps' performance seems so grand because she's placed opposite Amy Adams. Adams portrays Julie Powell, an insecure, metro lib who begins a blog that covers her attempts to cook her way through Child's classic cookbook. Adams has enough ability to manage a chick flick where she needs to be slightly sympathetic and mildly pretty. Her skills are outmatched by Streep, just as in their last pairing as a couple of nuns in Doubt. Where Adams pale screen presence actually helped her in the subordinate role in Doubt, in this production it makes her scenes timid and unfulfilled.

It doesn't help that Adams' Jule Powell is one of the more insufferable characters I've seen. Ever see a child actor in a film (for example the kiddy Anakin Skywalker) and every time you see them you want to slap them around for being so obnoxious and grating? That is where Julie Powell left me. The woman portrayed here is a miserable, self-absorbed jerk who is as welcoming as a rug burn. By the time we would get a minute into one of Adams' scenes I was begging to see more of Streep doing her cocktail party impression of the manly matron of measuring cups.

Something that fascinated me about this film is the obtuse inclusion of potshots at republicans. Seriously. Even in a film centered on Julia Child, there are random insults at conservatives and a subplot involving Child's diplomat husband being hounded by HUAC. To give a flavor of the kind of nonsensical jabs that are shoehorned into the script, when Julie's boss discovers she called in sick when she really wasn't he explains "Anyone else would fire you. A Republican would fire you!" If that line doesn't make any sense, don't worry, proving more context won't help. I assume poor Nora Ephron, who wrote the script, has some kind of political tourettes where she can't help but belch out invective against the Right-wing conspiracy hiding in the cupboards.

To sum the film up, there are some pleasant scenes involving Child as she works to bring her cookbook to press. These scenes are sprinkled among a stinking bog of post-modern feminist "me, me, me, more me now" scenes where Amy Adams does her best to be perky but only reminds us she's no Meryl Streep - even a Meryl Streep phoning it in because she knows she just has to show up to get the Oscar nod.

This is not a bad movie but it is more flawed than many will admit.




Related Reviews:
Meryl Streep movies
The Devil Wears Prada (2006)
The Manchurian Candidate (2004)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Movies for the Masses
Pajamas Media

Labels: Amy Adams, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, Nora Ephron, Stanley Tucci

Short Review: It’s a Über-chick flick and I really enjoyed it. Don’t worry, when I was done watching I killed a bear with a knife, mangled things with a chainsaw and left the toilet seat up all night to recalibrate my masculinity.


This is a well-built film. Oh, it’s a chick flick supreme, but ultimately it is a darn good movie. The piece is about Andy, a smart but naive young woman from Ohio, who finds herself assisting a cruel fashion magazine editor in New York City. Basically this is the mother lode of chick flicks. There are clothes, boy trouble, girly politics and more clothes.

Sex In The City and Entourage director David Frankel deserves great credit for his work. The movie is sharply paced providing some great moments. Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna (27 Dresses) do a fantastic job of making the elite world of fashion accessible and interesting. They smartly know that the casual haughtiness of the citizens of that world is not only annoying, but also seen as undeserved by the average person. Actually, the haughtiness is undeserved regardless of how it is seen. Frankel and company offer enough explanations of why fashion is taken so seriously by so many that it gives a pass to what could have been the film’s biggest hurdle – getting people to care.

Much has been written about Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Runway magazine’s editor Miranda Priestly. Miranda is a cold, dismissive woman and Streep obviously enjoyed the role. She commands her scenes managing the role with an overbearing presence. She comes across as a snootier version of Cruella De Vil. Beyond Streep’s great performance, I think lead Anne Hathaway deserves more credit for the success of the film. As Julia Robert's heir apparent, Hathaway has now shown she is capable of extending enough charm and ability to handle a large role. She doesn’t throw down an Oscar worthy performance, but she threads the piece nicely and provides a sympathetic lead against Streep’s stronger character.

The only serious flaw in the film is that it doesn’t know what to do when not concentrating on Streep and Hathaway. Mostly in the first third of the film, Andy (Hathaway) hangs with her “normal” friends that have been inserted into the piece so we can see her roots. These friends are likable enough and their brief scenes do the job, but the scenes are inserted just the same. On the other end of the film, Andy gets embroiled in a needless sex romp with Christian (Simon Baker), an elite guy who’s supposed to represent her new life. Christian is also inserted in the film to fill a hole in the plot. These scenes, while not disastrous, do feel like distractions from the main event. They feed Andy’s growing discomfort with joining the ranks of the fashion hierarchy so they do have a purpose. The transformation of the character of Andy from Ohio girl to fashion fancy pants is so complete that by the time she has to decide if she should stay with the fashion hierarchy or go back to shopping at The Gap, it seems stupid for her to turn back. She’s sacrificed everything, gained a great deal, and her old life seems troubled and petty. Granted, the fashion world is the sham, but it is sold in the film as being better than hanging with the grunts of the world.

I didn’t want to like this movie. I have a natural aversion to both fashion and chick flicks. This movie overpowered my disdain. This is a good movie. The performances are wonderful, the writing is great, and the direction is thoughtful. I highly recommend this film.



Related Reviews:
Meryl Streep movies
The Deer Hunter (1978)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Screen It!
Fresh Film Reviews

Labels: Adrian Grenier, Anne Hathaway, chick flick, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, Stanley Tucci

Wes Anderson is one of the most over-rated directors of the last twenty years.

Now his quirky, self-aware style has been meshed with cheap looking animation.

Geez, pinch me. I must be dreaming.



Screenwriters: Noah Baumbach (The Squid and the Whale) and Wes Anderson (Rushmore)
Director: Wes Anderson (Bottle Rocket)
Actors: George Clooney (Michael Clayton), Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada), Jason Schwartzman (I Heart Huckabees), Bill Murray (Caddyshack), Michael Gambon (The Good Shepherd), Willem Dafoe (To Live and Die in L.A.), Owen Wilson (Wedding Crashers), Brian Cox (Supertroopers), Adrien Brody (Cadillac Records) and Karen Duffy (Dumb & Dumber)

Labels: Adrien Brody, Bill Murray, Brian Cox, film, George Clooney, Jason Schwartzman, Karen Duffy, Meryl Streep, Michael Gambon, movie trailer, Owen Wilson, Willem Dafoe

Screenwriter: Nora Ephron (Lucky Numbers)
Director: Nora Ephron (Michael)
Actors: Amy Adams (Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby), Meryl Streep (Doubt), Jane Lynch (The Hammer) and Stanley Tucci (The Devil Wears Prada)

Labels: Amy Adams, film, Meryl Streep, movie trailer, Stanley Tucci

Short Review: A collection of multi-millionaires release a movie during a political election about multi-billionaires effecting a political election.


Well, they made this one a little too early...and got the casting a little mixed up.

This is an completely underwhelming rehash of the original The Manchurian Candidate from 1962 (the good one directed by John Frankenheimer). This time around a bunch of Hollywood leftists cobble together a version of the story that is so ludicrous that it makes the original seem logical and calm. This time around the hypnotized men are Gulf War vets and instead of sneaking Eastern Commies undermining America the grand villain of this conspiracy to take over the White House is the...wait for it...Manchurian Global corporation! That's right, capitalists! Evil, stinking, capitalists.

Yawn.

Yeah, it's the evil capitalists. I think we can look at our government and agree that if evil, stinking capitalists really want to take over the higher echelon of our political system they'll just do what they've already done - simply buy the major players off. Who needs a wild conspiracy when you have Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?

No, this movie isn't that tied to reality.

We have Meryl Streep trying her best not to seem to Hillary-esque. They re-cut the film to make Meryl Streep’s Elaneor Shaw seem less like Hillary Clinton. Streep claimed she had actually based her character on evil right-wing witches Peggy Noonan and Karen Hughes. Playing a woman who is a cynical, fork-tongued political beast and not trying to look like Clinton is like portraying a thick-accented, gap-toothed, Austrian weightlifter and not trying to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

To be fair this is a well constructed movie and director Jonathan Demme does a capable job. He plays all of his cards safely and predictably. Given that he is remaking a classic he probably didn’t want to mess with the core structure too much. The problem with the movie is the lack of a real point. Why was this made? There's nothing shocking here, nothing new. There's no reason to have made the movie other than as a cultural propaganda trinket that passes in and out of the airs just before the election of 2004. I’ve seen plenty of reviews that credit the film with not choosing political sides. The film refuses to state the political affiliations of the candidates. If you’ve read my stuff you already know I’m not that forgiving. Some context should be brought to the forefront. This was released during a political season. It makes the film an intention political message – there’s no way to get around it. This is an unneeded remake of a classic film. Why make the film unless you’re trying to say something to the American people?

This was one of the first volleys out of Hollywood during a political year and in my opinion this was not meant to be a down-the-middle film. The opening is set in Iraq during Desert Storm. The connection to the Iraq War is obvious. If you watch the film again, notice how the American flag is in constantly in the background. This may seem okay, but the film is about political manipulation. I took this to be a not so hidden kick at the "flag-wavers" the left has condemned since 9/11. The loose references to political messages from Bush (and Kerry to be honest) pull on the election that was brewing at the time. They tossed in enough counterweights into the dialog to keep this from being overbearing in its tilt to the left. I give them credit for that. For the most part, it is hard to place the characters in a particular party. But it is hard to ignore the established bias of Hollywood when watching a film like this. That is the elephant in the room the whole time. Perhaps it is the little right-wing devil on my shoulder whispering in my ear, but I kept looking for the liberal boogey man the whole time.

I didn’t find that boogey-man, but I did see a troll. What was Al Franken doing in the film? This is a political piece and they invite Al Franken on to the set? This is literally like having Rush Limbaugh in a film. It makes a statement of position. Of all of the political hacks, why that guy? Bad decision as far as I'm concerned.

Overall, this is an unnecessary film make to sooth the political musings of a bunch of wealthy elites. Other than for studying Hollywood reactions during political seasons, this movie offers no reason to see it.

Now, if you remake this and change some things...say have the puppet politician be a well fashioned orator without any real accomplishment being quietly promoted by international Marxists and throw in a little hopey/changey/neo Mao vibes, give him his own symbol, have people worship him to the point of literally calling him the messiah and oh, I don't know have children singing his praises while he talks about starting compulsory childhood service to the state while shutting down free speech...yeah, then you have something the American people could really get their teeth into.


Related Reviews:
Political films
In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed (2004)
V for Vendetta (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel Film Reviews
Roger Ebert

Labels: Denzil Washington, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, politics

Given the entertainment industry's seemingly endless taste for attacking Catholics, I absolutely understand is any Christian watches this trailer and assumes this is yet another kick in the shorts.

Despite the obvious angle of having the Catholic priest being accused of pedophilia, this could be a highly dramatic work if it is handled with some care. On a personal note, this creeps me out a bit. We had a young priest in our town molest a kid and then committed a double murder then eventual suicide when the investigation closed in. The murders were done a hundred feet from my house. Just the subject matter alone is upsetting. I can't imagine how sensitive someone would be who was direct involved in such a situation. Given how hurtful this could be, hopefully writer/director John Patrick Shanley (Moonstruck) has some respect for his delicate subject.







Screenwriter: John Patrick Shanley (Congo)
Director: John Patrick Shanley (Joe Versus the Volcano)
Actors: Meryl Streep (Sophie's Choice), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote), Viola Davis (Nights in Rodanthe) and Amy Adams (Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby)

Labels: film, Meryl Streep, movie trailer, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Viola Davis

A very good trailer for a very good film. This may seem like some mindless chick-flick...well, it is a chick-flick but it has some brains.

Labels: Adrian Grenier, Anne Hathaway, film, Meryl Streep, movie trailer, Stanley Tucci

Short Review: It’s a Über-chick flick and I really enjoyed it. Don’t worry, when I was done watching I killed a bear with a knife, mangled things with a chainsaw and left the toilet seat up all night to recalibrate my masculinity.


This is a well-built film. Oh, it’s a chick flick supreme, but ultimately it is a darn good movie. The piece is about Andy, a smart but naive young woman from Ohio, who finds herself assisting a cruel fashion magazine editor in New York City. Basically this is the mother lode of chick flicks. There are clothes, boy trouble, girly politics and more clothes.

Sex In The City and Entourage director David Frankel deserves great credit for his work. The movie is sharply paced providing some great moments. Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna (27 Dresses) do a fantastic job of making the elite world of fashion accessible and interesting. They smartly know that the casual haughtiness of the citizens of that world is not only annoying, but also seen as undeserved by the average person. Actually, the haughtiness is undeserved regardless of how it is seen. Frankel and company offer enough explanations of why fashion is taken so seriously by so many that it gives a pass to what could have been the film’s biggest hurdle – getting people to care.

Much has been written about Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Runway magazine’s editor Miranda Priestly. Miranda is a cold, dismissive woman and Streep obviously enjoyed the role. She commands her scenes managing the role with an overbearing presence. She comes across as a snootier version of Cruella Deville. Beyond Streep’s great performance, I think lead Anne Hathaway deserves more credit for the success of the film. As Julia Robert's heir apparent, Hathaway has now shown she is capable of extending enough charm and ability to handle a large role. She doesn’t throw down an Oscar worthy performance, but she threads the piece nicely and provides a sympathetic lead against Streep’s stronger character.

The only serious flaw in the film is that it doesn’t know what to do when not concentrating on Streep and Hathaway. Mostly in the first third of the film, Andy (Hathaway) hangs with her “normal” friends that have been inserted into the piece so we can see her roots. These friends are likable enough and their brief scenes do the job, but the scenes are inserted just the same. On the other end of the film, Andy gets embroiled in a needless sex romp with Christian (Simon Baker), an elite guy who’s supposed to represent her new life. Christian is also inserted in the film to fill a hole in the plot. These scenes, while not disastrous, do feel like distractions from the main event. They feed Andy’s growing discomfort with joining the ranks of the fashion hierarchy so they do have a purpose. The transformation of the character of Andy from Ohio girl to fashion fancy pants is so complete that by the time she has to decide if she should stay with the fashion hierarchy or go back to shopping at The Gap, it seems stupid for her to turn back. She’s sacrificed everything, gained a great deal, and her old life seems troubled and petty. Granted, the fashion world is the sham, but it is sold in the film as being better than hanging with the grunts of the world.

I didn’t want to like this movie. I have a natural aversion to both fashion and chick flicks. This movie overpowered my disdain. This is a good movie. The performances are wonderful, the writing is great, and the direction is thoughtful. I highly recommend this film.


Related Reviews:
Another Meryl Streep movie
The Deer Hunter (1978)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Screen It!
Fresh Film Reviews

Labels: Adrian Grenier, Anne Hathaway, chick flick, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, Stanley Tucci