Last Ounce of Courage

Posted on September 12, 2012 at 5:55 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	4th - 6th Grades
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for thematic elements, some war images, and brief smoking
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Some drinking and smoking
Violence/ Scariness:	References to casualties and fatalities in war, brief image of an accidental gunshot wound
Diversity Issues:	Intolerance of non-Christians
Date Released to Theaters:	September 12, 2012

It is truly disappointing that a film that is intended to be in favor of “peace and joy and love,” faith, freedom and Christmas is instead about being a bully and being a phony.

Last Ounce of Courage is the story of a small town pharmacist and part-time mayor who bonds with his teenage grandson over a plan to celebrate Christmas, not in the home and the church, but in the school, the town square, and the federally funded veterans’ facility. Unlike the vastly superior Christmas with a Capital C, which addresses the same issues with insight and compassion — and better acting and more believable characters, this movie almost literally demonizes anyone who thinks that publicly funded venues should respect every faith (or absence of faith) of its citizens. Anyone who objects to a cross or a Christmas tree on public space is portrayed as an enemy of freedom. The idea that the imposition of one religion’s symbols, including a “Jesus Saves” cross, on the entire community might be insensitive, unfair, or unconstitutional is portrayed as anti-freedom. Infringing the freedom of those who do not want to see those emblems is not considered. While a character says he respects the rights of Muslims and Jews to practice their religion, the fact that he is taking over the public space with his symbols does not seem to to bother him and despite his being the mayor of the city and thus the representative of all its citizens, he makes no effort to find out what anyone else thinks. Military music and references to fallen soldiers (and an angel and a family reconciliation) are used to obscure the complete distortion of the law and history of the separation of church and state. It is worse than inaccurate — it is condescending, manipulative, thuggish, and hypocritical.

The people in this story who have no understanding of the meaning of Christmas are those who think it is about forcing one particular idea of how it should be recognized on those whose beliefs are different, or that the most trivial symbols matter more than the message of hope, peace, and goodwill, much less the importance of good deeds and humility. Unlike “Christmas with a Capital C,” there is no recognition that Christmas is about kindness, compassion, generosity, and love. Instead, this film perpetuates a disheartening and divisive stereotype, not just “us and them” but “us versus them.” In an era when there is such an avid audience for faith-based films and we have been lucky enough to see so many that are genuinely moving and inspiring, it is too bad that this film is so over the top it almost constitutes a parody of the the ideas it most hopes to communicate.

I mean, the main character has to be named Revere, right? And the school is so committed to secularity that it decides to have a nativity play(?!?!) but substitutes aliens for the wise men and shepherds and a pot of gold for Jesus. ‘Cause that happens. And the teacher in charge of the play is a little bit effeminate, while the good guys are all hog-ridin’ he-men. All of the people on “our side” are righteous and all of the people who are not are stupid or just waiting to be enlightened. And God must be on our side because an angel shows up to let Revere know that his grandson came through.

This is bigotry masquerading as leadership, thuggery claiming the banner of freedom, braggadocio pretending to be strength. It is arrogant, smug, and superficial, with no evidence of generosity, tolerance, empathy, or kindness. Saddest of all, it is about reinforcing those beliefs instead of reaching out to try to share with, connect to, or understand others. They talk about their respect for the Bible and the Constitution, but do not seem to have read either one.

Parents should know that there is brief wartime footage and a brief image of an accidental self-inflicted gun wound, some smoking and drinking, and insensitive portrayals of the rights of everyone but the movie’s heroes.

Family discussion: Have there been any debates about the separation of church and state in your community? Read some of the history of this issue and look in the news for current discussions and controversies.

If you like this, try: “Christmas with a Capital C”

Related Tags:

Movies -- format

The Words

Posted on September 7, 2012 at 2:57 pm

This movie about an unsuccessful writer who appropriates an old manuscript and sells it as his own feels like a movie made by a writer who has the same problem.

This is an idea that has already been explored by Woody Allen (“You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger“), Frankie Muniz (“Big Fat Liar“), and Ira Levin (“Deathtrap”) and it is of far more interest and appeal to a writer struggling between the passion to tell a story and the self-doubt that blocks the progress from the idea to the page. But this idea should have stayed where it was.

It’s a story within a story within a story. And a long flashback. The movie opens with its first preposterous setting — a distinguished author named Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) is on stage in an auditorium with a rapt audience but apparently all he is there to do is read aloud from his book, with an intermission in between for him to chat up and be chatted up by Daniella, a pretty grad student (Olivia Wilde). In real life, with the possible exception of a story hour for preschoolers, authors do more in front of audiences than recite the words in the book, but in the world of this movie, that is what this one does.

Much of the film is the story he reads, and this is the part about the poor but (temporarily) honorable young writer named Rory Jameson (Bradley Cooper — character names are not this movie’s strong point) who is just fine with having his father and his gorgeous and devoted wife Dora (Zoe Saldana) support him while he bangs away at his keyboard, looking intense. “I gotta pay my dues!” he says when asked for yet another loan from his father. “No, I gotta pay your dues,” says his dad, suggesting maybe writing should just be Rory’s hobby.

He finally takes a job pushing the mail cart at a publishing company. After a couple of years, he produces a manuscript, which is rejected by everyone, most painfully by an agent who gives him the most devastating assessment possible: he thinks it is brilliant but unpublishable. At least if it was lousy, Rory could give up.

And then, in an old leather portfolio Dora buys at a Parisian curio shop, Rory finds a manuscript. He types out every word just to feel the sentences go through his fingers. Dora loves it. He submits it to the publisher. The publisher loves it: “It’s so interior! It’s artistic, it’s subtle, it’s a piece of art,” he says, like no person in publishing ever. Then the critics and the readers love it, even though it has the dumb name, “The Window Tears.” (Rain, right?) And then an old man, this one thankfully without a name and even more thankfully played by Jeremy Irons, shows up. He is the author.

Remember, this is all still Dennis Quaid’s book, the one he is reading aloud to the audience. And then we get a flashback within a story within a story as Jeremy Irons tells us how the manuscript was written and how it got lost. It is about this time that the movie gets lost, too, as we go back and forth between Rory’s attempts to put things right and Clay’s strange encounter with Daniella in his apartment filled with unpacked boxes. There are some random parallels between the stories (a guy in an undershirt hugging a woman standing at the kitchen sink, dealing with a loss by getting drunk, and some sophomoric exchanges about truth and art, and then it does not end — it just stops.

Parents should know that there are some sensual but non-explicit sexual situations, a tragic death of an infant, drinking and drunkenness, some strong language, and a lot of smoking. There are also brief not-graphic war images.

Family discussion: What should Rory have done when the publisher told him he loved the manuscript? What should Dora have done when she found out the truth? What does the framing story add to the meaning of the film?

If you like this, try: “The Stone Reader,” a documentary about a real-life search for a mysterious author of a critically acclaimed but forgotten book and learn about the real-life story of a famous author’s lost manuscript

Related Tags:

Not specified

Touchback

Posted on September 3, 2012 at 5:00 am

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for some mature thematic elements
Profanity:	Mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Some drinking
Violence/ Scariness:	Some tense emotional confrontations
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	April 13, 2012
Date Released to DVD:	September 3, 2012
Amazon.com ASIN:	B005TCL1P2

Haven’t we all wished for a chance to live that one moment over again?

Scott (Brian Presley, who also produced) has that opportunity in “Touchback,” the story of a man who wants to go back to his days as a star high school football player, before a career-ending knee injury on a game-winning goal ended his days as a player. He gets that chance to see what could have happened in this touching story reminiscent of “It’s a Wonderful Life.” But will he choose his knee over the win? Will winning the game keep him taking his success for granted and overlooking the girl who isn’t the popular cheerleader but who understands integrity and loyalty? And would she notice him if he was still the arrogant jock?

(Cue Garth Brooks’ “Unanswered Prayers.”)

Kurt Russell, Marc Blucas, Christine Lahti, and Melanie Lynskey co-star in the film, which is sure to lead to some good family conversations.

Lawless

Posted on August 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm

Musician Nick Cave and director John Hillcoat are Australians who are drawn to bleak internal and external landscapes. They worked together on “The Proposition,” a western-style and very violent crime story about brothers. “Lawless” is another crime story about brothers, again very violent and, like “The Proposition,” with a bleak setting and compromised characters. This one is a true story, based on Matt Bondurant‘s book about his Prohibition-era grandfather and great uncles, who were ran illegal hooch in Franklin County, Virginia, described by writer Sherwood Anderson as “the wettest county in the world.”

“There’s a feeling around these parts that these Bondurants is indestructible,” one character says. Forrest Bondurant (a quietly powerful Tom Hardy) came back from WWI without injury and the community almost believes the legend that he cannot be stopped. That’s good for business; you might even say it is their brand. But just as in legitimate enterprise, the success of a local operation selling moonshine in mason jars attracts the interest of the competition. The big bootlegging organization out of Chicago is thinking about what one might call a very hostile takeover. The Bondurants have a good relationship with the local sheriff, who is happy looking the other way for a small piece of the action. But a federal agent named Charlie Rakes (an oily and twisted Guy Pearce) arrives and for him it is not about law, morality, or directions from his superiors. It is about power. The Bondurants are not afraid of him and that is why he wants to destroy them. Pearce, in gloves and slicked-down hair parted in the middle, is one of the best villains of the year.

Forrest is the leader and he has an unspoken understanding with his brother Howard (Jason Clarke). Indeed, a lot that goes on here is unspoken. The youngest brother, Jack (Shia LeBoeuf) wants to prove himself to his older brothers. And he wants to prove something to a pretty churchgoing girl named Bertha (Mia Wasikowska). Brash and flashier than his brothers, he has the nerve to try to make a deal with machine gun-toting Chicago hood Floyd Banner (Gary Oldman) and the entrepreneurial instinct to improve and expand production and delivery. When he sees a brutal gangland slaying, his only thought is to grab a souvenir shell case. He will have a Michael Corleone moment when the violence gets closer to home. “It is not the violence that sets men apart,” Forrest says. “It is the distance he is prepared to go.” The Bondurants do not give up. It is not about the money. It is about defending their home and their right to make their own choices.

Maggie (Jessica Chastain) shows up out of the blue one day, offering her manicured hand to Forrest’s rough one and offering to work for the brothers. “The city can grind a girl down,” she tells Forrest. “Gets to a point where you start looking for somewhere quiet.”

Franklin County is far from quiet. But the noise Maggie wanted to escape was the cacophony of heartlessness she was surrounded by in the city. Everyone in this story is breaking the de jure law, but Maggie knows that the Bondurants have a core of integrity and loyalty that she can count on. And she will show that she can be counted on as well.

Strong performances and an evocative sense of time and place anchor the film and the unexpected tenderness of the romantic interludes balances the brutality. A coda provides perspective that just because someone is willing to go the distance does not mean he cannot come back home.

Parents should know that this is the true story of moonshiners during Prohibition, so the good guys are law-breakers and the police are corrupt. The movie includes extremely graphic violence with characters tortured, injured, sexually abused, and killed, strong language including a racial slur and segregation, sexual situations including prostitution, female nudity, and alcohol and smoking.

Family discussion: How were the brothers alike and how were they different? The script was written by musician Nick Cave – how does the music help tell the story?

If you like this, try: Lawless: A Novel Based on a True Story by the real-life grandson of the youngest Bondurant brother

Thunderstruck

Posted on August 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	Kindergarten - 3rd Grade
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for mild language and rude humor
Profanity:	Some schoolyard language ("sucks," "crap")
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	None
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	August 24, 2012

This “Freaky Friday” with basketball keeps throwing airballs.

It’s the story of Brian (Taylor Gray) a sixteen-year-old kid who wishes he could have the skills of Olympic gold medalist and NBA star Kevin Durant playing himself, not very convincingly but with an engaging low-key unpretentiousness.

A magical basketball (don’t bother trying to figure it out; the movie doesn’t) switches their abilities. Suddenly Brian can’t miss and KD can’t even make a free throw. Brian goes from being the subject of jeers and humiliation in the school cafeteria to being a big man on campus, with the entire student body wearing shirts in his honor. And to the dismay of his agent (Brandon T. Jackson) and the poor director moaning “take 47” as they try to film a commercial for KD’s new shoes, KD can’t get out of his slump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0wiLTsDqag

Brian first meets KD at half-time, when he has just been given the chance to do a free throw for a big prize. Instead of hitting the basket, he hit the mascot. “I wish I had your talent,” Brian says. “I wish you did, too,” KD tells him, but then says that it is hard work that matters more than talent. That is a good message for kids but the entire premise of the movie is the opposite. Both Brian and KD work very hard but it makes no difference in either case. This is typical of the carelessness of the script. Even the good guy characters are self-centered and without any interest in learning anything new. The coaches (Jim Belushi and his son, Robert) have no understanding of the game’s skills or strategy and no interest in the team other than winning. “Don’t suck!” is their charming mantra. When it comes time for the big pep talk before the championship game, the best they can do is recite some lines from “Hoosiers.” Plagiarism and insincerity — a nice lesson for the kids, both those on the team and those who are watching.

Parents should know that this movie has some schoolyard language (“it sucks,” “crap”), crotch hits, brief potty humor, and some bullying.

Family discussion: Why did Kevin and his agent react differently when Kevin lost his talent? Why did Brian become thoughtless and hurt his friends’ feelings? If you could have someone’s talent, who would you pick?

If you like this, try: “Like Mike” and “Rookie of the Year”