There is nothing so wonderful as embracing an old friend that you have not seen for years, and discovering all over again, why you loved them in the first place. There were two screenings at the Paramount Theater yesterday, and no it was not a double feature. In the evening we were seeing "The Road Warrior" but first up, we went downtown early so we could enjoy "Mary Poppins" on the big screen. It was an absolute delight and a good tonic to help overcome the dreck that is "Barbie". While both "Mary Poppins" and "Barbie" are fantasy films, one is a delivery system for a ambiguously described political point of view, and the other is an entertainment who has as it's purpose bringing people together instead of driving them apart.
I never read any of the Poppins books, so other than the references made in the film "Saving Mr. Banks", I can't speak to the fidelity of Walt Disney's film to the source material. I can say that Julie Andrews' interpretation is not all sweetness and light, in spite of the clip of her duetting with a bird perched on her finger. She may not be the hard as nails character that appears in the original stories, but she still has a stern visage at times, that said, it does alter in the right circumstances. This may account for why she won the Academy Award for this picture, that and of course her musical talents.
The structure of the film does tend to be very episodic, moving from one musical number to the next. The numbers however do advance the storyline indirectly and lead us to the final evolution of Mr. Banks as a more engaged and attentive father. I was impressed by all of the performers but I was surprised by how well Michael Tomlinson stands up next to the two leads. He has a strong voice and his exuberance in the closing number is the satisfying exclamation point that this film is looking for.
You might think that some of the old style special effects and humorous moments would fall flat with today's audiences and children. We are supposedly more evolved now than we were almost sixty years ago. I however, heard laughter repeatedly, in the right spots, and the audience was eating up some of the funny lines in the script. This was not a jade group getting hipster joy out of nostalgia. This was an audience of families who were sharing something that they could each relate to in the same way. The three year old in front of us was having his first visit to a movie theater, and except for moving onto his Mom's lap in the last hour of the film, was quite taken with what he was seeing. As was I.
The film looks wonderful and the long animated sequence was delightful. Even though Dick Van Dyke is hamming it up at times, it was all in the way of entertaining us, not in showing off. When as Mr. Dawes Senior, he pratfalls slightly with his cane and steps, everyone knew it was meant to be funny and responded in a manner befitting the moment, we all laughed together. Maybe part of the joy I felt was because there was nothing divisive about what we were seeing. This film made me want to revisit the sequel that came out just a few years ago, which I enjoyed immensely. It is a happy thing when a film prompts you to stick with a character, way too often, that is a mistake, but in this case, Mary Poppins is timeless.
It does not matter how much money this movie makes, it is a swing and a miss for me. There was a dullness to the film that is almost incomprehensible given the attention to production design and the Barbie mythology. How could it miss, the casting seemed perfect, the look was accurate for the subject, where did this fail? The answer is the script and the tone that director writer Greta Gerwig and her partner Noah Baumbach have taken with the characters. They have failed the fans of Barbie the toy, fans of musicals, and probably even the fans looking for social political commentary. This movie is a slog that should move along like a pop ditty, and instead it drones on like a folk song that has an unironic theme. It just sits there wanting to be loved, but doing nothing to earn that love.
Let's start with some premises that create problems in the first place. Margo Robbie's Barbie is supposed to be stereotypical Barbie. She is surrounded by other Barbies that have the detail and backgrounds created to make the doll more diverse and play worthy to young girls. That the stereotypical Barbie has no job (not even fashion model) is ok, if that is the only way she was ever played with. We learn who it was that was playing with her later in the story, and that person is not lacking imagination, even if she is not as ambitious as she thinks the culture wants her to be. She is the real stereotype and the one that betrays the intent of the film makers to make social commentary. So the seed is planted that it is the actions of the kids in the real world that dictates the actions in Barbie Land, but that does not work if the real world critique is to be believed, because the rest of the Barbie's all reflect the toy company image of the doll, and we have no idea why they would stick to those roles f the society is as oppressive as is suggested.
Maybe the goal was to be transgressive by suggesting that the imaginary world of Barbie, is designed to placate the girls in the real world so a patriarchy can continue to wield power undisturbed. That might be an interesting way to take the story, but it is not reflected in the Barbieworld. The connection between the two universes does not work in this film. It is also strange that each universe is aware of the other, without having anything more than one previous crossover that gets referenced only briefly. It is apparently no secret to the real world or the Barbie world as to how you get from one to the other. It is a cute little visual transition, but not an obstacle, so why is there limited contact? If I were trying to fix this in the script, maybe the best way would be to use the "Lego Movie" strategy and turn the whole thing into playtime, and we see that the events happening in the Barbie world are a result of changing behavior by those playing with the toys. This script goes only partway on that, and then sets off on a different path.
The whole plotline with Ken is nothing more than a tool to introduce a social commentary into the Barbie Universe, in a way that makes no sense. The existential crisis faced by both Barbie and Ken has to do with their relationship, but that gets shunted aside for some jokes about the patriarchy that might have seemed relevant in 1980, but apparently Gerwig and Baumbach never saw "9 to 5". The excerpts from academic tracts concerning women's roles and men's defining themselves only by their status in contrast to women, sounded silly coming from the mouths of the characters in this film. It was gibberish at times and while there may be a place for such a discussion, this cartoon of a movie isn't it. Those issues seem silly in this context.
Having got the look of the film right, the creators stopped trying to make it entertaining and instead tried to make it relevant and insightful. They failed on both of those points, and at the expense of what should have been some joyful moments. There are two dance sequences in the film which are elaborately choregraphed and performed with complete skill, but instead of being awed by the light hearted moment, I felt exhausted by the tone of the film. Every time I wanted to embrace to movie and jubilantly bath in the elaborate moment, I could feel a hand pushing back, seeming to suggest that my impulses were wrong given what the movie wants to say to us. When Ryan Gosling danced through a fantasy in "La La Land", it was improbable in setting but easy to accept because the film makers on that project wanted us to give into our suspension of disbelief. Here, when Gosling has his big number, I felt like I was being put through the paces, and the tune and lyrics are so forgettable that the moment passes without any impact.
Look, I laughed a couple of times, but when the off screen narrator is the best thing in the movie, there is something wrong. This meta takedown of consumerism, sex roles and what should be joyous, is just a drag. I thought "Oppenheimer" was long, but at least I felt that way in part because it was three hours. This film is not quite two hours but it felt so much longer. If you want to see what this film could have been, go back to 2001 and watch "Josie and the Pussycats". If you want to know how to make a social point and still have fun, watch "The Lego Movie". If you want a valuable lesson about growing up and the role of play time and heartbreak, watch "Toy Story 2 or 3". [Notice I have left a certain actor out of the discussion entirely, the less said the better]
This movie feels like a SNL sketch that would have been mildly funny for three minutes. SNL would have smothered it by letting it run for ten minutes, but Gerwig and Baumbach not only put a pillow over it's face, they do a jig on the grave site, and still don't have any fun. I was not anticipating this movie as much as some other film fans were, but I did hope that it would be fun. Apparently "Good Entertainment" is sold separately.
When a Christopher Nolan film opens, you can count on a fan base to show up, regardless of the subject matter. Nolan has established himself as the preeminent film director of the last fifteen years. Ever since "The Dark Knight", film fans have looked forward to a film with his name attached, regardless of the acting talent involved. His technical excellence, commitment to film and theatrical presentation and his intricately plotted films have given him a reputation deserving of respect. That said, there is such a thing as overhyping a film, and that is exactly the defect that I had with this movie.
“OPPENHEIMER. The best, most important film of this century. If you see one film in cinemas this year it should be Oppenheimer. I’m not a Nolan groupie but this one blows the doors off the hinges,” wrote Paul Schrader. This sort of statement will raise expectations beyond reason, and should be a flag that the writer has an agenda in his praise. My guess is that the subject of the first Atomic Bomb and the impact that achievement had on subsequent weapons development, is what generates this type of enthusiasm. Look, no advocates a nuclear war. Everyone recognizes the dangers to the planet should such an event occur. This has not been a secret for the last 78 years. So a movie that warns us of those dangers, is not groundbreaking, and how important it is depends a great deal on what issues matter to you personally. Writer/Director Paul Schrader has tipped his hand at what he sees as critical, I don't know that the film lives up to that standard.
None of the reservations I have expressed so far are intended to suggest the movie is unworthy, quite the contrary, it is an excellent historical biography about a misunderstood giant of science from the last century. You should certainly go and see it, just tame your ambitions for the film to a practical level and focus on the film making and story telling. The people who are writing about how gut punched they were by this movie, must not have seen a Cold War Thriller in the last fifty years. "Nuclear War=Bad" , got it.
Nolan's films are famous for the use of time manipulation to tell the story. In this film, there is the smallest amount of that approach in any of his films since "Insomnia". There are black and white segments that distinguish timelines in the story from the vivid color sequences, but it is more a technique for indicating flashbacks and flash forwards than it is for advancing the plot. The plot of the movie is basically the rise and fall of Robert Oppenheimer. This is surely a valid project because Oppenheimer was indeed a critical figure in science and the key figure of the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb. His complex life lead to his successes and ultimate embarrassment in being denied an extension of his security clearance, in spite of his service in creating the bomb.
The first third of the film is a long recap of his academic and personal quagmires. Many of the incidents are relevant to later criticism of him, but as a film subject, they feel like they are slowing our progress to the subject of the Manhattan Project itself. As a biography, these segments are acceptable, but the film is sold in part as a thriller concerning the development of the weapon, and that part of the story takes a long time to arrive on screen. The time at Los Alamos is the most effective act in the film. This is where Nolan's expertise with visuals seems key to the movies success. Seeing the film in the large screen IMAX format with the XD enhancements, made the audience feel like they were there with the other observers at Trinity. The sound design is outstanding and the visual largely eschew CGI in favor of more practical effects.
Other than the weapon itself, the two hearings that bracket the story, provide the fireworks for the plot. Lewis Strauss, from the Atomic Energy Commission, becomes an antagonist to Oppenheimer, and his plotting to deny the security clearance produces blowback several years later in his own hearings when nominated to be in Eisenhower's Cabinet. It is the crossing of these two men's paths that sustains the film since we largely are familiar with the bombs results. The drama surrounding Oppenheimer takes place in the early fifties and the Strauss confirmation hearings were in the late part of the decade.
Cillian Murphy is Oppenheimer personified, with his thin and tall build he is a physical match for the scientist. The makeup team does a terrific job helping him play a character that moves across thirty years of time. His youthful gaunt looks in the early years are echoed by a more skeletal visage in his later life. Murphy has a way of speaking that sounds authoritative, cocky, and inquisitive. The one time that it is suggested that Oppenheimer was showing off was when he demeans Strauss's reservations about sharing isotopes with a friendly country. Otherwise, Murphy plays him as respectful of other physicists and intellectuals, although in private he could be dismissive. The personal moments are the least clear in the film. He has a passionate affair with Jean Tatlock, played by Florence Pugh, but other than their physical connection, it was had to see how these two triggered one another. Oppenheimer's wife is played by Emily Blunt, and she is seen as a fragile woman with deep problems, but one who is fiercely committed to her husband and his legacy. Her best scenes are in the hearings where she listens to derogatory information about her husband and she looks like she wants to stab the people testifying, without having to move.
The cast is packed, and I won't take time to salute everyone who probably deserves it, but there are two other performances that stand out. Matt Damon, in a second film this year (Air being the first) is terrific as Leslie Groves, the military commander in charge of the project. He has to be persuasive, belligerent, patient and intelligent in a lot of sequences in the film, and he nails it every time. If I were taking bets on the Academy Awards for the year, I'd put a large wager down on Robert Downey Jr. for supporting actor. I literally did not recognize him in the film, I did not even know he was in it until the credits rolled. As Lewis Strauss, he is venal, powerful and ridged in his persona. The conniving scheme may be an exaggeration of the real events, but Downey Jr. sells us on Strauss as a villain, at least in regard to his dealings with Oppenheimer. Nolan as writer/director and Downy combine to make an accomplished man with insecurity issues, feel like a vindictive bureaucrat with petty personal animus toward Oppenheimer.
So the film is overlong, over praised, but still a great achievement. Like his other films, especially "Interstellar" and "Inception", Nolan is showing off his intellectual credentials a bit, but it would not be undeserved. He has clearly put in the work to understand the basic physics of the atomic process, as well as the political landscape of Washington D.C. . The movie could have been as compelling as "Dunkirk" was, if we had a little more story devoted to the competition with the Nazi group that the Manhattan Project was trying to catch up to and beat, instead of the personal drama that does not feel very clear in the long run. The technical details, production design and performances compensate a bit for the flagging story, but if you have a realistic expectation of the film, you will enjoy it a lot more.
Throwback Thursday on the KAMAD site will be a regular occurrence in the next year. As a motivational project, to make sure I am working on something, even in a week where I don't see a new film in a theater, I am going to post on movies from 1975. Along with 1984, this is one of my favorite years for movies and it is full of bittersweet memories as well. 1975 was my Senior Year in High School and my Freshman Year in College. The greatest film of the last 60 years came out in 1975, as well as dozens of great and not so great cinematic endeavors. Most of the films in this weekly series will have been seen in a theater in 1975, but there are several that I only caught up with later. I hope you all enjoy.
Dog Day Afternoon
We are just over halfway thru this series, and although I have covered a lot of interesting pictures, the ones most likely to be recalled by audiences have stacked up a bit in the queue. That logjam of high quality, award worthy, box office successes, is about to be broken. "Dog Day Afternoon" is one of those films from the 70s that everyone knows, admires and it came out in 1975. It was nominated for six Academy Awards including, Best Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor and it won for Original Screenplay. This is the first of the nominated films to be covered on the project, but we will certainly be getting to the others.
The Director, Sidney Lumet, is an icon of the film world. His gritty New York stories filled theater screens in the early 70s, and he made films that actors lionize, like "12 Angry Men", "Fail Safe", "the Pawnbroker" and "The Verdict". It is amazing that he was never awarded a competitive Oscar in his career, but thankfully, the Academy provided him an Honorary Award for his body of work. I would say that this film was probably the best of his career, although "The Verdict" might make a run at that title. The fact that the film is set in a Brooklyn neighborhood, on a hot summer day, makes it a perfect medium for Lumet. He has a knack for filming gritty environments and plugging the story into those places which served those stories so well.
Before any of the main characters are introduced, we are shown a variety of quick moments of people walking on the sidewalks, working in the sweltering heat, trying to cool off in a park, and just generally surviving the day. Our two bank robbers, Sonny and Sal, are doing the same thing, but their venue is a bank and the activity is illicit. The world is tough enough when things go wrong, but when you add the oppressive heat and the tension from an illegal activity with the threat of violence, looming over everything, that's when you get a film like this from Lumet. This is not a precision heist, timed out with meticulous planning, this is a poorly thought out act of desperation, by two men who are in over their heads.
One of the ways that the film feels so natural is the way the characters inside the bank act. Sonny is bellicose to try and gain control, but he is also thoughtful of the employees in spite of his threats. Al Pacino may have had his best role with the character of Sonny, who is conflicted about his actions, motivated by very different pressures and coping with braggadocio at times. In the scenes where he is talking with his lover, there is an odd tenderness but also frustration and his temper is barely contained. When he gets on the phone with the mother of his two kids, he loses all composure and explodes. This is a character that allows an actor to show his range and not be accused of grandstanding. Pacino takes the part and owns every moment on screen.
The supporting cast is equally up to the challenge. The lead bank teller is marvelous, the pizza delivery guy is just right. The manager of the bank is neither craven or heroic, he is just trying to do what will keep his employees safe and get the experience over as fast as possible. Carol Kane plays one of the "girls" who is a teller in the bank, this same year she was an Academy Award Nominee for Best Actress, so she was having a career year. Charles Durning, who has made a ton of films better over the years, adds another fine performance to his body of 1970s films that include: "The Hindenburg", "The Sting", "Sisters", "Twilight's Last Gleaming" and "The Muppet Movie". Also in the cast is future vampire and prince, Chris Sarandon, and Lance Hendrickson who will make a lot of bad movies over the years but also a lot of great ones. James Broderick, who plays a warm hearted father in the TV show "Family", is a steely eyed, manipulative FBI agent in this movie.
I certainly do not want to forget to mention the late great John Cazale who plays Sal, Sonny's partner in crime. Cazale famously only made five movies, and all of those films were nominated for Best Picture. I tried to watch this film on a streaming platform, but I decided to buy a Blu Ray because I could not believe I did not have this movie in my collection. The Blu ray package I bought includes the wonderful documentary "I Knew it was You", about the career of Cazale. Sal is a sad sack introvert, who Sonny brings to the robbery as a menacing wing man. The actor gives him a pathos in spite of his job as intimidator. You can understand the Stockholm Syndrome identification that the hostages have with Sal because of Cazale's gentle eyes and subdued voice.
Whenever someone levels a criticism at a movie plotline, suggesting that it is improbable enough to reject as realistic, they should be reminded of this film, which was based on a real incident with real people, in the same scenario. The dramatic license the film takes is with the characters, but not with the plot, which takes a turn that uniformed audiences would not see coming.
This is one of the true classics of 70s American Cinema, and it came out in 1975. It is arguably Pacino's best performance, Lumet's best film and has an ensemble cast that can match up with any film of the era. There are a lot of films that I covered on this project so far, that are not memorable. This is not one of those, it is a film that stands the test of time and can be rewatched on a regular basis if you ever want to feel like you were living in NYC in the seventies.
Do you remember when comedies used to come out on a regular basis and they were funny? Somewhere in the last ten years, people seem to have lost their sense of humor. Comedy films got released, ignored and then disappeared, and as a result, there are far fewer of them. Nowadays, the comedy has to be mashed up with horror, action, romance, to get to the big screen. The last straight up comedy that I saw was "Good Boys" from 2019. Don't get me wrong, I love me some "Stuber", or "Sisu", or "Renfield", but they all bring you in on a different vibe. This movie is a throwback to films like "I Love You Man" or "Role Models". The goal is to tickle your funny bone and break your heart, with a little lesson included. The mayhem is of the everyday variety, no hatchets to the head or super heroes.
"No Hard Feelings" aspires to be "The Hangover" or "Bridesmaids" and it almost succeeds. There is enough here however to recommend it, and you will definitely laugh out load at a couple of sequences. Does it get the mix of raunchy, sentimental and outrageousness perfect, no. It is the best thing this side of the Farrelly Brothers you are likely to see this year, and you have star and producer Jennifer Lawrence to thank for that.
As is often the case in a comedy, our protagonist is not an entirely sympathetic character. Maddie Barker is a self centered underachiever, living in the house she inherited from her mother, and struggling to make ends meet in the face of rising property taxes due to the influx of wealthy summer people driving up land values in her Montauk Beach community. Lawrence plays her as a mean girl with a bitter tongue but one who can also sweet talk her way out of some things, but not everything. Maddie drinks too much, is promiscuous, and indifferent to the feelings of some of the people she comes into contact with. The premise of the film is far fetched, but it is supposedly based on a real Craigslist ad. Maddie has lost her car, the main source of her income as an Uber driver. She sees an ad that offers a car in exchange for giving an introverted high school graduate, the "girlfriend" experience. Desperate times call for desperate measures and this early 30s party girl decides to take up the offer to make a man out of a 19 year old college bound innocent.
In spite of the extreme unlikelihood of the premise, the follow through is very entertaining. Andrew Barth Feldman as Percy Becker, has the right geek quality that confirms him as an outsider, but not necessarily a loser. The idea that exposure to, and a sexual relationship with, the older woman might help bring him out of his shell seems conceivable. The humor comes from the awkwardness of the situation, the inevitable subterfuge from passing Maddie off as a woman attracted to Percy and not as an employee of his helicopter parents, and the fact that Maddie defies conventions that Percy has learned to accept or impose on himself.
The boldest scene in the movie involves Maddie convincing Percy to go skinny dipping with her in the ocean, and then having some teenagers bully them by taking their clothes. They have no idea what they are in for. Maddie shamelessly comes out of the water and engages them in a fistfight, completely nude, but fearless. Lawrence does not shy away from the demands of the scene and she plays Maddie exactly they way we would expect of this ballsy woman with a lot to lose if things go wrong. Seth Macfarlane will have a lot to add to his actress shaming song if he ever hosts the Academy Awards again.
Maddie is the butt of a lot of cracks about her age, which at 32 does not seem old to me, but to the college bound kids at the Princeton mixer, it is like she was born in another century...oh wait, she was. The humor in this party scene includes referencing the Gen Z obsession with recoding every little thing, and then using it to create a cancel culture. I about bust a gut when the virtue signaling parents at the party get incensed at a joke they consider inappropriate. The juxtaposition of generations in the scene was way too on the nose for comfort.
Like all real stories, there need to be high points and low points in the relationship between the characters. We can see trouble coming when Percy is more enamored of Maddie than she is comfortable with. He breaks through her hard shell with a sweet musical moment, that she smothers as quickly as she can. Of course there will also be crossed wires, unintended over heard conversations, and personal revelations that make the story more interesting and engaging, even if we see most of it coming. Director and co screen writer Gene Stupnitsky, who also made "good Boys", has all the ingredients of a great comedy, but somewhere in the process, it just does not jell as well as it should. Maybe it's a timing issue or the tone switches need a little more percolating, but it just misses working all of the time.
Don't worry though, it works enough to make it worth a visit. I laughed out loud several times and I did understand the sweetness that underlies the raunchy. Jennifer Lawrence is very good and carries off the funny quite well. Matthew Broderick plays Percy's overprotective and indulgent father, and it seems completely appropriate, since forty years ago, he would have been playing Percy himself. There are amusing side characters with strings of plotline that are not particularly important, but they add to the film to make it more rounded. Frankly, the line about "Jaws" would have been enough for me to recommend the film, even if if fall just short of being great.
I was sure I had a post on this film, but when I looked for it, it was not showing up in the search. Then I remembered by project from two years ago, "80s Nostalgia Central" and it came back to me that this is where my post was located.
It was only two years ago, and there is not a lot to add to my thoughts at the time. "National Lampoon's Vacation " continues to be a raucous, politically incorrect, entertaining experience. Once again. I'd forgotten how many f*#@ bombs are dropped during the film and the number of brief nude scenes is double what I remembered. What I did remember however is how funny the movie is and how easy it was for me to related to it.
Yesterday, the theater was about half full for a 4 pm screening. Leonard Maltin is doing the intros for the Fathom Classic Movie Series now, since TCM has pulled out of the co-sponsorship. He did a nice job talking about the film and it's legacy, three sequels and a reboot. The best indicator however, that the movie should be revisited on a regular basis (and not just on the occasional anniversary/this was the 40th), was the laughter heard during the film. Everyone was enjoying it. It's nice to have that communal experience on a summer afternoon.
To get more discussion of the film itself you can click on the above links or right HERE.
If you want to have nightmares, this is a movie to give them to you. Not because some CGI monster is going to show up, but because this is a depiction of real world monsters. They attack and take people everyday around the world, and they hide in shadows protected by digital anonymity and public indifference. This film is well made, compelling and will certainly stick to your brain, but it is not just an entertainment to be dismissed. This is a message film, more compelling than most documentaries because it uses a thriller narrative to pull you in and engage you. There are a couple of places where you will get some narrative exposition, but the film makers play this honestly, and then at the end of the film make their pitch, one that is very effective.
Let's start with a bareboned explanation of the plot. A Homeland Security Agent, investigating international child pornography, gets involved with trying to break up a trafficking ring and recover children who have been stolen. If you are a parent, the opening sequence will scare you out of ever letting your children out of your grasp. In addition to the dramatized narrative, there are several brief video clips of children being snatched up in places that seem relatively safe, as well as some streets that we have no idea about. All of this comes before we meet the agent who is the lead character in the film, played by Jim Caviezel. Tim Ballard is the real life person that the story is based on. There is an acknowledgment that in various parts of the film, a dramatic narrative was created that is fiction, but there are several moments that directly come from Ballard's experience.
It will not be hard to accept that the trauma of tracking down child pornography is soul crushing, and that the opportunity to help a child more directly would be tempting, even for someone without faith. The fact that the agent is a devout family man makes it all the more difficult to walk away when there is a problem that he can keep pulling threads on. The process by which Caviezel's Ballard pursues a group of traffickers is not far removed from a number of sting operations where suspected criminals are lured into revealing themselves in the hopes of completing a large scale financial windfall. There are several tense moments visualized in the "sting" as it is portrayed in the film. Some dramatic license may also give the audience the ability of get the retribution catharsis that most films of this type thrive on. There is not a violent explosion of retribution, but rather the figures we have seen participating in the plots get manipulated into turning on one another and revealing the depths of their involvement.
Critics of the film have focused on an imagined connection between the film makers and a certain conspiracy group that will go unnamed here. The main claims of that group are never made in this movie. This film is purely an advocacy piece for fighting not just child trafficking, but other forms of slavery as well. When that group's identification is connected to this movie, it undermines the real value of the film. Caviezel had a tenuous connection to the group by speaking to some of it's members, but he did not write the movie or live the story. His sincere desire to address the threat to kids is presented at the end of the movie, instead of some mid-title stinger. The conspiracy ideas are never raised, only facts that are widely accepted are presented in the movie and implications that this is some political screed are completely misplaced.
Most audience members will be moved by the mistreatment of children, and will be glad that it is handled without visual exploitation. I saw a couple of reviews that carried the implication that somehow this film glorified the process because of it's slow development approach. I think anyone who believes that is revealing more about themselves than they should. If this is such an obvious subject with a appeal that is a easy sell, why is it we have not seen those films? There are plenty that have focused on the more controversial issue of drug smuggling, child soldiers, and a variety of environmental issues. That this movie takes on a subject that everyone will agree is distasteful, is not really a criticism, it is a justification. The nonsense from an outlier group should be dismissed. It would also be wise to judge the movie on it's own merits, and not assume that because political opponents have embraced it, that you should oppose it. Sometimes cognitive complexity requires that we accept that people we don't like can sometimes be on the same side we are.
