The people behind the marvelous 3D IMAx Born to be Wild have made another awwww-inspiring story of some of the world’s least-known and most adorable and intriguing creatures, the more than a hundred species of lemurs, found only on the island of Madagascar, off the coast of Africa. Around the time of the dinosaurs, lemurs arrived on Madagascar as castaways. For millions of years it was a paradise for them with no predators. Fascinatingly, due to the isolation, evolution and natural selection resulted in unique species found nowhere else on earth.
This fascinating 40-minute film takes us inside the world of these glorious creatures, their brilliant eyes and leaping dances, and the efforts led by American professor Patricia Wright to create spaces that will keep them safe. Lemurs die in captivity. They can only be kept alive in their own environment. We see scientists search to find mates for the last two known of one species of lemur living in a preserve, playing matchmaker by hunting down two more from the wild and introducing them to each other. The Lemurs and Wright are exceptionally engaging protagonists, and by the time we get to the schoolchildren dressing up as indigenous animals at the end, you will understand how they feel.
Parents should know that there are references to the risk of extinction and environmental despoliation.
Family discussion: Which lemur was your favorite? How are lemurs like other primates: chimps, apes, and humans? How are they different? What can you do to help lemurs?
Errol Morris turns his famous “interrotron” camera on two-time Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for something between a bookend and a counterpoint to his Oscar-winning The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. But this SecDef (as they say in the Pentagon) is not here to confess or apologize even in part, as McNamara did.
He says, in the movie’s final exchange, that he is not sure why he agreed to submit to more than 30 hours of what must have felt more like the cross-examination in “A Few Good Men” or even a detainee interrogation than the back-and-forth press briefings Rumsfeld conducted during the early days of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We see many clips from those celebrated exchanges, at the time referred to as the best show in Washington, and still undeniably entertaining. Rumsfeld’s good humor and confidence were bracing and reassuring at a time when everything seemed to be what he would call an unknown unknown. Like Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” he does not think we can handle the truth. He may be right.
He’s not here to explain. What he is here to do is to repeat the same version of the story, despite the fact that the audience has had the benefit of making some of those unknowns more known.
Rumsfeld’s constant memos, perhaps 20,000 by his count over his final term at Defense, were called “snowflakes” by the staff, based on their color and frequency. It must have seemed like an avalanche. Morris shows us long shelves of folders filled with snowflakes. He has Rumsfeld read some portions aloud, beginning with his famous taxonomy of information. There were known knowns, things we know and know to be true. There were known unknowns, things we do not know and wish we did. There were unknown knowns, things we do not realize that we know. And unknown unknowns, things we don’t know and don’t know that we need to know. Yes.
But what we do with those categories is the tough part, especially when assigning facts. The boxes and labels are nice and neat. The things we do and do not know are not. Rumsfeld often seems Wittgensteinian when he calls for dictionary definitions or makes a distinction between a Pentagon term and standard English. But definitions are not answers.
“Pearl Harbor was a failure of imagination,” Rumsfeld says. So, we gather, was 9/11. Vietnam was “the inevitable ugly ending of an unsuccessful effort.” How do we not make that mistake again? How do we destroy terrorists without a Hydra effect, creating two more for every one we cut down? We might think those answers are known unknowns. But Rumsfeld does not have the luxury of waiting to be sure.
He tells us he found out the US was going to invade Iraq when he was called into a meeting with then-Vice President Dick Cheney (Rumsfeld’s former assistant in the Nixon White House), along with Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar. And that he never read the Justice Department legal memos about “enhanced interrogation.” He insists that he never said and the American people never thought there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. Cut to tape of the press conference where he called Saddam a liar for denying there was a connection.
Rumsfeld is aware of the inherent conflicts. He cheerfully acknowledges the inconsistency between two principles: Belief in the inevitability of conflict can be one of its causes. And if you wish for peace, prepare for war. Plus: all generalizations are false, including this one. He sounds like a zen master, but a jolly one. His good humor can be disconcerting, but not chilling. At the time, it was reassuring to us and undeniably disconcerting to our enemies. Rumsfeld often seems exceptionally forthright, as when he calmly discusses his two offers to resign following the revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib. Would you rather have someone in that job who is grim?
His demeanor comes across today as oddly disengaged. He tears up once, telling about a visit to a gravely injured soldier who was not expected to live, but who did. There are no stories about those who did not.
Morris sometimes overdoes it, with a celestial choir and a snow globe of the Washington Monument as repeated commentary/symbols. Repeated sped-up shots of traffic in Washington, obviously far after the events being discussed, add little.
One can’t help thinking that part of what draws Morris to this story is his own belief in the capacity for absolute truth, in its way as limited as Rumsfeld’s belief that he can tie down the unknown unknowns tightly enough to support a military strategy. Or disinfect a morally compromised decision. But then, how many decisions in wartime or in time of terrorism are not morally compromised? There are unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns, and there are also political and historical quagmires.
Parents should know that this film has disturbing subject matter and some graphic images of the victims of “enhanced interrogation” and abuse.
Family discussion: Once you have created the categories of “known knowns” and “known unknowns,” how do you know when you have enough information to decide? What qualities should one have to serve as Secretary of Defense? What surprised you about this version of the story and why?
Rated PG-13 on appeal for language, sex and drug references, and brief partial nudity
Profanity:
Strong and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs:
Drug references
Violence/ Scariness:
Sad death (offscreen)
Diversity Issues:
Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:
March 21, 2014
Poster courtesy of Dreamfly Productions, Lavender Pictures, and There We Go Films
First rule: do NOT call them bird watchers. These are seriously ornithophilic teenagers and the correct term is “birder.”
Maybe one reason they like birds so much is that the three members of the high school birder society — all male — are odd birds themselves. When one of them catches a glimpse of what just might be a duck previously thought to be extinct, that is exactly the adventure they had been hoping for, something big and meaningful and important, something to prove to everyone around them and maybe to themselves, too, that what they care about really matters. And an adventure would also be a good excuse to get away from some uncomfortable situations at home and school and be in a place that feels like a truer home.
David (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is more than uncomfortable. His mother has died. She had been a birder, and being passionate about birds makes him feel close to her. Now his father (James LeGros), who “literally kills birds for a living” (he owns chicken restaurants) is about to marry the nurse who took care of his mother. She is a warm-hearted and sympathetic person, but to David she is an intruder, especially when she accidentally lets her robe slip and he gets a look at her breasts. He is the one who gets a quick, blurry picture of the possibly-rare duck and he takes it to an expert (Ben Kingsley), who confirms that it could be a Labrador duck, and who shares some memories of David’s mother.
If it can be confirmed that the Labrador duck is not extinct, this would be very big news.
The other two members of the Young Birders Society (high-spirited and highly hormonal Alex Wolff and nerdy control freak Michael Chen) “borrow” a relative’s car and go off in search of the possible Labrador duck. They try to “borrow” camera equipment, too, but are discovered by a girl from the photography club, (Katie Chang) who insists on going along so she can be the one to take the pictures.
It’s an often-told coming-of-age journey tale, but nicely understated and there are some unexpected twists and sensitive performances. The people who made this film brought the same loving attention to the characters that the characters do to the small feathered creatures they care for so deeply.
Parents should know that there is some teenage strong and crude language, brief nudity and sexual references.
Family discussion: Why was the duck so important to David? To the others?
If you like this, try: “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” and watch some birds
Rated R for strong sustained sequences of stylized bloody violence throughout, a sex scene, nudity and some language
Profanity:
Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:
Wine
Violence/ Scariness:
Constant very graphic peril and war-time violence with many graphic and disturbing images and sad deaths
Diversity Issues:
Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:
March 7, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN:
B00BEJL6Q8
Copyright Warner Brothers 2014
Here’s a new term: this movie is neither a sequel nor a prequel to 300, the story of the 300 Spartans who died battling the vastly greater army of the Persians. This is a “side-quel,” a “meanwhile” story about what was going on in a sea battle led by Spartan’s rivals, the Athenians. While “300” was based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, itself based on historic events in ancient Greece, this side-quel was written at the same time as Miller’s still-uncompleted follow-up, to be called “Xerxes.”
We get a bit more backstory this time, too. In a previous battle, Athens’ great warrior Themistokles (hunky Sullivan Stapleton) killed the Persian king. His furious son, Xerxes (returning Rodrigo Santoro) traded his humanity for godlike powers to get his revenge by invading Greece. The leader of the Persian forces is the even-more-furious Artemisia (Eva Green), who can kiss the lips on the head she has just severed, enjoying the kiss just slightly less than the kill. She is tougher than any of her generals, more lethal than any of her soldiers, and even hungrier for inflicting desolation on Greece than her king. And she has the kind of fearlessness only found in those who have nothing left to lose and who will never win enough to feel that they have succeeded.
Themistokles needs to get the support of the resolutely independent city-states if they are to hold off the far greater Persian forces. He knows that his men have heart and dedication, but they are not trained warriors like the Spartans. I could say more about the story, but let’s face it — like the first film, this is about abs, swords, and lots of blood spurting in artistic slo-mo, drenching the screen.
The primary differences are the absence of Gerard Butler and the shift from battles on land to battles on water. We feel Butler’s loss, as he brought a bit more to the original in terms of acting and managed to give his character some depth and personality in the midst of the carnage. But that works for the story, as the death of his character Leonidas is felt deeply in Sparta. The only thing that stands out from the carnage, though, is Green, whose Artemisia cranks up the cray-cray as one of the most evil-relishing villainesses since Cruella De Vil. There’s a sizzling sex-and-fight scene (hmmm, Green did something very similar in “Dark Shadows“) that is way over the top of whatever point over the top used to be. Green has a blast striding around casting laser beams of hatred at everyone, and wipes everyone else in the cast off the screen more thoroughly than her character does to to the “farmers, sculptors, and poets”-turned soldiers of Athens.
Parents should know that this film has constant very intense, graphic, and bloody violence with many battles, swords, fire, drowning, executions, rapes, disturbing images, nudity, sexual references and situations, and some strong language.
Family discussion: What are the biggest differences between the Greeks and the Persians? Do we think about war differently today?
An idealistic young couple from big cities moves to a tiny, economically depressed town in North Carolina for a project that will take advantage of what they think is “an untapped resource” — teenagers. Emily Polliton, TED talker and co-author of Design Revolution: 100 Products That Empower People and Matt Miller, who had just built a home in Detroit to donate to a needy family, got a pioneering school superintendent in Bertie County, North Carolina, to agree to let them create a curriculum with a daunting challenge. They wanted to revitalize the students and the town through design. They had a lot of ideas, but they knew that they could never accomplish anything unless they were clear that they were there to support the town. They knew that the students would be responsible for a big project. But what that project would be had to be decided by the people who live there.
Documentarian Patrick Creadon (“Wordplay,” “I.O.U.S.A”) observed the Studio H project that Emily and Matt brought to North Carolina over 16 months. The name stands for: Humanity, Habitats, Health and Happiness (echoing 4H’s “head, heart, hands, and health”). They began with ten bright but bored high school juniors. One of them says dryly that he hates school just as his father and grandfather did: “It’s a family tradition.” And in one of the movie’s bleakest moments, we see some of them taking mind-numbing online classes, including, ludicrously, PE. “It’s not that I’m leaving here,” another says. “There’s just nothing to keep me here.” This project answers the age-old question: When will I ever need to use calculus? And, in Emily’s words, it is a counter to the current approach, which has “the raw and unadulterated
None of them have ever made anything before. None of them have ever been asked to look at what’s around them and think about design before. Day one, Matt and Emily have them getting their hands dirty — very dirty, making water filtration systems out of mud and cow patties. For the first time, they are asked to think with a pencil. “Some of your sketches are ugly, and that’s okay,” Matt says to encourage the kids to stop self-censoring. “The studio is a mess, which is fantastic,” Emily tells them. After two preliminary projects, they work with the town to decide on what their big project will be. It will be something the town will be proud of, something hopeful, something that will help the economy: a farmer’s market.
Design is about solving problems. As Emily says, “Design allows creativity to have a structure. And that allows you to come up with solutions you wouldn’t otherwise come up with.” Making a bean bag toss or a chicken coop or even a farmer’s market is one thing. Working with people is another. The visionary school superintendent is fired immediately after Emily and Matt arrive. The school board votes to keep their program but eliminate their salaries. As Matt points out, while he can fit in, Emily is a triple outcast in the North Carolina rural community — half-Asian, female, and a designer. As Emily points out, working together under so much stress puts a lot of pressure on their relationship. And, as she also notes, they are trying to build something with a construction crew made up of teenagers.
This is a compelling narrative both in its own terms and as a metaphor of many of the core themes and conflicts in America today. It is a compelling indictment of our failure to inspire our young people with meaningful educational opportunities and a thrilling glimpse of how easy it is to transform the way we think about education and re-connect to our sense of possibilities. It is also a daunting portrayal of the entrenched mindsets and lack of courage that stands in the way. Design can solve problems, but only if we let it.
Parents should know that this movie has some depictions of high-stress economic circumstances, references to prejudice, and a dead animal.
Family discussion: What was Matt and Emily’s biggest challenge? Their biggest accomplishment? Check out the movie’s website to see what happened to the students.
If you like this, try: “Waiting for Superman” and “Wordplay”
. But this SecDef (as they say in the Pentagon) is not here to confess or apologize even in part, as McNamara did.
, also by Morris, and 
and Matt Miller, who had just built a home in Detroit to donate to a needy family, got a pioneering school superintendent in Bertie County, North Carolina, to agree to let them create a curriculum with a daunting challenge. They wanted to revitalize the students and the town through design. They had a lot of ideas, but they knew that they could never accomplish anything unless they were clear that they were there to support the town. They knew that the students would be responsible for a big project. But what that project would be had to be decided by the people who live there.