The Water Diviner

Posted on April 23, 2015 at 5:58 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for war violence including some disturbing images
Profanity:	Brief language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, smoking
Violence/ Scariness:	Wartime violence with battles and terrorist attacks, characters injured and killed, graphic and disturbing images, suicide, mercy killing
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	April 24, 2015
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00WFNPPVY

Before it detours into not one, not two, but at least three preposterous Hollywood twists, “The Water Diviner” is an absorbing drama about Joshua Connor, an Australian farmer (Russell Crowe, making his directing debut as well) who travels to Turkey to find the remains of his three sons, all killed in the battle of Gallipoli, so he can bring them home for burial. We first see Joshua dowsing for water. He selects the spot he is drawn to, then digs with skill, focus, and determination, until he hits water. He has a well.

He returns to the house where his wife tells him to read a bedtime story to their three sons. It is too much for her to accept that they are long gone to war and killed in battle. Finally, she is so overwhelmed by grief that she commits suicide. Joshua insists that she be buried in the church cemetery, and then leaves to bring their sons home and bury them next to her.

Crowe’s greatest asset as a director is himself as leading man, and his performance is powerful, with a muscular masculinity and sense of honor, but shredded by the loss of his family and by his fears that he may be responsible because he “filled their heads with heroic nonsense.” The clash of cultures and the unthinkable tragedies are intriguing. The best part of the film is the depiction of the way the defeated Australian command must work with the Turkish nationals to bury their dead as respectfully as possible, the tensions are inevitable. Was the end of the battle a “retreat” or an “evacuation?” “You killed my sons.” “You sent them. You invaded us.” Both, of course, are right. When one says, “I don’t know if I forgive any of us,” the other side has to agree.

“Four years ago you’d have given me a VC for shooting that bastard,” one of the ANZAC (Australian/New Zealand) officers growls. “That bastard” is Major Hasan (Yılmaz Erdoğan). The former enemies must work together on a task of unimaginable sadness and defeat, creating a sacred burial ground for thousands of dead soldiers, who will remain for eternity in the site of their defeat. “This is the first war anyone has given a damn,” to do even that much, says an ANZAC officer. Previous war dead were piled into pit graves with the horses.

Joshua finds a place to stay — or rather, it finds him, as a boy takes his bag and runs to the home where his mother and uncle have established a small hotel. They do not want an Australian there, but they need the money, so they gingerly make him welcome. The boy’s mother, Ayshe (Olga Kurylenko), is still insisting that her husband will return from battle, to keep her son’s hope alive more than her own, and perhaps also to protect her from the pressures put on a single mother to remarry. Joshua is forbidden from going to the burial ground, but Ayshe helps him find a way. Once he gets there, no one wants to help him. But “because he is the only father who came looking,” they grudgingly allow him to look through the piles of bones.

And then it starts to get Hollywood. The water diviner somehow uses that same skill to locate the remains of two of his sons. And then it may be that the third is still alive. The last section of the film takes a turn that even Indiana Jones would find daunting and a romance even Nicholas Sparks would find improbable. It is too bad that the earlier part of the film’s appreciation of conflicts and complexity is followed by a fairy tale ending.

Parents should know that this movie features wartime scenes of battle violence and terrorism with some disturbing and graphic images and a suicide and a mercy killing. Characters are wounded and killed. In addition, it includes some strong language, domestic abuse, sexual references, drinking, and smoking.

Family discussion: What did Joshua and Major Hasan have in common? What do we learn from the flashback to the sandstorm? What should Arthur have done?

If you like this, try: Gallipoli and “A Very Long Engagement”

Monkey Kingdom

Posted on April 16, 2015 at 5:39 pm

Disneynature’s annual wild kingdom-style nature documentary is predictably adorable but surprisingly absorbing. The toque macaque monkeys of Sri Lanka live in the 12th century ruins of Polonnaruwa in a society as rigidly structured and ruthlessly enforced as a high school cafeteria run by the mob.

After a chipper rendition of “Hey Hey We’re the Monkees” with an extra verse from former Monkee Micky Dolenz, Tina Fey’s warm and reassuring narration takes over, explaining the literal hierarchy of the monkeys, whose status is reflected by their position on their castle rock. “An intricate society of 50 monkeys band together in a strict social order.”

At the top is the alpha male, Raja, and under him are his male lieutenants/enforcers and three females known as the sisters, whose primary occupations are eating the best food and caring for Raja. Every element of the society — where the monkeys sit and sleep, what they may eat, who they may interact with — is clearly established and strictly enforced.

After we get the sense of the social structure, Fey introduces us to Maya, a young female at the bottom of the hierarchy who will be our hero throughout the story. She is a single mom with a son named Kip and since she is precluded from the literal easy pickings of the fruit tree reserved for the elite only, she has to be adventuresome and imaginative in finding food for them. Kip’s father Kumar is an outcast from his original tribe and, for showing interest in Maya and showing no fealty to Raja, from this one as well.

When a rival tribe invades, Raja’s luxurious lifestyle has left him unprepared to win a battle. The entire group is homeless. Maya and Kumar, who has returned, have skills that are suddenly valuable, even vital, for the survival of the monkeys. Maya helps them get food from the nearby town. Can Kumar help them reclaim Castle Rock?

Like all of the series, this is filled with “how in the world did that get that?” moments of extraordinary intimacy and power, like Maya’s tenderness with Kip, her harvesting of the termites who fly in just one day a year, and the monkeys’ interaction with other species, including a mongoose, a langur monkey, a monitor lizard, and, to their utter and hilarious mystification, a dog. Children will enjoy the hijinks, especially the monkey invasion of an empty school, where they discover snacks and a birthday cake. The predators and perils are gently presented and the issues of status and power are described in a manner that is open and accessible. Once the cheery but corny introductory song is over, this chapter avoids some of the cutesiness that marred previous releases. And the drama of the social structure is so intricate and abashedly familiar it will remind all of us to be a little kinder to those we consider beneath us and a little more willing to challenge the Rajas in our lives.

Parents should know that there are scenes of confrontation and predators, with some minor characters injured and killed and brief, discreet images of dead animal bodies.

Family discussion: What skills did Maya and Kumar have that were important to their group? How are the monkeys like and not like humans? How many ways did you see the monkeys communicate with each other and the other animals? How should Maya treat the Sisterhood and the lower-status monkeys?

If you like this try: the other Disneynature films, including “Chimpanzee,” “African Cats,” and “Bears”

Related Tags:

Animals and Nature Documentary

Ex Machina

Posted on April 16, 2015 at 5:18 pm

A-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for graphic nudity, language, sexual references and some violence
Profanity:	Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and drug use, intoxication
Violence/ Scariness:	Violence and peril, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	April 17, 2015
Date Released to DVD:	July 14, 2015
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00XI057M0

Movies about artificial intelligence or computers achieving consciousness are, of course, really about what it means to be human.

When software and hardware combine to mimic or exceed human qualities in “Her,” “Chappie,” “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Terminator,” or the upcoming Avengers sequel, even “Planet of the Apes,” it is a way to think about what it is that defines us. Alan Turing of “The Imitation Game” used our ability as humans to recognize each other as the famous Turing test to determine whether artificial intelligence has been created. The test is passed when a person cannot tell whether the entity on the other side of a conversation is human. If we cannot tell the difference, then we have to rethink our exceptionalist notions of human supremacy. We accept, sometimes reluctantly, the notion that computers are vastly superior in computation and memory, that they can whomp us in chess or on Jeopardy. But can a machine achieve what we think of as consciousness? Or conscience?

Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) is a computer programmer who gets the equivalent of Charlie Bucket’s golden ticket. He wins a chance to spend a week at the home of the brilliant founder of his company (think Steve Jobs), a man who at age 13 invented the most powerful search engine and now lives in a home so remote that a helicopter flies over the thickly wooded property for two hours before they reach the residence. They are in the middle of nowhere. (The film was made at the stunning Juvet Landscape Hotel in Norway.)

Nathan (Oscar Isaac, all brutish charm, feral, and entitled, with shaved head and beard), welcomes him with a rough candor, explaining that he is hung over, and giving Caleb a keycard, so that he will have access to those parts of the home where he is welcome and be kept out of those where he is not. It turns out he has been brought there for a purpose. Nathan has been working on what he describes as the greatest scientific advance of all time. He is not creating a robot. He is trying to create life. He wants Caleb to perform the Turing test on his latest creation, named Ava (Alicia Vikander of “Anna Karenina”).

But it turns out that it may not be Ava who is being tested.

Ava is gorgeously designed. Nathan admits that he created her to be intensely appealing and she is, both her humanoid face and her transparent neck and midriff that allow us to glimpse her mechanics. Vikander gives her a tentativeness and innocence, with a sweet seriousness and (at least at first) an endearing wish to please. She tells Caleb to wait while she gets a surprise and it turns out to be clothes that cover up the machinery so well that it is not just the human part of Caleb that recognizes her as a part of the same species; it is the depths of the lizard brain instinct. We may have wondered why Nathan’s test was conducted in a glass box that separates Ava and Caleb. Perhaps it was to prevent him from abandoning the Turing test for a more animalistic evaluation based on smell and touch.

There is that always-compelling hubris/Frankenstein/Jurassic Park/sorcerer’s apprentice element of foolish, narcissistic grandiosity in creating something out of a grant vision without appreciating how dangerous it will be. Something always goes wrong. And anyone who does not realize that does not really understand that part of the essence of humanity, for better and worse, is the chasm between our ability to dream and our ability to execute.

First lesson: Isaac Asimov was right. Second lesson: the qualities of human-hood go beyond syntactical complexity and conversational non-linearity. To be human means independence of thought and action, and the pesky thing about independence is that it overlaps with rebellion. We know computers can outsmart us. Can they out-human us, too? Is it any wonder that Caleb flays his own arm just to check that what is inside is not made of gears and chips?

Screenwriter Alex Garland (“28 Days Later,” “Sunshine,” “Never Let Me Go”), directing for the first time, has an eye for gorgeous visuals and a superb sense of balancing the future-wow with the ordinary to make his sci-fi-style extrapolations amplify and illuminate who we are.

Parents should know that this film has very strong language, substance abuse, explicit nudity and sexual situations, and violence.

Family discussion: What is Ava’s most human quality? What is Nathan’s least human quality?

If you like this, try: Read up on the Turing test and watch movies like “A.I.” and “Her”

True Story

Posted on April 16, 2015 at 3:20 pm

A reporter in disgrace for fabricating details of a story sits across the table from an orange-jumpsuited prisoner, accused of murdering his wife and three children. They have more in common than either of them expected. They are both outcasts. They are both unable or unwilling to explain their actions.

And they both used the name Michael Finkel. The reporter was given that name at birth and it appeared on the byline of his stories in the New York Times Magazine, including the one that cost him his job and his reputation. The man who murdered his family used that name when he fled to Mexico to escape capture. The real Michael Finkel, in seclusion at his home in Montana following his humiliating dismissal, got a phone call when the murderer was arrested, asking him for comment. With nothing else to do, and with the thought that this might be the kind of big story that get him back to a job in journalism, the real Michael Finkel, or as real as sometime just fired for lying can be (Jonah Hill), drove to Oregon to visit the man who was accused of killing his family. His real name, by the way, was Chris Longo (James Franco).

Co-writer/director Rupert Goold has a lot of ideas to explore in this film, and some work much better than others. The focus should be on the parallels between the two men, what links them, the ways they tried to use each other, and the resentments and differences that separate them. But Goold wastes Felicity Jones (“The Theory of Everything”) as Finkel’s girlfriend, with distracting diversions like an ominous shot of her running (for exercise) through the woods. She does as well as possible with a scene where her character confronts Longo, but it is artificial and stagey.

Franco perfectly captures the superficial charm that occasionally slips to reveal fierce underlying anger and self-justification. Hill is a bit out of his depth, or more likely the Finkel character is underwritten. We should be able to see his anger and self-justification, too. And he is lost in the scene where he is grappling with a moral dilemma or trying to consider the rights of anyone but himself. He is better at showing us Finkel’s arrogance and his need for approval. When Longo says he took Finkel’s name because he was a fan, Finkel is unabashedly complimented. After his humiliating dismissal, he gravitates toward approval like a moth toward a flame. And we know how that turns out.

The ironic title reminds us that we can never really know the true story; there are always too many conflicting versions, too much that is just unknowable. And yet the difference between Finkel, who violated the most fundamental principles of journalism by combining the details of the Africans he met to tell it as a story about one individual, and the movie of his own story is that fiction is supposed to convey larger truths. It is not at all clear that this one does.

Parents should know that this film concerns the murder of a wife and children. There are some disturbing and grisly images, as well as child slavery and discussion of beatings, deception, some strong language, and drinking.

Family discussion: Why did Jill visit Chris? How did Chris and Mike try to con one another and who was most successful?

If you like this, try: “Capote” and “The Jinx” and Finkel’s book, Murder, Memoir, Mea Culpa

Paddington

Posted on April 15, 2015 at 5:55 pm

B +

Lowest Recommended Age:	Kindergarten - 3rd Grade
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for mild action and rude humor
Profanity:	Some schoolyard language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and drunkenness
Violence/ Scariness:	Peril and mostly comic violence, offscreen death
Diversity Issues:	A metaphoric theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	January 16, 2015

Michael Bond’s gentle, charming stories about the Peruvian bear named for a London train station has been brought to the screen with almost as much gentle charm as the stories, and certainly far more than the slapsticky trailer suggested.

A generation ago, a British explorer named Montgomery Clyde (Tim Downie) was rescued by a rare breed of bears in Peru. He lived with two of them, Pastuzo (Michael Gambon) and Lucy (Imelda Staunton), teaching them some English, including the 107 ways to describe rain that Londoners like to use, and introducing them to the pleasures of orange marmalade. When he said goodbye, he assured them of a warm welcome if they ever came to London bestowed his red hat on Pastuzo.

Pastuzo and Lucy raised their nephew (Ben Wishaw), teaching him all they had learned from Clyde, developing their own artisanal marmalade recipe, and enchanting him with tales about the far-off land called London where their friend would be happy to welcome him. When Pastuzo is killed, Lucy moves to a home for retired bears and the young cub stows away on a freighter bound for London, wearing the red hat and carrying a suitcase filled with jars of marmalade.

At Paddington Station, he meets the Brown family. Risk-averse Mr. Brown (“Downton Abbey’s” Hugh Bonneville) does not want to have anything to do with him, but warm-hearted and spontaneous Mrs. Brown (Sally Hawkins) invites him home, naming him for the train station where they met. The Browns have two children, Judy (Madeleine Harris), a teenage daughter who never takes out her earbuds, and Jonathan (Samuel Joslin), a budding inventor.

As soon as they get home, the extra-prudent Mr. Brown calls his insurance company to extend the protection of his homeowner’s policy, but it is not fast enough. Paddington’s first encounter with a bathroom ends in catastrophe. Mr. Brown is horrified. But Mrs. Brown is sympathetic, and Judy and Jonathan are delighted. A little chaos can be a good thing. And learning to enjoy the differences we encounter in others is a very, very good thing.

As the Browns warm to Paddington, their neighbor, Mr. Curry (“Doctor Who’s” Peter Capaldi) has only one pleasure — having something new to complain about. And there is a more sinister villain as well. A taxidermist at the natural history museum named Millicent (Nicole Kidman, who also co-produced the film) wants Paddington so she can kill him, stuff him, and put him on display. “Is he endangered?” asks one of the museum staff. Millicent narrows her eyes, channeling Cruella De Vil. “He is now.”

The advertising for the film regrettably focuses on the slapstick and gross-out jokes (Paddington thinks Mr. Brown’s toothbrush is for cleaning out his ears). Thankfully, as a whole the film is true to the gentle humor and sweetness of the books. Wishow perfectly captures Paddington’s innocent friendliness and Bonneville and Hawkins are just right as the couple who only need a slight adjustment to reconnect with each other and their children. A brief flashback showing why Mr. Brown became so worried about safety will be appreciated by the children and parents in the audience, and even Millicent’s motives are revealed to be less about evil than about her feelings of hurt and loss. Paddington remains a most welcome visitor, and I hope we see more of him.

Parents should know that this film includes a sad (offscreen) death and some peril, including a taxidermist who wants to kill and stuff Paddington. Characters use some mild language and there is comic mayhem and peril and some bodily function humor. A woman flirts with a man to get him to do what she wants. A man dresses as a woman for disguise and another man finds him attractive. A character gets a security guard drunk so that other characters can break into a building.

Family discussion: Why did Mr. Brown change his views on taking risks when his daughter was born? Why doesn’t Mr. Curry like Paddington? Can you do a “hard stare” and when would you use it?

If you like this, try: the Paddington books and the “Curious George” books and movies — and taste some marmalade!