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

It 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

The Grand Seduction

Posted on June 12, 2014 at 5:55 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for some suggestive material and drug references
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and drunkenness, brief references to cocaine
Violence/ Scariness:	Tense confrontations, some medical images
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	June 13, 2014

This utterly beguiling, comfort-food remake of the French-Canadian film La Grande Seduction is about adorable residents of an impoverished fishing harbor in Canada who come up with a plan to bring a recycling factory and all of its jobs to their town. The men in the community lost more than their jobs when the fishing industry collapsed. They lost their self-respect and their sense of purpose. Also, apparently, their sense of their manhood.

But the factory will not come to town unless they have a local doctor, some cash for a side payment, and enough locals to staff the new facility. They can finesse the cash and scare up a few extra bodies. But the doctor is a challenge. Murray (the always-superb Brendan Gleeson) comes up with a preposterous plan. When a handsome young doctor named Paul (Taylor Kitsch), giddy over an athletic triumph, celebrates a little too much and a small bit of cocaine is found in his luggage at the airport, a combination of a some light blackmail gets him to the harbor and a massive “Truman Show”-style fantasy is set up to persuade him that he has found paradise. They discover that he likes cricket, so soon all of the women are dying clothes white to create cricket uniforms and the men are pretending to play a game they know nothing about and to love watching it on television at the pub, cheering whenever something may possibly have happened. They listen to his favorite music. They cook his favorite meals. And when they discover he lost his father, Murray takes him fishing and tells him about his (fictional) late son. Of course there is someone from the town under the water making sure that there’s a fish on Paul’s hook, just as Murray is skillfully baiting his metaphorical hook to reel in the doctor himself.

Director Don McKellar knows how to keep the movie sweet without becoming cloying, partly by being frank about the devastating impact of the town’s economic collapse. The specificity of the sense of place also lends weight to the storyline, its exquisite, pristine beauty and its precariousness. And then there is the superbly chosen cast, anchored by Gleeson, who keeps a twinkle in his eye but shows us the real pain and longing of the men who have been deprived of the essence of their sense of themselves. He knows that sometimes crazy times require crazy solutions. And while it may not be true that he lost a son, it is true that he has lost a great deal and that the chance to be something of a father figure to a young man heals something inside him. The wonderful Canadian actor Gordon Pinsent (“Away From Her”) and Liane Balaban (TV’s “Supernatural”) create warm, witty characters as well. It is especially nice to see Kitsch get a chance to play a nice, regular guy. Paul believes what is going on not because he is gullible but because he would really like to believe there is a place as perfect for him as this one. And we go along because we would, too.

Parents should know that this film includes sexual references, some strong language, a brief incident involving cocaine, and pub drinking and tipsiness.

Family discussion: Why was having jobs so important to the way the people of this community felt about themselves? What was the worst lie they told?

If you like this, try: “Waking Ned Devine” and “The Full Monty,” along with the original French language version of this film.

Related Tags:

Comedy Movies -- format

Lullaby

Posted on June 10, 2014 at 8:00 am

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language and brief drug use
Profanity:	Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Alcohol abuse, smoking, brief drug use
Violence/ Scariness:	Very sad themes of illness and loss
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	June 13, 2014

An outstanding cast, a weighty subject, and the sincerest of intentions are almost enough to make up for an undercooked, stuntish, and stagey script in this story about a man who decides to die and the family he leaves behind.

The always-brilliant Richard Jenkins plays Robert, who has been fighting cancer for twelve years, eleven and a half longer than his doctors expected. We get a glimpse of him in a flashback, superbly confident and capable as he crisply guides a boardroom through the details of a complicated transaction and then leaves them behind to take his adored and adoring 14-year-old son Jonathan to lunch.

Garrett Hedlund plays Jonathan at 26 and we first see him getting in trouble on an airplane for smoking in the lavatory, and then persuading a flight attendant not to have him arrested with charm — and a request for sympathy because he is on his way to be with his dying father. He is on his way to be with his dying father, but we get the idea that he has been using that as an excuse for a long time.

This visit is different, though. While Jonathan and his mother Rachel (the lovely Anne Archer) and lawyer sister (“Downton Abbey’s” Jessica Brown-Findlay) tell Robert that he can get through this as he has so many times before. But he says, “I fought for 12 years. I’ve got nothing.” He wants to be taken off the drugs so he can see his family clearly. And then he wants them to let him go.

He has a surprise for them. He has given away his money. “I love you both and I raised a couple of spoiled brats,” he tells them.

It takes about a day to sort this all out, and a lot happens. Some of it is touching, as when Hedlund explains why he has stayed away: “It’s hard to love someone with an expiration date stamped on his forehead.” And he did not want to come home until he could be proud of what he had accomplished. Jonathan has to admit that he is the one who is not ready. Rachel is devoted but shows some asperity when no one acknowledges the challenges she faces as the caretaker.

But too much seems artificial. Jessica Barden, like many of the other actors, does far more than it is fair to expect with an underwritten role. In her case it is the plucky dying teenager who just wants to know what one of the normal pleasures of adolescence might feel like, which gives Jonathan an opportunity to duck out on his family as a personal Make-A-Wish, with a chorus of cute sick kids cheering him on. There is a sort of seder in the hospital chapel and an impassioned oral argument. Amy Adams shows up as Jonathan’s ex and Terrence Howard and Jennifer Hudson are the doctor and nurse. All three are sensitive performances in underwritten parts. Issues and hostilities between family members appear and disappear without the underlying emotional heft necessary to provide a reason for the changes. When Robert says he is proud of Jonathan, it is hard to understand why. And yet Jenkins and Hedlund find something in the moment that makes it matter. Writer/director Andrew Levitas shows promise, but he needs to trust his audience a little more.

Parents should know that this film deals with issues of death and dying, including assisted suicide, and it includes smoking, drinking, drugs, sexual references, and strong language.

Family discussion: Who should decide when someone should be allowed to die? Have you discussed your wishes with your family?

If you like this, try: Two Weeks with Sally Field

Citizen Koch

Posted on June 3, 2014 at 12:39 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Not rated
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	None
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie, some offensive comments
Date Released to Theaters:	June 6, 2014

The 2010 Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case opened the door — no, opened the floodgates — to unlimited and unaccountable political spending by corporations and wealthy individuals. The case itself rose from a film about Hillary Clinton that was funded by a group opposing her candidacy for President. And now this film, “Citizen Koch” takes on Charles and David Koch, the wealthiest, most powerful, most influential, and least known of the individuals who have taken advantage of the Citizens United ruling and the corrupting, distorting, and toxic effect on democracy.

The filmmakers make it clear from the beginning whose side they are on, opening with a racist quote from Koch paterfamilias and c0-founder of the John Birch Society Fred Koch, then cutting to Sarah Palin, shouting “Game on!” to Barack Obama at an Americans for Prosperity rally. Americans for Prosperity is just one of the more than 30 organizations known to be funded by the Kochs. It then goes back two and a half years earlier to examine the impact the Kochs have had in just a small but representative sample of issues and events, focusing in detail on Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, kept in office despite a recall vote, thanks to enormous amounts of money for an “end the recall madness campaign,” none of which was disclosed until after the vote, when it was too late to affect the outcome.

The unexpected hero of the film turns out to be Buddy Roemer, former Governor and Congressman from Louisiana who has served or run as Democrat, Republican, and independent. His fresh, frank outlook and good cheer despite being ignored by contributors, voters, and the other candidates is a bracing antidote to the despair and animosity surrounding him. One Rove/Koch operative refuses to answer questions about the benefits to their business interests that the policies the Koch brothers are promoting and another insists, outside of a Koch-funded bus filled with get-out-the-vote callers representing themselves as “volunteers for Americans for Prosperity,” that his group is not “election advocacy,” just “issue” education. By contrast, Roemer’s candor — and his inability to get any support — are telling.

But the inescapable conclusion from the film is that there is something even more distressing than the impact of near-unfathomable individual wealth on politics: the impact on public understanding of the issues. As sort of Gresham’s Law of information, the availability of outlets for unlimited sources with their own spins and agendas. A group of people take in the anti-Semitic-fueled rant of a John Birch Society leader (he actually comes down on Hitler’s side regarding the threat posed by Jews), and one of them gratefully says it is good to be able to get information from those who are knowledgeable. Another man, told that the money the Kochs spent on elections is vastly greater than that spent by the unions (as much a target of the Kochs as government regulations and the social safety net), simply refuses to believe it. That same attitude — and the power of the Kochs to keep this film from being aired on New York’s PBS station to get this story told — is the real problem.

Parents should know that this film includes some disturbing language and bigotry.

Family discussion: How do other countries handle this problem? What is the best way to evaluate the impact of political spending by all sides?

If you like this, try: Koch Brothers Exposed and Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America’s Most Powerful and Private Dynasty

Related Tags:

Documentary Movies -- format Politics

Belle

Posted on May 8, 2014 at 6:00 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for thematic elements, some language and brief smoking images
Profanity:	Some brief language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, smoking
Violence/ Scariness:	Sad death of parent (offscreen), tense family confrontations
Diversity Issues:	Race and gender issues the theme of the film
Date Released to Theaters:	May 9, 2014

Writer Misan Sagay, director Amma Asante, and actress Gugu Mbatha-Raw have created a film of exceptional understanding, honoring the life of the real-life woman who inspired the story with intelligence, sensitivity, and insight that illuminate her time and our own. Mbatha-Raw plays the title character, who must navigate her way across lines of gender, class, race, and legitimacy — in its legal and broader senses. Mbatha-Raw (“Larry Crowne”) is mesmerizing, a beautiful, thoughtful performance in a film that has all of the trappings of the best sumptuous costume dramas but has a story with unexpected contemporary meaning.

Dido Elizabeth Belle was the illegitimate daughter of a titled officer in the British navy and a West Indian slave woman. When her mother died, he brought his daughter to live with his uncle, Lord Mansfield, the chief judge of England (Tom Wilkinson), his wife (Emily Watson), and their other niece, Elizabeth (Sarah Gadon). The girls are raised like sisters but there are always distinctions. They eat together as a family if they are alone, but if there are guests, Dido is not permitted to eat with them but can join them in the parlor afterward. After her father’s death, Dido is an heiress with a respectable fortune while Elizabeth, a legitimate heiress, is cut off from her inheritance by her father’s second wife. As Dido and Elizabeth are introduced to society (Elizabeth formally, Dido does not “come out”), the eligible young men rate the women as shrewdly as Jane Austen characters. Does an impoverished young man of good breeding in need of money find Dido’s fortune sufficient to overcome her race and unmarried parents? If he does, will Dido have a choice in evaluating his proposal?

Meanwhile, a case is wending its way toward the judge that is of vital interest to Dido. Slaves being transported were jettisoned from a cargo ship. Are they to be seen as property or as people? Dido gets more information about the case from a fiery but poor young law student, risking his opportunity to study with the judge by communicating with her. As she learns more about her mother’s people and understands more about the kinds of restrictions she and Elizabeth face — some alike, some different, she begins to understand that some of those restrictions are freeing as well. If she cannot travel the usual path for young women in her society, she can learn to forge her own.

Parents should know that this movie includes discussions of legitimacy, mixed-race relationships, and slavery. There are references to the slaughter and mistreatment of slaves.

Family discussion: How many different distinctions did the family and the culture make between Elizabeth and Dido? Between the two women and the men around them?

If you like this, read more about the real story in Belle: The Slave Daughter and the Lord Chief Justice and watch “Amazing Grace” and “Amistad.”