A Will for the Woods

Posted on August 15, 2014 at 7:59 am

B
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Not rated
Profanity: None
Alcohol/ Drugs: Alcohol
Violence/ Scariness: Very sad death, themes of death and dying
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: August 15, 2014

“Without this,” Clark Wang says, “dying from lymphoma feels so empty and meaningless and pointless.”  Dr. Wang was diagnosed in 2003, and we meet him as he is running out of options for treatment.  His doctor tells him it is a matter of months.  His choice for making his death meaningful is to seek out a “green” burial.  He persuades a local cemetery to preserve a tract of forest instead of cutting it down to extend the lawn area.  He finds someone who can make a coffin coffin for him out of reclaimed wood.  We see him try it on for size, joking that “I’m going to be here for a while.”  He approves.  “It’s the exact style that I want to go out in.”  And, in a moment of both celebration and defiance, he dances on its cover.

“A Will for the Woods” is a documentary about the small but urgent movement for eco-burial.  But its focus on Dr. Wang, a psychiatrist and musician, makes it a profound statement about death and therefore about life.  While some people in the film speak in euphemisms and indirection, and even Wang himself uses terms like “burial is a very likely outcome,” the way that he and his partner Jane confront what is happening to maintain a sense of dignity, honesty, and control is both moving and inspiring.  It is not surprising that this film has won audience awards at four film festivals so far.

“It’s comforting to know I’ll be in such a beautiful place,” Wang says.  He speaks of learning to “befriend death,” to make sure that his last act is not an act of pollution.  Jane tells him what she will do after he dies, how she will wash his body and spend time with it, caring for him in a way he can no longer care for himself.

This is a touching film and a very important one. It is about dying with dignity, but it is also about living with grace. Just as Dr. Wang approached his own death with purpose and honor, the filmmakers have done the same in telling his story and making it ours as well.

 

Related Tags:

 

Documentary Environment/Green Movies -- format

Let’s Be Cops

Posted on August 14, 2014 at 8:00 am

C
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language including sexual references, some graphic nudity, violence and drug use
Profanity: Very strong and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, marijuana, meth
Violence/ Scariness: Law enforcement peril and violence, guns, many characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters, some racial, sexist, and homophobic humor
Date Released to Theaters: August 15, 2014
Copyright 2014 Twentieth Century Fox
Copyright 2014 Twentieth Century Fox

Oh, let’s not.

As generic as its name and way too long, any significant connection “Let’s Be Cops” has with its audience comes from the increasing sense of regret that this talented cast wasted its time — and ours.

The title is the elevator pitch.  Two hapless losers dress up as cops, like the respect and sense of power they get, and decide to wear the uniforms some more so that they can order people around and get past the velvet rope at a nightclub.  And impress a girl.

Highly likeable “New Girl” co-stars Damon Wayans, Jr. and Jack Johnson play Justin and Ryan, 30-year old Perdue alums and roommates who are reminded by a reunion party that they have not accomplished very much.  Justin has a low-level job at a video game company and is too shy to get the attention of the boss for the new game he has developed, which is about a policeman.  That’s why he has a couple of authentic uniforms on hand.  Ryan is a sometime actor who — wait for it — is living off the residuals he got for a herpes medicine commercial.  Oh, my sides!

The un-dynamic duo misunderstand the invitation to the reunion party and arrive in costume to find everyone else in business attire with masks.  Why?  No reason except an improbable basis for the even more improbable premise.  They leave, embarrassed, but when people on the street believe they are real cops, they think it is a lot of fun.  Justin is ready to walk away, but Ryan gets into character, watching YouTube videos to learn police lingo and skills.  Pretty soon, Justin is impressing a pretty waitress (“Vampire Diaries'” Nina Dobrev) and Ryan is messing with some guys who crunched his car.  It is obvious that these are very scary gangsters, but of course Ryan has no clue and Justin is having way too much fun engaging them in a law enforcement version of Simon Says to pay attention.

The rest of it plays out exactly the way you’d imagine, with the only bright spot Key & Peele’s Keegan-Michael Key hilarious appearance as a tattooed low-level driver for the bad guys, sort of the fake cops’ Huggy Bear.  His too brief-appearance only reminds us of the comedic chaos this film is missing.  The funny parts aren’t funny enough (Really?  Wrestling a naked fat guy?  Wasting Rob Riggle as a straight man?  Being high on meth? Flirting with a drugged-out floozy?).  The action parts aren’t exciting enough.  The big surprise twist is neither big nor a surprise. Gene Siskel used to say that the movie should be better than watching the same actors talk over lunch. This one doesn’t come close.

Parents should know that this film has strong and crude language, sexual references and situations, male and female nudity, violence and peril with characters injured and killed, alcohol and drug use (marijuana and meth).

Family discussion: How did Justin and Ryan differ in their thinking about pretending to be policemen? How did their experiences change their ideas about what they were capable of?

If you like this, try: “The Other Guys” and “The Heat”

Related Tags:

 

Comedy Movies -- format

Life Itself

Posted on July 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm

A
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated R for brief sexual images/nudity and language
Profanity: Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: References to drinking and alcohol abuse
Violence/ Scariness: Scenes of illness, sad death
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: July 4, 2014

LifeItselfRoger Ebert, the most influential film critic of all time, gets the film he deserves directed by one of the many filmmakers he championed, Steve James (“Hoop Dreams,” “The Interrupters”).  It is co-produced by Martin Scorsese, whose emotional appearance in the film to talk about the impact of the support—and criticism—he received from Ebert is one of the highlights.

But this is not the story of a movie critic.  It is the story of a life, a big, grand, messy, vital, generous life.  It was a life with every bit as much drama, comedy, tension, romance, insight, compassion, and, as Ebert would say, civilizing influence and empathy creation as any of the films included in Roger’s pantheon of Great Movies.

The film shows us Ebert as a child in the university town of Urbana, Illinois, as a college student there, as a young newsman who, still in his 20’s, became the movie critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, and later a pioneering presence on television and online. He drank too much until he admitted that he was an alcoholic.  He and Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel created a television show that began on the local PBS channel, WTTW, and then went into national syndication and moved to commercial television.  While some print critics complained that it was stunt-ish, the show elevated serious engagement with movies to a nationwide conversation.  A highlight of the film is the testy outtakes from the show, making it clear that the competitiveness and tinge of animosity that made their on-screen interactions so fascinating were toned down from the real strains between them.  And it turns out Siskel hung out with Hugh Hefner at the Playboy Mansion during the wild era of the 60’s.  “Roger may have written ‘Beyond the Valley of the Dolls,’ but Gene lived it,” Siskel’s widow says with a smile.

The intensity of the competition between the two critics is very funny. So are the outrageously awful clothes and haircuts (there are some things even the ’70s does not excuse) and the amateurishness of the early episodes. But the very real respect and, ultimately, admiration, between them makes it clear that this was one of the most significant relationships of Roger’s life. It was his devastation over Siskel’s decision not to tell anyone about his own illness that made Roger resolve to be very open and honest about his own.

Ebert had great hungers, which led to excesses, not just in alcohol and food but in work, producing more reviews and books than any other critic and dabbling as a screenwriter in the legendarily awful “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.”  Once he stopped drinking, he developed the courage to pursue his greatest hunger, the hunger for love and intimacy.  The man who called movies “an empathy machine” was ready, at age 50, to begin to feel those feelings outside of the screening room.  It is deeply moving to witness Ebert’s transformation through his finding a deep romantic love and a large extended family at age 50 with Chaz.  And then he got cancer, and we see the impact his illness had on his writing. He lost a great deal, but, James shows us, he found more.

Roger loved movies deeply, personally, viscerally. With this documentary, the movies return that love.

Parents should know that this movie includes scenes of illness and a sad death, some strong languages, discussions of alcohol abuse and alcoholism, smoking, and some sexual references and images from movies with adult material.

Family discussion:  What were the most important turning points in Ebert’s life?  Do you agree that film is an “empathy machine?”

If you like this, try: Roger Ebert’s books and his mesmerizing shot-by-shot commentary on Citizen Kane

Related Tags:

 

Critics Documentary Movies -- format

Coherence

Posted on June 19, 2014 at 5:47 pm

A-
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Not rated
Profanity: Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, drugs
Violence/ Scariness: Pervasive psychological horror and some violence
Diversity Issues: None
Date Released to Theaters: June 20, 2014

coherenceSeriously, don’t read this review until after you’ve seen the movie. The less you know, the more you will enjoy this nifty thriller, which craftily makes the most of its micro-budget to maximize a deliciously mind-bending story. As in all great thrillers, the scary stuff is not what’s on the outside, but what the stuff on the outside does to the stuff in the inside, meaning not just the inside of the characters but the inside of the audience.

James Ward Byrkit, who wrote “Rango” and created the visual design for the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies (all with Gore Verbinski), wanted to take some time away from seven-figure-budget blockbusters and create something small and intimate. He literally shot it in his living room, with a cast of vaguely familiar looking but under the radar actors. As the movie begins, eight friends are getting together for a dinner party. We get some sense of the relationships and some tensions as they gather. They engage in routine dinner party chat, mentioning in passing some news about a comet due to pass overhead along with the usual updates and gossip.  And then the phones stop working.  And then the lights stop working.  And then someone says he’d better go outside to find out what is happening.  And we’ve all seen enough movies to know that this is probably not a great idea.

What happens next is not a plot twist but a plot Rubik’s Cube, an ingeniously plotted infinite regression of meta-realities. To say any more would be to spoil the movie’s best surprises.

Parents should know that this is a psychological thriller with a pervasive sense of dread and some violence.  Characters drink and use drugs and there is strong language.

Family discussion: What decision do you wish you could go back and do over?

If you like this, try: “Identity”

Related Tags:

 

Movies -- format Thriller VOD and Streaming

22 Jump Street

Posted on June 12, 2014 at 5:55 pm

B-
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language throughout, sexual content, drug material, brief nudity and some violence
Profanity: Constant very strong and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, drunkenness, drugs and drug dealing
Violence/ Scariness: Comic action-style law enforcement violence, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: June 13, 2014
Date Released to DVD: November 18, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN: B00KPYT9PS

22 jump streetIt can be treacherous to go meta in a sequel, especially in the sequel to movie based on a television series that was already pretty meta, with a climax that included appearances by Johnny Depp and some of the other stars of the 1980’s show about young-looking undercover cops. Meta can be smart and funny (see the movie based on another cheesy television series, “Charlie’s Angels”) but it can also be easy and self-absorbed. This sequel is in some ways about sequels, and one of its best moments comes at the very end, with a piling-on of increasingly sillier ideas for future chapters. There are a couple of nice digs at the bigger budget/lower quality/repetitiveness tradition of movie sequels at the beginning, in a scene with the hilariously deadpan Nick Offerman. But if you’re going to make that joke, you’d better be able to clear that hurdle (as Channing Tatum does in a running joke about his parkour-esque athleticism) and not face-plant (as Jonah Hill does in a recurring joke about his lack of athleticism). There are also recurring jokes about how the stars look too old to be in college, the dynamics of the two guys as a couple, and, again, about the bigger budget and repeated storylines, most of which are not as funny as the filmmakers hope.

The 21 Jump Street group has moved from the former Korean church they used as headquarters to a former Vietnamese church across the street. Hence the new address. And they have spent their bigger budget on a high-tech set-up that their commanding officer, Captain Dickson (Ice Cube), describes as suitable for Iron Man. This time, as we heard at the end of the last film, our undercover cops Schmidt (Hill) and Jenko (Tatum) are going undercover in a college. And once again they are looking for the people behind the distribution of a powerful drug. This one is known as whyfhy (pronounced Wi-Fi), and it produces four hours of intense focus (for studying) followed by four hours of wild hallucinogenics (for partying). They stop by the prison to consult with a couple of characters from the last film, and then it’s time for school.

The first film had some real insights about high school, but this one feels based on movies about college rather than the dynamics of a real college environment. There is football, fraternity hazing, and spring break, but not a lot of energy or insight.  The chemistry between Hill and Tatum is still terrific, and one scene where Jenko loses it following an awkward revelation in the captain’s office works very well.  Peter Stormare has an underwritten role as a generic bad guy and Wyatt Russell (son of Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell) has an underwritten role as a frat guy.  The one who comes close to stealing the show here is Jillian Bell as the former roommate of the student whose death led to the undercover operation.  If (heaven forbid) there is another sequel, it should not be the budget that is bigger; it should be her role.

Parents should know that this film includes extremely strong and vulgar language, sexual references and non-explicit situations, brief nudity, drinking and drunkenness, fraternity hazing, drugs and drug dealing, law enforcement violence with guns and explosions, and characters who are injured and killed.

Family discussion: Which one of the sequel ideas glimpsed at the end looks funniest? Do you prefer relationships with some friction?

If you like this, try: “21 Jump Street” and “Lethal Weapon”

DVD Extras: Commentary, deleted scenes

Related Tags:

 

Action/Adventure Based on a television show Comedy Crime Movies -- format Series/Sequel
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2026, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik