“Dark Universe,” currently playing in the planetariums at The Einstein Planetarium of the Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museum, the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, and the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, is a thrilling journey to the outer edges of the universe narrated by “Cosmos” super-scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson. It’s like a grown-up ride on the magic school bus, taking us into the deepest questions of who and what and where we are, with images based on data from NASA and European Space Agency missions, ground-based telescopes, supercomputer simulations, and research conducted at institutions around the globe. In other words, this is the stuff the “Big Bang Theory” guys get so excited about in between visits to the comic book store and takeout food.
Galileo shocked the people of the 17th century when he told them that the earth was not the center of the solar system. In the centuries since, we have recalibrated again and again, finding out solar system is not the center of the galaxy — there is no center — and that normal matter—the atoms that we are made of—is a tiny fraction of the mass and energy in the cosmos, less than five percent. Our notion of ourselves as primary in creation is profoundly rebutted.
Watching this film in a planetarium, we feel that we can travel through space as well as through the grand ideas Dr. Tyson describes. This brief glimpse into what we have learned and what we hope to learn next is a thrilling opportunity to expand our notions of how small we are in the great scheme of existence but also how large we are in our ability to begin to comprehend the universe and our place in it.
My parents taught me that you automatically lose an argument if you (1) fail to state the other side’s views in a manner they approve or (2) fail to attribute to the other side the same good intentions you assume for your own. Focus on the Family’s faux documentary “Irreplaceable” fails on both grounds. It probably also violates one of the Commandments as well, the one prohibiting the bearing of false witness.
I’m in favor of strong, loving families with responsible parents. You’re in favor of strong. loving, families with responsible parents. It is safe to say that there is just about no one who is not in favor of strong, loving families with responsible parents. It is about the least controversial position imaginable. But this film uses the rhetoric of support for family as a thin and increasingly cynical and specious cover for a pernicious agenda disguised as a “conversation.” It’s so smug, constricted, and phony that it does not even qualify as one-sided.
The unctuous tones of the participants are intended to convey concern. But the false humility is merely an attempt to distract the audience from a poisonous message. Though some vague generalities acknowledge that in some cases marriages cannot be made safe and spouses must leave, the real message is that there is only one kind of family and everything else is unstable for its members and for culture and society. If it had any faith in its positions, Focus on the Family would accurately explain the views of those who embrace a variety of family structures and roles, allowing each family to find what is best for them. Instead it slants and distorts those messages because it knows it has no effective arguments to make honestly. It relies on innuendo and the basest slur to keep its base too scared to be anything but compliant.
The “experts” in the film tell us that the problem is that we are getting cultural messages about valuing self, possessions, and pleasure over the family. Those are serious questions and worth exploring. But they fall back on an imagined war between faith and culture without any exploration of why the faith community has failed to communicate its message more effectively or how the faith community or society as a whole could provide more support for families in need. There is no place in the world of these experts for families that do not fit into their one-size-fits-all vision of mother, father, children all living together. Is it possible for strong, loving, intact families with gay parents to raise happy, healthy children? For single parents and blended families to raise happy, healthy, children? Are fathers today more deeply involved in their children’s lives than in the falsely idealized vision of the mid-20th century promoted here? Statistics say yes, but you would not know that from this film. If indeed that era was so ideal, why did the overwhelming majority of those who grew up that way advocate with such passion for alternatives?
Those who wish to persuade others can best do so by building a bridge to establish a common foundation, making it clear that what connects us is more important than what separates us. Or, as they have done here, they can build a moat around their shrinking base, reinforcing the condescending sense of superiority of their own little group by telling them that only their answers work for everyone and playing into their worst fears and stereotypes.
One of the “experts” in this film tells us, “If anyone says they can fix the world, run.” Yet that is just what they do here, imagining that once there was a heavenly era of intact families living out God’s plan without acknowledging that the mid-century “ideal” was neither universal nor considered ideal by those living in it. The dissatisfactions that model engendered led to a cultural upheaval that created its own problems, but none so grave to lead to a widespread call for a return to stultifying, rigidly conformist norms. While commentators in this film make vague concessions to those whose situations are so intolerable that the marriage cannot survive, the essential condescension, arrogance, and total absence of grace or compassion is its primary message.
With this cynical, meretricious and hypocritical film, Focus on the Family has dug a moat and burned the drawbridge. It purports to be about the importance of fathers taking responsibility for their children (again, something everyone agrees on, but you would not know that from this film). It purports to be about forgiveness, something else everyone agrees on, but it engages in the most immoral tactics by demonizing anyone who does not meet its standards.
I am happy for the person in the film who is glad his mother stayed with his father even after he went to jail for stealing money but that does not mean that it would be right for all spouses. And it does not mean I will forgive Focus on the Family for this shoddy, hateful, and dishonest film.
Parents should know that this is a dishonest film that attempts to hide its biased agenda.
Family discussion: What families do you admire and why? What can you to do help your family be stronger?
If you like this, try: “A Family is a Family is a Family”
Serious illness with disturbing scenes of symptoms and treatment, very sad deaths
Diversity Issues:
None
Date Released to Theaters:
May 2, 2014
Rashida Jones and Samantha Morton in Decoding Annie Parker (courtesy of Dorado Media)
This is the true story of two women who share a goal but meet just once, for a few moments. Oscar winner Helen Hunt plays scientist Dr. Mary-Claire King, whose pioneering research led to one of the most significant medical discoveries of the 2oth century, the BRCA1genetic marker for early onset breast cancer. And Samantha Morton plays Annie Parker, a young woman who lost her mother and sister to breast cancer and then, when she was diagnosed with it herself, became dedicated to learning everything she could about the disease. An outstanding cast, a likeable narrator, and a thoughtful script co-authored by director Steven Bernstein take this out of the easy tears of the disease-of-the-week TV movie category. It is an absorbing drama with a lot of respect for its characters and a welcome sense of humor. “My life was a comedy,” a quote from the real Annie says as the movie begins. “I just had to learn to laugh.”
Annie’s mother died of breast cancer when she was a child, and Annie and her sister (Marley Shelton as an adult) superstitiously believe — or pretend to believe — that Death sleeps in a locked room on the top floor of their house, and that their mother make the mistake of awakening it. Their father dies when Annie is still in her teens, and we see her at the first of three funerals in the film, with fatuous remarks from the people attending and a skeezy funeral home employee hitting on her. “A lot of women can’t be cool and in mourning at the same time, but you pull it off.”
A little lost, and overcome with ardor for her musician/pool cleaner boyfriend Paul (“Breaking Bad’s” Aaron Paul in a series of 70’s and 80’s hairdos that are both horribly ugly and fake-looking), Annie gets married. They live in the house she grew up in and very soon they have a baby. And then, the last member of her family, her sister Joan, gets breast cancer and dies, funeral number two, same fatuous remarks and skeezy guy.
And then Annie gets a lump in her breast. It is cancer. She has a radical mastectomy and removal of most of her lymph nodes under one arm, followed by chemotherapy. She becomes determined to learn as much as she can about the disease, even building models of cancer and DNA. And she becomes a warrior against cancer, checking her breasts and insisting everyone else check, too. She even offers to check her husband for testicular cancer during an intimate moment.
Meanwhile, Dr. King is insisting that there is a genetic link and working to find it, despite a lack of support. She is told it will take ten years for the computers available to her to analyze the data she is collecting from women who are in families with multiple cases of breast cancer. But Bernstein wisely makes Annie Parker, rather than Dr. King, the focus of the film. This adds warmth and drama to a story that would otherwise be a lot of people in lab coats getting turned down for grants and crunching data. Parker makes an engaging guide to the years of struggle faced by both women, with a wry sense of humor and a steeliness of resolve that, endearingly, is as much a surprise to her as it is to everyone around her. She is very funny quacking (really!) to get the attention of a bored doctor’s office receptionist (Rashida Jones), who later becomes her close friend and ally. Morton is superb, showing us Parker’s vulnerability as well as her courage, and making us understand the scope and the human dimension of Dr. King’s work. When they finally meet we see how in an important way they kept each other going.
Parent should know that this film has themes of cancer, illness, and loss, with sad deaths and some disturbing scenes of symptoms and treatment, sexual references and brief explicit situations, adultery, some very strong language, and drinking.
Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material, sexual references and language (on appeal from the original R rating)
Profanity:
Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:
Drinking and drunkenness, brief reference to marijuana
Violence/ Scariness:
Comic peril and violence
Diversity Issues:
None
Date Released to Theaters:
April 25, 2014
Date Released to DVD:
July 29, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN:
B00KNALRZ4
The latest in a female-centered revenge comedy genre that extends from “9 to 5” through “She-Devil,” “The Other Woman” is intended to be a merry little tale of female empowerment and grrrl power. Instead it is soggy, haphazard, poorly paced slapstick mansplained by director Nick Cassavetes from a script by Melissa Stack.
Cameron Diaz (who gave one of her best performances in Cassavetes’ soapy “My Sister’s Keeper”) plays Carly, a tough-as-nails corporate lawyer with a beautiful office overlooking Central Park. She meets handsome Mark King (“Game of Thrones'” Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, utterly lost in a thankless role). For eight weeks he is thoughtful, attentive, and so hot that she has “cleared the bench” of other guys, she explains to a criminally underused Nicki Minaj as her secretary. (The movie I’d like to see is Nicki Minaj going after a man who cheated on her.) But then Carly discovers that Mark is married. To Kate (Leslie Mann, in her “I’m going to pretend I don’t know I’m pretty and act like a total klutzy ditz” mode). With a house in the Connecticut suburbs. And a very big dog.
Kate falls apart. Carly tells her to cry on on the inside “like a winner.” How long before the big dog makes a mess of Carly’s impeccable white apartment? How long before the two women are trying on clothes, discussing bikini waxes, doing each other’s hair and make-up and having a big sloppy drunk bonding moment? How long before they discover that Mark was cheating on both of them with Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue cover girl Kate Upton? How long before she goes running toward us on the beach in slo-mo wearing a tiny white bikini?
Except for that last one, the answer to all of the above is way, way too long. But Kate Upton does look pretty great running in the bikini.
The trio decide that Mark must be punished. So Kate gives him estrogen in his smoothie and depilatory in his shampoo and Carly puts laxative in his drink. There’s an excruciating bathroom scene. Though it is funny when the only replacement pants he can find are red skinny jeans from a hipster.
Then they go after his money. All of this requires a lot of girly support group stuff, which is bad, and a lot of slapstick, which is much worse. All but about two or three of the best moments (a relative concept) are in the trailer. Comedic setups are poised to go off, then abandoned without resolution. The woman exist for no reason except in relation to this unappealing man.
This is a movie about sisterhood and female empowerment that makes fun of Kate Upton’s character for being a dumb blonde and makes fun of Cameron Diaz for wishing she had Kate Upton’s figure. This is a comedy that lets us know we are back in New York City by playing Frank Sinatra singing “New York, New York” and lets us know the women are having fun with their revenge plan by playing “Girls Just Want to Have Fun.” The few witty lines and funny situations are lost in a headache-inducing cacophony, emphasis on the first two syllables.
Parents should know that the theme of the movie is adultery and betrayal. It includes crude sexual references and non-explicit situations, drinking and drunkenness, smoking, drug reference, comic peril and violence, and gross potty humor.
Family discussion: Why did the women become friends? Why were they so misled by Mark?
If you like this, try: “The First Wives Club,” “She-Devil” (and the better original version, The Life and Loves of a She-Devil) and “9 to 5”
Rated R for some sexual content, language and brief nudity
Profanity:
Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:
Alcohol
Violence/ Scariness:
Some violence
Diversity Issues:
Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:
April 19, 2014
John Turturro wrote, directed, and stars in “Fading Gigolo,” a bittersweet meditation on the ways we seek and hide from intimacy, sometimes at the same time.
Turturro plays Fioravante, a florist who works part-time for Murray (Woody Allen), the third-generation proprietor of a used and rare bookstore. But the bookstore is folding. “Very rare people buy rare books.”
As they pack up the shop’s inventory, Murray tells Fioravante that his dermatologist said she was willing to pay for sex. “Are you on drugs?” “Apart from my Zoloft, no.” The empty bookshelves suggest the sadness of anything or anyone who has something to give that is not being used. Murray says he thinks the quiet, unassuming Fioravante would be just what this doctor ordered, and volunteers to act as the middle-man, or, to put it more directly, the pimp.
The subject matter and the presence of Allen suggest a broad comedy, something between “Deuce Bigalow” and “Deconstructing Harry.” After an awkward start with female characters who are superficially drawn and some uneven tonal shifts, it becomes a thoughtful drama that gets much more interesting in the second half, when after encounters with gorgeous, successful, worldly women like the doctor (Sharon Stone) and her friend (Sofia Vergara), he takes on Avigal, a young widow from the ultra-Orthodox Satmar community (French singer Vanessa Paradis, in a performance of exquisite sensitivity).
The same quiet, sensitive quality that makes Fioravante careful and tender in taking care of plants makes him very good at his new job. He gently dances with one of his clients to make her feel cherished. And he is respectful of Avigal, caressing her back and letting her weep.
The Satmar community has its own police force. Liev Schreiber plays an Orthodox cop, who wears a tallit under his uniform and whose professional responsibilities come second to some strong feelings he has for Avigal.
But the most compelling character here is the city itself. Turturro skillfully shows us the complications, juxtapositions, and unexpected connections of the city’s diverse populations. Gorgeous music weaves through the story to bring it together. By the final moments, we see it is as carefully tended as Fioravante’s flowers.
Parents should know that this is a movie about prostitution and it has explicit content and strong language.
Family discussion: What difference did Avigal’s relationship with Fioravante make in her life? Were you surprised by the decision she made?
If you like this, try: “Hannah and Her Sisters” and “Hester Street”
“Dark Universe,” currently playing in the planetariums at The Einstein Planetarium of the Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museum, the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, and the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, is a thrilling journey to the outer edges of the universe narrated by “Cosmos” super-scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson. It’s like a grown-up ride on the magic school bus, taking us into the deepest questions of who and what and where we are, with images based on data from NASA and European Space Agency missions, ground-based telescopes, supercomputer simulations, and research conducted at institutions around the globe. In other words, this is the stuff the “Big Bang Theory” guys get so excited about in between visits to the comic book store and takeout food.
) and “9 to 5”