The Infiltrator

Posted on July 12, 2016 at 5:25 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for strong violence, language throughout, some sexual content and drug material
Profanity:	Very strong language, homophobic slurs
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drugs and drug dealing, alcohol, smoking
Violence/ Scariness:	Extensive and graphic violence, guns, car crash, mob executions, disturbing images
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	July 12, 2016

“We’ve been following the drugs to get to the bad guys. What if we follow the money?” That simple suggestion from FBI undercover agent Bob Mazur (Bryan Cranston) led to an unprecedented massive series of arrests that brought down key members of Pablo Escobar’s cocaine operations — and the world’s 11th biggest bank. Based on Bob Mazur’s book, and with Mazur as a producer, it is set in 1980’s Florida, where Excobar was smuggling in literally tons of cocaine. Getting it into the country was easy. Selling it was easy. Paying off, threatening, and torturing anyone who tried to stop them was easy. The biggest challenge they faced was moving the money between countries.

Mazur, trained as an accountant, went undercover and offered money laundering services to Escobar’s lieutenants, funnelling their stacks of cash through “legitimate” companies and criminal-friendly jurisdictions like Panama, then led by Manuel Noriega. He was able to gain the trust of the drug dealers. It was even easier to get the cooperation of bankers, including the prestigious international financial institution BCCI.

This movie, directed by “The Lincoln Lawyer’s” Brad Furman is sincere, diligent, a little corny, and for better and worse exactly what you expect from a fact-based story of an FBI undercover operative. There is the anxious and at times impatient wife. “Promise me this is the last one.” “I’m just wondering where my little Bobby the accountant went?” She has the thankless task of sighing, getting upset when their anniversary celebration is ruined when he has to go into character because they run into one of his criminal buddies, being jealous of his relationship with a beautiful female agent posing as his fiancee (Diane Kruger) and telling him he should have taken the chance for early retirement.

For a tense crime drama, it is surprisingly inert. We learn very little about what is involved in laundering money to prove himself to the bad guys or how the investigation proceeded or what goes into a long-term undercover operation. Mazur shows up in a Rolls Royce and has access to a mansion. Both were confiscated from drug dealers, but we do not learn that from the movie. What we do see is Mazur going home at night to his modest suburban house and his wife and children and jogging through his neighborhood. Presumably Escobar, one of the most ruthless criminals in history, would not turn over hundreds of millions of dollars to someone without making sure he was who he said he was. Mazur comes across as near-saintly, so even Cranston cannot give the character much by way of depth. The conflicts he feels about betraying a man who trusts him are confusing. Even when he is played by the elegant Benjamin Bratt, he is still a barbaric thug. The “Red Wedding”-style climax is synthetic, which, come to think of it, is the problem throughout. This is a movie about a faker that never feels real.

Parents should know that this film has very intense peril and violence, very disturbing and graphic images, guns, car crash, mob executions, characters injured and killed, very strong and crude language throughout with some homophobic slurs, some nudity, sexual references, drinking, smoking, and drugs and drug dealing.

Family discussion: Do you agree with the sentences received by the people who went to jail in this film? What makes someone good at undercover work?

If you like this, try: “Donnie Brasco,” “American Hustle,” and “Kill the Messenger”

Zero Days

Posted on July 7, 2016 at 5:46 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for some strong language
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	References to weapons of mass destruction
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	July 8, 2016

If I could require every candidate running for office to see one movie, it would be “Zero Days,” the most terrifying movie of the year. It is the story of the Stuxnet virus developed by the US and Israeli governments to infect the nuclear facilities in Iran. As one of the experts in the film notes, for thousands of years combat was carried out by the army on land and the navy on the water. In the 20th century, battles moved into the air, and so we needed an air force. And the development of atomic weapons posed unprecedented threats and daunting challenges of statecraft as well as warcraft. And now the greatest threats come from code in a thumb drive.

“Zero Days” begins with a collage of experts all saying some version of “I can’t answer that,” “Even if I knew, I couldn’t tell you,” or “That is classified.” And then writer/director Alex Gibney, the man behind documentaries about sensitive topics including Enron, Wikileaks, Scientology, use of torture by US military, and Steve Jobs, finds many of the answers anyway. His most candid source appears to us only as a disembodied face made up of code, dissolving around the edges.

Stuxnet is the name given to the weapons-grade virus by the Symantec engineers who are trying to dissect it so they can protect their customers from it. They have never seen anything so professionally constructed and destructive. (We find out later that internally, the constructors referred to it as Olympic Games.) They begin to suspect that it was put together by a nation-state to be used to disrupt enemy programs, but the project is so secret that even the US Department of Homeland Security has no knowledge of it and is spending its resources to make sure it is not used against American citizens.

Gibney skillfully shapes the story, giving us views of experts in national security, public policy, and viruses, who make it clear that by opening up the door to this category of warfare, the US opens itself up to massive and possibly permanent disruptions from our financial services and banking systems to our power grid, transportation, and water safety. A diplomat says that people thought it was impossible to develop international agreements on nuclear weapons, but, after only two decades, one exists. This movie makes clear that we do not have that kind of time, and that in this election year, there is no more important priority to put on the national agenda than this one.

Parents should know that this film has some strong language and deals with weapons of mass destruction.

Family discussion: Who should decide when to use computer viruses? How much does the public have the right to know?

If you like this, try: Gibney’s film “We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks.”

Related Tags:

Movies -- format

Life, Animated

Posted on July 7, 2016 at 5:34 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for thematic elements, and language including a suggestive reference
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Emotional upheavals
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	July 8. 2016

Temple Grandin described her experience of trying to understand social interaction as a person with autism: like an anthropologist on Mars. The kinds of social cues that come naturally to neurotypicals can seem strange and even disorienting to people on the autism spectrum, who may be overwhelmed with undifferentiated input that makes it even more difficult to understand the mood and motives of the people around them. “Life, Animated,” based on the best-seller by Ron Suskind, is the story of Owen Suskind’s efforts to use Disney animated films to help him understand and communicate with the people around him. Taking up where the book ends, it is the story of the most universal of human experiences — leaving home, becoming independent, negotiating romance and work — as seen through the unique mind of a man who finds his answers in Disney movies.

And of course so many Disney movies are about growing up. We see Owen watching Wendy in “Peter Pan” as she says, “I have to grow up tomorrow.” And Owen tells us he is a little nervous and a little excited about graduating and moving out of his parents’ house and into a group home.

Owen was developing normally until age three, and then suddenly he “vanished.” He stopped speaking. “It’s like we were looking for clues to a kidnapping.” His parents found themselves in those less-friendly doctor’s offices, the ones that have rooms with special windows for observation. Owen was diagnosed with “pervasive developmental disorder,” which basically means: “we have no idea what the problem is or how to fix it.”

The Suskinds, one of the most loving, wise, and devoted families ever put on film, were determined to undertake “a rescue mission to get inside this prison of autism and pull him out.”

And it turned out, from the inside of that prison, Owen was on his own rescue mission. Suddenly, at 6 1/2, after years of no clear sign that he could still speak or of how much he understood, he said to his parents after his brother’s birthday party, “Walter doesn’t want to grow up, like Mowgli and Peter Pan.”

That is not only a complex sentence; it is a complex idea. The family began to use the Disney films as a sort of English as a second language mode of communication. Owen’s father used a puppet of “Aladdin” character Iago to speak to him, and Owen answered back. “We began to speak to him in Disney dialog.” As an expert in the film notes, animated characters are exaggeratedly expressive. Their fear, anger, and affection is clearly shown, and repeat viewings are illuminating and reassuringly the same, a welcome consistency in a world of chaos and unpredictability. “Disney keeps the world neat and tidy.”

It also gives Owen a chance to interact. He starts a Disney club for other people with autism. A surprise visit from two Disney voice talents is a movie highlight, and, clearly for the actors unused to such unalloyed enthusiasm, a career highlight for them.

And Owen draws the characters, too. But only the sidekicks, never the principals, the stars. Perhaps he feels that he is a sidekick as the people around him have adventures he will not.

Director Roger Ross Williams, a family friend, is clearly trusted by the family and he more than earns it with a sensitive, understanding approach. With the permission of Disney, he includes clips and animation inspired by Disney that tells Owen’s story in a way that lets us see through his eyes the way that “Peter Pan” and “Aladdin” let him see through ours.

Parents should know that this film includes discussions of autism, growing up, and separation, a painful break-up, and a mild sexual reference.

Family discussion: What movie helped you understand feelings and communication? What is the best way for families and friends to help people like Owen?

If you like this, try: “How to Dance in Ohio” and “The Story of Luke”

The Legend of Tarzan

Posted on June 30, 2016 at 4:15 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for sequences of action and violence, some sensuality and brief rude dialogue
Profanity:	Some racist epithets and mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Some social drinking
Violence/ Scariness:	Extended peril and violence, characters injured and killed, some disturbing and graphic images and scary animals
Diversity Issues:	Historical abuse and enslavement
Date Released to Theaters:	July 1, 2016

“The Legend of Tarzan” gets some things right. The swinging through the trees is exhilarating. Alexander Skarsgård (Tarzan/John) and Margot Robbie (Jane) are beautiful to look at, as is the African scenery. The CGI animals are pretty good. Thankfully, other than a few flashbacks, it avoids dwelling on the over-familiar origin story. And it is nice to see a shift from the colonialist perspective of some Tarzan stories to recognition of the real-life atrocities inflicted by Belgium’s King Leopold on the African natives, exploiting their resources and enslaving their people.

But there’s a lot the movie does not get right. It’s not terrible; it’s just oddly off, as though it was assembled by a committee that didn’t communicate with each other very well. The first problem is that Tarzan is depressed. I do not know why people seem to think that we somehow make classic literary characters more sophisticated or modern by making them depressed, but I’ve had enough of it. We’ve already had a depressed Batman and a depressed Superman this year. We don’t need a depressed Tarzan. Tarzan, now using his birth name of John Clayton, Lord Greystoke, is living in England when we first see him. Presented with an invitation to return to the Congo as the guest of King Leopold, he declines. Lifting a pinky as he sips from a porcelain teacup to demonstrate just how far he has come from running naked through the jungle, he explains simply, “It’s too hot.” He does not want to go back. But an American named George Washington Williams (played by Samuel L. Jackson and a toupee) persuades him to return, so he can investigate charges of abuse and enslavement. Jane is thrilled to return to Africa, and John reluctantly agrees to let her come along.

The invitation from the King was engineered by Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz, in his usual ultra-civil, ultra-evil mode). If he can deliver John to Chief Mbonga (a regal Djimon Hounsou) the chief will give him access to the diamond mines. When John escapes, Rom takes Jane and some of her tribal friends prisoner.

There’s an unfinished quality to the film. The tone shifts from a literally heavy-handed early image of a cruel hand wrapped in a rosary ripping a flower from its stem to some awkward and anachronistic attempts at humor (Samuel L. Jackson after a diplomatic speech: “And I thought the Civil War was long!”), and distracting random camera-swooping. But the real drag on the film’s momentum is Tarzan himself, who is so morose that the energy seeps out of the story. Reportedly, Skarsgård spent six months working out all day. He looks great, but to be honest he already looked great, and the fixation with male or female movie stars remaking their bodies for roles is barbaric. What needed the work was the script.

Parents should know that this film includes extended peril and violence, guns, spears, explosions, predator animals some disturbing images, characters injured and killed, some sexual references, and brief strong and racist language.

Family discussion: Why did John and Jane have different views about going back to Africa? How did John’s idea of honor change and why?

If you like this, try: the many other movie and television portrayals of Tarzan and the books by Edgar Rice Burroughs

Free State of Jones

Posted on June 23, 2016 at 5:40 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for brutal battle scenes and disturbing graphic images
Profanity:	Some strong and racist language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Alcohol
Violence/ Scariness:	Intense and graphic violence including battle scenes, hanging of adults and children, brutal abuse, rape, and lynching
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	June 24, 2016

The timing is not great. “Free State of Jones” is a Civil War drama based on the true story of a community of Confederate deserters and runaway enslaved people who banded together to fight for their own vision of freedom. It was filmed once before as “Tap Roots,” with Van Heflin, Susan Hayward, and Boris Karloff (as an Indian!), but this version, from “The Hunger Games'” Gary Ross, deals forthrightly with the racial issues, or at least tries to. There is an inescapable and maybe unconquerable problem in telling a story set in Civil War era Mississippi with a glorified white man as the hero, in a time when one of the most anticipated films of the year is the Sundance Grand Jury and Audience award winner “Birth of a Nation,” a film that grabbed and repurposed its title from the blatantly racist D.W. Griffith film of the silent era.

Ross brings the same passion for tackling tyranny to this story that he did to “Hunger Games.” It’s just that we’re no longer dealing with speculation and metaphor, and that means a political overlay reflecting both historical and contemporary controversies.

Matthew McConaughey plays Newt Knight, a Mississippi farmer with a wife and young son who is serving as a nurse in the Confederate army. Early on, we see him removing the uniform from a wounded enlisted man so he can tell the doctors he is an officer and get him treated. Increasingly frustrated with the endless carnage on behalf of wealthy elites who exploit the poor, it is too much for him at last when his nephew is killed in battle and he leaves, taking the body home to be buried. There he finds the Confederate forces are taking all of the food from the local farmers, leaving them to starve. On the run from the military seeking defectors, he hides out in a swamp, where he meets up with runaway slaves. There he decides that his allegiance is not to the Confederacy, which is sending poor boys to fight to preserve what today we might call the 1 percent. “I ain’t fighting for cotton,” another solider tells him. “I’m fighting for honor.” “That’s good,” Knight responds. I’d hate to be fighting for cotton.”

Writer/director Ross, working with the locations where these events occurred and a touching score from Nicholas Britell, evocatively conveys the hardscrabble lives, the literal and spiritual grit, the desperation and conviction it inspires. Knight hands guns to three little girls and, when the Confederate officer does not take them serious, Knight tells him that guns will shoot anybody. “It don’t seem to matter where the bullet comes from.” The depth of research is evident throughout, but it is never pedantic. The storyline is grounded in historical events like the Confederacy’s requisitioning of food and supplies, and post-war exploitation and terrorism, led by former Confederate officials, that prevented former enslaved persons from basic rights and murdered those who tried to assert them. There are brief glimpses into a conflict 85 years later, as the descendent of Knight’s relationship with a former slave named Rachel (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) is criminally prosecuted for marrying a white woman in violation of the state’s laws prohibiting mixed marriages. It is there to remind us that we can never dismiss the events of the past as behind us.

Parents should know that this film has very intense and graphic violence including Civil War battles and skirmishes, hanging, rape, and lynching, adults and children injured and killed, very disturbing images, some strong language with racist epithets, some sexual references

Family discussion: What did Knight find most unjust about the Confederacy? What did we learn from the 1948 courtroom scenes?

If you like this, try: “Glory” and “The Red Badge of Courage” and read about the story that inspired the film.