The Lone Ranger

Posted on July 7, 2013 at 11:32 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence, and some suggestive material
Profanity:	Some mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Scenes in bar
Violence/ Scariness:	Extensive action-style violence, some graphic, many deaths and injuries
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie but some insensitivity to racial differences
Date Released to Theaters:	July 4, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B008JFUOC2

For more than a century the movies have been telling us the story of America through westerns, and each decade gets the version it deserves. We have seen films range from the optimistic, heroic, and racially insensitive movies of the 40’s (“Destry Rides Again,” “My Darling Clementine”) to the more politically metaphoric movies of the cold war era (“High Noon,” “The Ox-Bow Incident”) to the subversive 60’s (“Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” “Cat Ballou”), to the bleakness of spaghetti westerns and the Oscar-winning “Unforgiven.”

And now, 110 years after Edwin S. Porter’s “Great Train Robbery” (considered the first movie western), we get an update on the radio show-turned television series-turned forgettable 1981 movie version starring model-almost-turned-actor Klinton Spilsbury and Michael Horse, “The Lone Ranger.” And it is indeed a reflection on the era of Citizens United and squestration. It is the very essence of soulless corporate excess and celebrity self-regard.

The folks behind “Pirates of the Caribbean” have reunited for a reboot of “The Lone Ranger,” but this is more like the overstuffed sequels than the fresh and charming original. Everything is out of balance in this bloated two and a half-hour endurance challenge. The worst part is that pared down to lose 40 minutes or so of filler, this could be a nice little action movie. It has the key ingredients: a story and characters that have stood the test of time, inventive and absorbing action sequences, and talented performers. Unfortunately, it is hard to find any of that in the midst of all of the bombast and overkill and tooooo many cooks.

It is now well known that Depp became a superstar with his performance as Captain Jack Sparrow in the “Pirates” movies, a performance of such quirk and weirdness that it completely freaked out the suits. So of course now, with him as producer, they let him do whatever he wanted for the character of Tonto, including spending the entire movie with his face completely painted and wearing a dead crow on his head, inspired by a picture he saw. This is when the suits should have stepped in. Instead they were enablers, allowing the quirks to become distracting and unpleasant. That is especially true in a completely unnecessary framing story set in 1933, with Depp in old man make-up appearing in an old west display, telling a little kid dressed as the Lone Ranger his story.

Armie Hammer does his best in a thankless role. His John Reid is part James Stewart in “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” (bookish lawyer who wants to bring Lockeian notions of a civil society to the west), part doofus. He isn’t as smart as Tonto or the villains, which is fine, but he isn’t as smart as his horse, either. He isn’t as smart as the blanket under his saddle, except when he is, or when he is called upon to do crazy stunts like racing the snow-white “spirit horse” across the top of a racing train, shooting his gun as he goes. He is a fine actor with a strong screen presence and he is clearly game. He deserves better.

The many, many references to other movies seem like crutches, not tributes. The many, many anachronisms are sloppy and show contempt for the audience, not meta-commentary. People in 1869 did not say “Let’s do this.” They did not eat hot dogs in buns with ketchup. The “Star Spangled Banner” did not become the national anthem until 1931. There was no such thing as “health code violations” in a bar — or a house of prostitution. And the all-purpose conspiracy that has the military, a hostile takeover, and an outlaw feels desperate and generic. Any commentary on today’s economic and political woes is purely coincidental.

The real commentary on the failures of capitalism is in spending $250 million of the Disney shareholders’ money on this uninspired vanity project.

Parents should know that this film has intense and graphic violence for a PG-13. A villain literally eats the heart of a man he has murdered and there is massive slaughter, with many characters injured and killed. There are prostitutes, a cross-dresser, bathroom humor, some alcohol, and mild language.

Family discussion: Why did Tonto feed the crow? Why was trading so important to him? Read the Lone Ranger’s creed and discuss how it applies to your life.

If you like this, try: “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” “Silverado,” “Cat Ballou,” and “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”

Fill the Void

Posted on June 13, 2013 at 6:25 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for mild thematic elements and brief smoking
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and drunkenness, smoking
Violence/ Scariness:	Sad offscreen death
Diversity Issues:	Role of women in traditional orthodox community
Date Released to Theaters:	June 14, 2013

A young woman about to choose the man she will marry is torn between her own desires and the wishes of her devout family, ultra-Orthodox Jews. We know where the American version of this story would go — the triumph of individual happiness over the antiquated strictures of the community. But Israel’s official entry for the foreign language Oscar is a sympathetic, layered portrayal, rich with detail, that earns its more complex and resonant conclusion.

Writer-director Rama Burshtein was born in the United States, grew up in Israel in a non-Orthodox home, studied film, and chose to become “baal teshuva” or one who “returns” to the the practice of traditionally observant Judaism. This movie reflects her deep understanding of both liberal and conservative notions of religious practice as a connection to the divine and the many variations in between. She is a gifted filmmaker who understands the way the tiniest details tell the story and evokes utterly natural, intimate performances from her actors. She shows us a world of very strict and demanding tradition, but it is the context for characters who are never caricatured. They are vividly drawn and portrayed with respect and affection.

Like a Jane Austen novel, the primary concern for Shira (a shimmeringly lovely Hadas Yaron) and her family is a propitious match, and the cultural structures for making this decision are clearly defined. In this community, young men and women have no opportunities for interaction until they are identified as potential partners by their parents. Then they have one heart-wrenchingly awkward meeting to decide whether they can spend a lifetime together. As the invariable small plate of cookies goes untouched, there is no shilly-shallying about what they majored in or their favorite music. A few simple questions about their aspirations for family life are all they get.

We first see Shira and her mother sneaking a look at a prospective groom in the aisles of a the grocery store. Shira believes he could be the one. She is excited and happy. But then a terrible tragedy strikes. Her sister, Esther (Renana Raz) dies in childbirth. And then the widower, Yochay (a smolderingly handsome Yiftach Klein) has an offer to marry a woman from Belgium, which would mean moving there and taking the baby with him. The only way to keep Esther’s child close to the family is for Yochay to marry Shira.

Suddenly, Shira has to cope with an entirely different set of pressures and an entirely new sense of power. She has to sort through her feelings without any real opportunity to learn how Yochay is responding. Could he want her? Or is he being forced? What would it be like to be married to someone who has not just been married before, but who was married to her sister?

American films have ranged from clumsy to dreadful in portraying the Orthodox community, with Renee Zellwegger in “A Price Above Rubies” and Melanie Griffith’s “A Stranger Among Us” as notorious failures. Burshtein’s perspective as someone who chose that life is refreshing in its focus on the lives, relationships, and choices of the characters. The details of their religious practice draw us in as illumination, not anthropology. The dynamics of Shira’s parents’ relationship play out in the celebration of Purim, a holiday less observant Jews may think of as a minor celebration for children to wear costumes and shake noisemakers. For these people, it is also a time to encourage those the community who needs help to ask for it and for those who can to give it. It is Shira’s father who receives the requests. But it is her mother who brings the money. And in the oblique discussions they have about Shira’s choice and the factors to be considered, we see the many layers of family, community, and religious observance twined together.

Parents should know that this film includes drinking and drunkenness and brief smoking. There is a sad off-screen death.

Family discussion: What does Shira decide and why? Do you agree? Will she be happy?

If you like this, try: “Ushpizin,” another film about the Orthodox community made by a baal teshuva

Man of Steel

Posted on June 12, 2013 at 6:00 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language
Profanity:	Mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Some drinking
Violence/ Scariness:	Extensive sci-fi/action violence including acts of terrorism, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie, diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	June 14, 2013

Come on, guys, can’t you give us one superhero who is not all angsty and conflicted? Director Zack Snyder, who presided over the ultimate superhero deconstruction in Watchmen, and producer/co-screenwriter Christopher Nolan, who put the cinematic “dark” in Batman’s Dark Knight have taken the original superhero, the one all the others are a reaction to, the one who never needed to be reminded that with great power comes great responsibility, and saddled him with an existential crisis.

This is less an updating of Superman than a downgrade.

That is not the fault of British actor Henry Cavill, who plays Clark Kent and Superman with a lot of heart behind that flawlessly heroic jaw, cleft chin, and broad shoulders. It is the sour tone of the script and the drab look of the film, with completely unnecessary post-production 3D adding a greyish cast over the bleached-out images.

And a reboot really does not require yet another retelling of the origin story. We all know about the little spaceship sent off from Krypton by Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Lara (Ayelet Zurer) before the planet exploded, and the baby who was discovered by the childless Kents, honest farmers who called their new son Clark. Here the re-telling is used to lay the foundation for a battle of former Kryptonians, with towering rage specialist Michael Shannon as General Zod (memorably played in “Superman II” by Terrence Stamp). A new wrinkle: as in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and “Gattaca”, the decadent, depleted Kryptonian society genetically programs fetuses for particular purposes.

In defiance of this system, Jor-El and Lara produce a child the old-fashioned way, the first such birth in generations. But it is too late. Krypton has ignored its inconvenient truths for too long. The world, including technology that features a phone that looks like a talking pomegranate, is about to end. General Zod, once Jor-El’s friend, rebels, killing Jor-El, and vowing revenge as he and his followers are sent to the Phantom Zone. (And by the way, the Phantom Zone here is not nearly as cool as the rotating glass plane in “Superman II.”

After the Kryptonian prologue, we get a distractingly disjointed story, beginning with Clark as an adult, saving the day in secret and disappearing before he can be identified. In flashbacks, we see that Martha Kent (Diane Lane) teaches him how to manage his super-senses without getting overwhelmed. Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) tells his adopted son not to reveal his powers because the world is not ready to understand and appreciate him. Though he loves his parents, Clark feels isolated and anguished. He cannot help stepping in when rescue is needed (and in one case when a bully needs a comeuppance), but then he has to move on so his secret cannot be uncovered.

Lois Lane (Amy Adams), spunky as ever (“What can I say, I get writer’s block if I’m not wearing a flack jacket”) finds out Clark’s secret immediately. She is not someone who is going to be fooled by a pair of glasses and a timid demeanor. Indeed, one reason this story seems so sterile is that it leaves out some of the core elements of the Superman story. No kryptonite. Instead of graceful soaring through the sky, he takes off like a jumping bean. He does not call himself Superman and is only called it once. Instead of the iconic bright red and blue uniform, he wears a textured supersuit with a dramatic but not very practical ankle-length cape. Edna Mode, where are you when Superman needs you?

Clark keeps his secret, with tragic consequences, until General Zod arrives and insists that Earth surrender its lone Kryptonian. This leads to a half-hour fight sequence that is ably staged but empty in spirit. Post-production 3D effects are applied indiscriminately, with the pores of the actors’ skin unsettlingly immersive. The action is indiscriminate and overblown. Perhaps some day we will be able to appreciate mass destruction without painful associations. But here and now, it feels gratuitous. Clark Kent/Kal-El gets so caught up in his own existential angst he overlooks some complex moral issues in his fight with Zod. The plot draws too heavily from “Star Trek” (in at least two places) and not enough from Superman’s decades of history. What about Mr. Myxlplyx? The City of Kandor? Bizarro World? Don’t make Superman into another Dark Knight. Let Superman be his own super-self.

Parents should know that this film includes extended scenes of comic book-style action violence with fights, chases, explosions, tornado, planet annihilated, sad deaths of parents, crashes, and massive city-wide destruction. Many characters are injured and killed including fetuses. There is a non-explicit childbirth scene, some strong and crude insults, and some drinking.

Family discussion: Was Clark’s father right to tell him to keep his powers secret, no matter what the cost? How does this Superman differ from other portrayals and why? Is morality an “evolutionary advantage?” What would you pick for the symbol of your house?

If you like this, try: “Superman” and “Superman II” and the new book about the teenagers who created the character of Superman: Super Boys: The Amazing Adventures of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster

We Steal Secrets: The Story Of Wikileaks

Posted on May 31, 2013 at 8:07 am

A-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for some disturbing violent images, language, and sexual material
Profanity:	Some very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Substance abuse references
Violence/ Scariness:	War violence
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters, homophobia
Date Released to Theaters:	May 31, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00CUWL1VI

The internet has made it possible to share all of the world’s knowledge. Sometimes that is a good thing, whether we’re able to track down just the exact item we want at the lowest possible price or make micro-loans to entrepreneurs in emerging economies, tracking down lost friends and family, or crowd-sourcing complex problems. Sometimes it is a bad thing as when personal or embarrassing information we think of as private becomes very public. In essence, it is great when we have access to other people’s information; not so great when they have access to ours.

So, who decides what stays secret? This brilliant documentary from Alex Gibney (“Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room,” “Taxi to the Dark Side”) explores that question through the stories of two mesmerizing personalities, itself a meta-narrative as the documentarian is exposing the secrets of the secret-sharers.

In 1989, a worm infected more than 300,000 computer systems throughout the world. Like a real-life “WarGames,” it was the work of a smart-alecky teenager. It was Julian Assange, who would grow up to found Wikileaks, a website set up to receive and make public confidential material, protecting the people — whistle-blowers or thieves, depending on your point of view — who provided it.

And then there was Bradley Manning, a private in the U.S. military. Like Assange, he had exceptional computer skills. He had personal and philosophical reasons to be angry at the U.S. government. He was struggling with issues of sexuality and gender identity. He was isolated. And no one thought he was a risk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVYl9NiW3wM

The combination was like gasoline and a match, or maybe the Enola Gay and Fat Man. This is the story of two men who think of themselves as following in the tradition of Daniel Ellsberg in exposing the secrets of military operations, while at the same time they are exposing the vulnerability of our systems for keeping information restricted. If what is released brings to light shameful violations of core principles of honor and integrity, is it honorable to make it public? What if it exposes our operations to our enemies?

Gibney’s portrayal is itself a model of even-handed, serious consideration of these issues, as highly principled and professional organizations (the New York Times and The Guardian) play a responsible filtering function in sorting through “a mountain of secrets dumped into the public domain” and providing perspective and judgment, and as Assange and Manning themselves find their own secrets exposed to the world and are charged with crimes that have led to Manning’s being imprisoned under the severest of conditions and Assange essentially a prisoner unable to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London without being extradited to Sweden to be prosecuted for sexual assault. The film explains that 9/11 was a “watershed moment for the world of secrets,” for both keepers and sharers. There was an unprecedented need to track terrorists and that meant an unprecedented sharing of information. And that meant that a young private had easy access to endless classified material. It was routine for the bored young soldiers to bring in blank CD’s to download music while they worked. It appeared that is what he was doing, but he was downloading hundreds of thousands of documents.

“Was it once not considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it’s wrong?” someone asks. Well, maybe. But not at the time. There is a lot of blaming the messenger for the bad news in this movie, perhaps most sickeningly in the attacks on the women who have accused Assange of abuse. And, as is so often the case, heroes are not the lantern-jawed Boy Scouts we want them to be. That’s in the movies. No fictional story could have come up with the almost sociopathic arrogance of Assange, who likes to brag that “I’m a combative person so I like crushing bastards” or the anguished Manning, whose betrayal of his country is matched by his betrayal by the one person he trusted, an online-only friend who gave his name to the authorities.

The government will always try to control information, whether it is George W. Bush prohibiting the release of images of coffins of dead soldiers or protecting the names of CIA field personnel. The government will aways try to get information, whether it is tracking down Bin Laden or seizing the phone records of reporters. This thoughtful, balanced, essential examination of the clash between privacy and transparency exemplifies the best that intelligence, dedication, and honor can bring to illuminating these issues — and the devastating impact of leaving those decisions to the arrogant and unstable.

Parents should know that this film includes some images of war violence and discussions of sexual assault and gender identity issues.

Family discussion: How do we “destroy corruption?” How do we achieve “a more civilized and just society?” Is there a way to keep secrets? Should there be?

If you like this, try: “The Most Dangerous Man in the America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers” and “Gatekeepers,” with the former heads of the Israeli secret service revealing their own most classified secrets about shameful episodes in the conduct of their efforts to keep Israel safe.

Related Tags:

Documentary Movies -- format

Hava Nagila

Posted on April 25, 2013 at 4:57 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	4th - 6th Grades
MPAA Rating:	Not rated
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	References to the Holocaust
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	April 26, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00BEIYLGQ

It is annoying, frustrating, embarrassing, and irresistible. It is a tradition that has transcended its origins and yet calls us back to the complicated feelings of our past.

All of which makes it a perfect Rorschach test and intriguing metaphor for many elements of the contemporary Jewish identity.

“Hava Nagila” is a song that has been performed by pretty nearly everyone. Harry Belafonte had one of his biggest hits — he says the two songs people alway ask him for are “Day-O” and “Hava Nagila.” It was also a big hit for Connie Francis (she jokes that when asked if she is Jewish, she says, “Ten percent on my manager’s side.”). Glen Campbell sang it. Parodist Alan “Camp Granada” Sherman sang it in a duet with opera star Roberta Peters. A highlight of the movie is the clips from “The Simpsons,” the Muppets, Monty Python, “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” “House,” and performers from China, Iran, Egypt, Thailand, the UK, Serbia, Estonia, South Korea, Mexico, and, wearing cowboy hats and bandanas, Texas.

Unquestionably the strangest version is only about 30 second long and features yodeling. It’s the one music scholar Josh Kum calls “both an embrace and a refusal” and “the smartest song about Jewish identity I’ve ever heard.” It’s by Bob Dylan.

We learn something of “Hava Nagila’s” origins as a “niggun” (wordless song) and its evolution into an anthem of the post-WWII era of suburban Jewish simchas (celebrations of happy occasions). Like “Hokey Pokey” and “The Macarena,” it benefits from its catchy tune, limited range, and association with a dance that can be performed by pre-schoolers and grandparents. Like the song it celebrates, this film can be annoying, but it is hard to resist. As one person says in this documentary about “Hava Nagila,” “they played it at my bar mitzvah — but not at my wedding!” It is clear that when he was old enough to call the shots, he did not want to hear that corny old song again. And yet, we will not be surprised if Hava Nagila returns when his own children become b’nai mitzvot. Bet you a quarter you find yourself humming it.

Parents should know that this film includes references to the Holocaust.

Family discussion: Which version of the song do you like best? Why? Why do you think it is so enduringly popular?

If you like this, try: “The Tribe” and some of the movies and performers featured in this film.

Related Tags:

Documentary Movies -- format Music