Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Year: 2017

Director: Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg

Starring: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites, Kaya Scodelario, Kevin McNally, and zombie sharks
Synopsis: Captain Jack Sparrow searches for the Trident of Poseidon.

Review

I'm quite fond of the Rotten Tomatoes website, and it is rare that I see a movie given a rotten green splotch.  Yet my curiosity won over and I opted to venture forth once more with Captain Jack Sparrow.

Well, it's better than the last one.

That's not saying much though.  On Stranger Tides had plot holes so big you could sail the Spanish Armada through them.  Dead Men Tell No Tales isn't all bad.  It has aspects I appreciated.  But let's start with the struggles.

One of the chief problems with Dead Men is that it tries to tell too many stories.  Whose story is it?  We are first introduced to Henry Turner, son of Will and Elizabeth.  And though we spend much of the story with him, his narrative line isn't all that interesting.  Jack of course is central to the story, but his antics are -- yet again -- focused solely on staying alive as yet another cursed villain wants him dead.  We are also introduced to Carina, who serendipitously wants to also pursue the film's MacGuffin in order to resolve her daddy issues.

But wait, there's more.  Hector Barbossa is also back with his own personal agenda.  The villain has his own storyline -- including an excellent flashback when Barbossa gets him monologing.  And then there's a British officer who ... um ... is somehow necessary because somebody else needs to be chasing all the other characters.

Henry's and Carina's stories are the most compelling.  But Henry's is largely sidelined and Carina's is frankly far-fetched.  She claims to be a woman of science (for which she is branded a witch [Seriously?]) and yet she is pursuing a mythical object.  She also seems far too accepting of some of the plot twists.  The whole film, Henry and Carina feel like bland imitations of Will and Elizabeth (characters who were exceedingly more likable, interesting, and charismatic).

Going in to Dead Men, or any of the Pirates films, I didn't expect great, logical cinema.  But this one has moments that are simply ludicrous (I'm looking at you, St. Martin bank).  And there is much that is simply pointless, adding nothing to the story and offering only cheap "laughs."  Did we need Sir Paul McCartney as a pirate?  No.  Did we need that bizarre wedding?  No.  Where did that even come from?

Despite the action, the first two thirds of the film drag.  But then, unexpectedly, things pick up for the climax.  Once we have all our protagonists on the same (familiar) ship, the story holds together better and kept my attention.  Finding the Trident of Poseidon and fighting the ensuing final battle -- while not without problems -- were entertaining enough and well-paced enough to temporarily make me forget all the slog we went through to get there.  And I'll admit, the finale provides some nice closure to the franchise.

Other than the climax, Dead Men does a few other things right.

Captain Salazar (played by Javier Bardem) is a worthy addition to the franchise's villains.  He is intelligent and intimidating.  And his crew are interesting as well, visually that is.  But the most impressive thing is the Silent Mary, their ship.  Watching the ship rise up and strike down opposing ships ... yup ... that's cool.

I was, however, disappointed that Captain Salazar didn't seem to live up to the code he supposedly espoused, at least while alive.  He makes a point to tell Barbossa that he didn't kill men, he killed pirates.  Yet he and his crew have no qualm killing the officers and crew of two British ships.  Granted, the Spanish and the British weren't exactly on historic good terms, but it does undermine Salazar's supposed sense of duty and honor without explanation.

And although ridiculous, I'll admit that the zombie sharks are also pretty cool.  Why they have rotting shark carcasses on the ghost ship I have no idea.  But just add water and boom!  Zombie sharks to chase down Jack and Henry.

The music is also still good.

So, is Dead Men worth the voyage?  That depends on how much you enjoy the franchise.  If you still think Jack Sparrow is the greatest pirate ever, by all means go enjoy his rum-induced antics.  Stay through the credits.  There is a bonus scene which opens the door for yet more adventures.

*** Spoiler Section ***

OK, how many of these films has Hector Barbossa been in?  This makes four out of five if memory serves.  And at no point has there been an inkling that he has any interest in stars, the Trident of Poseidon, or the daughter he left at an orphanage.  All of that I can accept.  Pirate.  But then he meets Carina and suddenly she is both his heart's desire (per the compass) and his "treasure"?  And Carina accepts it, just like that?  That's a bit harder to swallow.

I've never been all that fond of Jack Sparrow.  In the original film, I liked Will Turner the best.  So the ending of At World's End irked me, to say the least.  It didn't help that when I saw the movie the person I was with wanted to leave immediately, so I missed the semi-redemptive post-credits scene.  Flash forward ten years and I did finally get the closure I wanted for Will and Elizabeth.

The film ends and everything is all neatly tied up.  Will is free from the curse and with his beloved Elizabeth.  Henry has Carina.  Jack has the Black Pearl.  Jack and the franchise can sail off into the horizon.  Roll credits ... and cue post-credits scene that brings yet another character back from the dead and opens the door for another sequel.  <face palms> 

Quotable Quotes

• "Find Jack Sparrow for me and relay a message, from Captain Salazar.  Tell him: 'Death will come straight for him.'  Will you say that to him, please?  I'd tell him myself, but dead men tell no tales." -- Captain Salazar to Henry
• "Guillotine?  Sounds French.  I love the French." -- Jack Sparrow
• "I once knew a Spaniard named ... something in Spanish." -- Jack Sparrow

ISFS

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Year: 2017

Director: James Gunn

Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Michael Rooker, Vin Diesel, Kurt Russell, and Karen Gillan
Tagline: You only get one chance to save the galaxy twice.
Synopsis: The further adventures of the misfit Guardians of the Galaxy.

Review

When the first Guardians of the Galaxy came out in 2014, it was unexpectedly different from everything else in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  It was weird and zany and a lot of fun.  How does Vol. 2 fare?  It's still weird, still zany, and mostly fun.  But it can't quite recapture the freshness of the original.  Considering how much I enjoyed the first one, this one left me disappointed.

The film's opening sequence is, however, stellar.  As the Guardians do battle with a multi-tentacled space monster in the background, Baby Groot obliviously dances to ELO's "Mr. Blue Sky" in the foreground.  And it is terrific.  The whole sequence reintroduces us to the characters and why we want to root for them.  The opening set me up for a better movie than I got.

As with its predecessor, Vol. 2 uses a popular mix of songs from the 70s and 80s.  And the music is part of the story, part of who Peter Quill is.  So even though I don't necessarily like all the songs they include, I appreciate how they work within, and add to, the story.  I will likely never be able to hear "Brandy" by the Looking Glass without thinking of this film.

Another thing I appreciate in the film is the theme of family.  We see deeper into each of the Guardians and also into Yondu and Nebula.  Every character is broken in some way or another.  That's why they come together so well.  And there is a lot of bonding in this film and discussion of what it means to be a family.  Maybe too much, as certain characters seem to shift uncharacteristically far based on how they were portrayed previously.

While the film does a good job with characterization, the plot feels a bit weak.  It wasn't as compelling as the previous story.  It didn't help that the villains/antagonists all seem petty and weak in terms of their motivations.  The main villain started out interesting but ended up feeling bland.

My biggest qualm with the film was its adult content.  The first film certainly pushed the envelope for what is acceptable in a Marvel Studios film.  This one nudges it even more.  There was more crude humor.  And while nothing is explicitly stated or shown, it's very apparent that the Ravagers visit a robot brothel.  The film is definitely not for kids, so it is irksome that it is has toy lines very much marketed toward kids.

While I don't think it lives up to the first film, Vol. 2 is still, overall, a fun trip to the movies.  But be advised before you bring the kids.  And if you didn't like the craziness of the first one, Vol. 2 isn't going to win you over either.  Oh, and there are a whopping five mid-credits and post-credit scenes.

*** Spoiler Section ***

Why do Ravagers have such cool funerals?  They are basically space pirates, yet they have all these neat traditions for a funeral.  It was fun to watch, but felt incongruous with their portrayal.

Quotable Quotes

• "You look like Mary Poppins."  "Is he cool?" [pauses] "Yeah, he's cool." -- Peter and Yondu
• "Does anybody have any tape out there?  I wanna put some tape over the 'death' button." "Nobody has any tape!" -- Rocket and Peter
• "All you do is yell at each other.  You're not friends."  "No ... we are family." -- Nebula and Drax
• "No raccoon or tree creatures were harmed during the making of this movie.  However the same cannot be said for the handlers of the raccoon and tree creatures." -- End credits

ISFS

Born in China

Year: 2017

Director: Chuan Lu

Starring: John Krasinski (narrator) and a lot of fuzzy animals
Synopsis: Follow the stories of pandas, snow leopards, snub-nosed monkeys, and chiru (Tibetan antelope).

Review

I've reviewed quite a few movies on this blog, but this is my first documentary here.  Born in China is a Disneynature film that came out on Earth Day.  It stars giant pandas and snow leopards and showcases the beauty of China.  What's not to love about that?

The film follows four different animal families over the course of a year.  To see the magnificent snow leopards in their natural habitat is, for me, worth the cost of admission alone.  And the panda mommy and baby are cute and cuddly too.  There are also a few shots of a red panda, which might be one of my favorite animals.  And the monkeys are cute enough as well.  Antelope/chiru aren't really my thing, but their story was interesting nonetheless.

If you're expecting a documentary like Planet Earth, don't.  Visually I'd say it is of the same caliber.  But the narration -- provided by John Krasinski -- is definitely geared toward kids.  It's informative, but got a bit twee at times.  And there was quite a bit of animal personification going on.  Overall though, the narration does a good job balancing information with humor.

The film has an overarching theme of families and the importance of them.  I did appreciate that aspect.  And while the similarities with human families were certainly stressed, the filmmakers also acknowledge that animal families are quite different.  Even the four different animal families in the film are different.  You've got the chiru herd, a clan of monkeys, and single mothers with the snow leopards and pandas.

Although this is a G-rated Disney film, I was impressed that it didn't shy away from the realities of the animal kingdom and the circle of life.  It did so in a tasteful manner that's as kid-friendly as you can probably get.  But the fact remains, one animal's survival depends on another animal's demise.  And not every animal survives the film.

If you love animals and gorgeous scenery, I'd say Born in China is worth a gander.  Or it's something to take the kids to if you need to get out of the house.  Did I mention cute pandas and gorgeous snow leopards?

Quotable Quotes

• "She considers this marmot ... no she doesn't." -- Narrator about the snow leopard's dinner plans
• "The herd is many, but the herd is one." -- Narrator

ISFS

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Year: 2017

Director: Bill Condon

Starring: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, and Emma Thompson
Tagline: Experience the tale as old as time
Synopsis: Disney's animated classic gets a live action update.

Review

Disclaimers:

1. If you want to go see this live action version of Beauty and the Beast and haven't already, go see it.  Read this review after.  It will all be spoilers.
2. The 1991 animated Beauty and the Beast ranks in my top five favorite movies.  Ever.
3. I had a lot going on emotionally when I saw this live action film.  Some of that might have affected my enjoyment thereof.
4. This is not a short review.

Still here?  Okay then.

You may have sensed this coming from the disclaimers: I was disappointed.  I didn't really like this live action version of Beauty and the Beast.  I don't hate it.  I think it is a decent movie and the visuals are pretty amazing.  But it cannot hold a candelabra to the original.  So even though I went in with mid-level expectations, I left feeling thoroughly disappointed.

I'll limit my critique to three areas: music, story, and characters.

Music
I'll give Emma Watson, Josh Gad, Luke Evans, and even Ewan McGregor credit.  They all do an admirable job of singing their iconic songs.  But as much as I love Emma Thompson as an actress, as a singer she is no Angela Lansbury.  And that was all I could think about during "Beauty and the Beast."  It's the titular song, an Academy Award winning song.  And the warmth and hope that Angela Lansbury imbued into it are lacking.

Of the four new songs, three feel like mere filler.  I would much rather have heard the songs from the Broadway version.  The film teases with an instrumental version of "Home," but no more.  That said, the Beast's solo "Evermore" is terrific and a suitable addition to the film.  It is what's needed in that moment and Dan Stevens' voice manages to be both rich and growling as needed.  "Evermore" was one of the few highlights of the film for me.

Story
This version follows the animated version in many respects.  But as a live action film, it tries to expand the world.  Some attempts work better than others.

For starters, the nature of the curse changes.  Beast's household are slowly turning into objects, becoming less and less human as each rose petal falls.  Rather than living indefinitely as objects, their ultimate fate will be turning forever into lifeless objects.  That does up the ante for them, but it also adds a darker tone and makes the situation and the curse seem more hopeless and cruel.

The film also addresses how the entire village could be oblivious to an enchanted castle not far from them in the woods.  They've all lost their memory of the place and its inhabitants.  Both of those elements work.  But just how much does the curse affect them?  The townspeople still become a mob and set out to kill the Beast for no reason other than Gaston's fear-mongering demagoguery.  At the film's end, I found it difficult to simply dismiss their behavior toward the Beast, Maurice, and Belle.  Throwing in a Mr. Potts and an overbearing wife for Cogsworth added nothing.

One thing the live action Cinderella did well was give more backstories to the characters.  This Beauty and the Beast tried to do that ... but only half-heartedly.  It's a given that Belle's mother is deceased.  Trying to make that more dramatic by having her mother die of the plague in an old Parisian windmill doesn't add anything to the story or to our understanding of Belle.  All it explains is why Maurice wants to live in the clean air of the countryside.  [Side note: Having the enchantress give the Beast a magical book makes no sense, does seem cruel, and feels like a haphazard plot device to facilitate this moment of backstory.]

As for the Prince/Beast, his backstory simply feels lazy and cheap.  His mother dies and his father raises him to be spoiled and selfish.  That's it.  And it bothered me because it seems to take away much of his personal responsibility or accountability.  It's his father's fault.  That cheapens his growth and change in the story.  I'm not saying parents can't emotionally stunt and scar their children.  But the film throws it out there as a shortcut, rather than exploring any depth to the Beast's story.

Characters
The characterizations were what I had the hardest part with.  Nearly every character feels like a watered-down imitation of the lovable and lively version in the animated film.

We'll start with LeFou.  Is he gay?  Yeah.  Is a big deal made of it?  No.  Will your kids ask about it?  I don't know.  Should you talk to them about the movie anyway?  Always.  [That's a soapbox that I may someday get on ...]  It's probably good to explain to kids that LeFou and Gaston have a toxic relationship, platonic or otherwise.  Honestly, the few hints thrown in didn't really faze me.  They don't add anything at all to the film.  But they don't detract either.  And of all the characters in the film, LeFou is actually most like his animated counterpart.

With the animated Gaston, you know from his first moment on screen that he really is arrogant and boorish and not at all suitable for Belle.  He insults her book then gets it muddy!  It's instant dislike.  This Gaston wasn't like that.  Yes, he seems full of himself and far too self-assured.  But you don't feel any immediate distaste for him.  Belle's first interaction with him in the film actually felt rude on her part.  It takes a while for his downward turn and it comes about in a way that makes him feel more bi-polar than villainous.  I'm not sure if the film-makers did that on purpose, or if they simply took for granted that people would dislike him immediately.

Gone is the eccentric inventor who builds overly complicated and dangerous machines.  In this telling, Maurice is an artist and tinker.  He seems to specialize in music boxes.  (I didn't know you could make much of a living at that in a little town.)  Rather than being odd, he's perfectly sane, though bearing some sort of emotional scarring from his wife's passing.  While I missed his lighthearted goofiness, Maurice is more of an active participant in the plot this way.  He openly defies Gaston on more than one occasion.  And that works in this retelling.

The animated bookseller has been replaced in this version by a chaplain who keeps a meager collection of books in the church.  He and Belle appear to be friends.  At the climax, it's clear during Gaston's "kill the Beast!" rant that the chaplain is having none of it.  Good for him.  But I then expected him to come to the aid of Belle and Maurice in some way.  Nope.  He simply vanishes.  He isn't seen attacking the castle.  But he does nothing and says nothing to stop them.  It felt like the filmmaker's simply had no idea what to do with his character, so he simply disappears.

I had a hard time with the household objects.  They feel too much like objects and not enough like people.  They all feel like pale imitations of their animated counterparts.  If they are going to look less human or humanized, then the voice acting needs to compensate by adding more life and humanity.  I didn't feel like any of the actors brought that.  None of them feel endearing.  Moreover, some of the story changes led to characterization changes.  They feel selfish or at least self-centered.  Everything Lumiere or Mrs. Potts do for Belle feels like it is part of a scheme to bring Belle and the Beast together to break the curse, rather than out of genuine concern for Belle's comfort and well-being or for their master's happiness or personal growth.

I'm sorry, but in many ways, the filmmakers killed the Beast.  I have nothing against Dan Steven's portrayal.  I think his voice is great.  And as previously noted, his song "Evermore" is the best part of the film.  But that is not the Beast from the animated version.  They gave him father issues instead of personal issues.  They made him more jaded and cynical and robbed him of the lovable innocence and innate goodness he has in the animated version.  And the CGI of him feels so dark and soulless.  What happened to the intensely blue human eyes that showed the man within the monster?  The film also changes two of my favorite Beast moments.  In the animated version, after the Beast scares Belle from the West Wing with a fit of anger, he then realizes his mistake, immediately regrets it, and does a face palm.  It says so much about who he really is.  The other moment is when the Beast gives Belle the library.  In the animated version it is a big moment.  He is so excited he can hardly contain his giddiness and he wants the moment to be absolutely perfect.  In this version, the Beast shows her the library and then gives it to her almost as an afterthought.

I love Emma Watson.  She's a talented actress.  She simply is Hermione Granger.  But she isn't Belle.  How much of that was her and how much of that was the script she was given I don't know.  But she was not the character I know and love, the character I've sympathized with for 25 years.  She feels less charming and a bit more ... jaded and as though she has a chip (a small chip) on her shoulder.  Her rejection of Gaston's proposal feels more harsh.  Her sacrifice for her father is only to give her time until she can escape.  She seems to approach the West Wing and the rose more out of rebelliousness than out of innocent curiosity.  And when she expresses her love for the dying Beast, I found I didn't really believe it.

One change I do like in this version is integrating the enchantress character (Agathe) into the story.  I like that she remains watchful over the villagers.  The impression I got was that she even leads Maurice (somehow) to the castle.  How else to explain a path that appears one night and disappears the next.  So I guess she knew that Belle would rescue her father and ... somehow things would come together?  It's an odd bit of matchmaking, that's for sure.  Mostly I like that she is there during the climax, not participating at first, just observing.  The visual of her breaking the glass dome around the now petal-less stem is striking.

Conclusion
Like I said, I didn't hate the movie.  And maybe at some point I'll give it a second chance when I'm in a better mood.  But for a movie about seeing beyond superficial appearances, for me there isn't much beyond the flamboyant/Gothic facade.  The magic, the warmth, the charm, and the joyfulness are all missing.  Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go watch the animated classic again.

Quotable Quotes

• "Have you really read all of these books?"  "Hmph.  Some of them are in Greek."  "Is that a joke?  Are you joking now?" -- Belle and the Beast
• "Nobody deserves you!" -- Gaston to his reflection in a mirror
• "I am not a beast!" -- the Beast to Gaston

The LEGO Batman Movie

Year: 2017

Director: Chris McKay

Starring: Will Arnett, Michael Cera, Ralph Fiennes, Rosario Dawson, and Zach Galifianakis
Tagline: Always be yourself.  Unless you can be Batman.
Synopsis: When the Joker unleashes havok on Gotham City, Batman must move past his lone vigilante ways and team up with others to save the day.

Review

Most films don't start until after all the opening logos have finished.  Not LEGO Batman.  Nope, in this zany Batman mythos tour de force we hear Will Arnett's gruff Batman voice narrating from the very first production logo.  From the onset, you know this movie isn't trying to be serious.  Yet for all its joke/gag-a-minute antics, its endless parody, and its winks and nods to every previous incarnation of the Dark Knight, underneath that is a story with heart and a solid message.

LEGO Batman is a zany good time.  The more you know about Batman and his previous on screen iterations, the more fun you'll have.  But even if this is your first Batman flick, it is still fun.  The same goofy humor that was in The LEGO Movie can be found here, though perhaps not to quite the same extent.

For a movie about computer-generated plastic mini-figures, there's a lot of humanity in LEGO Batman.  Batman is a fairly dark hero, with a tragic past and lots of personal demons.  Somehow this film manages to deal with those elements in a way that is kid-friendly and hopeful.  Batman finds healing and meaning in his relationships with Dick Grayson, Alfred, and Barbara Gordon.

I don't really know what else to say.  The LEGO Batman Movie is fun, zany, heartfelt, and well-made.  If you haven't already, go see it.

*** Spoiler Section ***

As a full-fledged nerd, seeing Voldemort, the Eye of Sauron, and Daleks ("British robots ... ask your nerd friends") made me quite happy inside.

Quotable Quotes

• "Riddle me this: what ... just happened?" -- The Riddler
• "Wait, does Batman live in Bruce Wayne's basement?"  "No.  Bruce Wayne lives in Batman's attic." -- Dick Grayson and Batman
• "Pew! Pew, pew!" -- Anyone shooting a gun

ISFS

Lion

Year: 2016

Director: Garth Davis

Starring: Sunny Pawar, Dev Patel, Rooney Mara, Nicole Kidman, and David Wenham
Tagline: The search begins.
Synopsis: A young Indian boy accidentally ends up nearly a thousand miles from home and lost.  He is eventually adopted by an Australian couple.  As an adult, he uses Google Earth to search for the family he lost.

Review

If I had to sum up Lion in two words, it would be "beautiful" and "heart-wrenching."  This is one of the films nominated for Best Picture.  It's also nominated for five other Academy Awards and it deserves each nomination.  Even if it doesn't win any of the awards, it deserves to be seen.  Why?  Because it is an amazing story that is beautifully told.  And what makes it all the more special is that it is based on a true story that unfolded this decade.

With the story being based on a true story, there is a certain amount of inevitability to it.  There aren't any surprise twists.  We know five-year-old Saroo is going to get lost and that some 25 years later he will again find his birth family.  This isn't a story about surprises, it's a story about the journey, physically and emotionally.  And it is a beautiful journey, beautiful in its story and in its cinematography.

The acting in the film is outstanding.  Dev Patel (older Saroo) and Nicole Kidman (his adopted mother, Sue) carry the film emotionally.  But newcomer Sunny Pawar as young Saroo is the true gem.   To get such honest emotion from someone so young is impressive.  I forgot I was watching an actor.

One thing the film does well is how immersive the first half is.  It is filmed in India and all the dialogue is in Hindi with subtitles.  Those are real streets and real slums and real dark alleys.  Yes, this is a movie, but it reminds you that far from the comforts of our middle-class American homes is a very different world.  And yet it is not so different.  Kamla loves her children and is doing her best to provide for them.  Guddu is a loving and protective older brother.  Saroo is happy in his life, not knowing anything different.  They may not have much, but they have each other ... until they don't.

After Saroo is safely adopted by John and Sue Brierley, we skip ahead to adult Saroo, now thoroughly acclimated to his life in Tasmania.  He's going to business school and has a girlfriend (portrayed by Rooney Mara).  But he starts feeling a hole in his life.  And memories of his former life and his lost family begin to haunt him.  Cue Google Earth and an amazing (though undoubtedly tedious) search for something that looks familiar.  Saroo's search is much more compelling than watching someone scroll through train lines on a computer.  It affects his relationships, with his girlfriend, with his adopted brother (also from India), and with his adopted parents (who he hides his search from).  Through it all, the emotions are real and relatable.

Lion is rated PG-13 for some mild sensuality and thematic material.  Probably you wouldn't want any kids in the audience because they might be traumatized at the prospect of getting lost.  But there are also a couple of scenes where young Saroo narrowly avoids being taken by men whose motivations are anything but good.  Nothing is clearly stated.  But it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how they would exploit children.  I don't recall any swearing.  There might have been a word or two.

Unfortunately, Lion didn't get a very wide release or much publicity.  I hope the Oscar nominations change that.  It is a quiet film, in the sense that there are no explosions or car chases or gunfights.  And again, the first half of the film is entirely in Hindi with subtitles.  If you love a good story, I think you'll love Lion.  And if you are a mother or a father, maybe bring extra tissues.

*** Spoiler Section ***

As heart-wrenching as the first half of the movie is, the hardest part for me was learning that Guddu had died the very same night that Saroo vanished.  I can't even fathom what their poor mother went through.

The other thing that got me was the actual footage shown before the credits.  It is of Saroo's second trip to India, where he brings his mother Sue to meet his mother Kamla.  Yep, there were some tears on my part as his two mothers embraced.  That's when it really hits home that this was a true story about real people.

It was after that when we finally learn why the film was entitled "Lion" rather than "A Long Way Home" like the memoir.  All those years Saroo had been mispronouncing his own name.  His birth name was "Sheru" which is Hindi for -- you guessed it -- "lion."

Although it is not in the film, and I have no idea if it is credited in Saroo's memoir, I could not watch the film without seeing a Divine hand watching over Saroo as a child and guiding him again as an adult.  That Saroo was able to survive on his own in Kolkata at age 5 and never get taken by child traffickers is miraculous.  And I do not believe Saroo simply got lucky while scrolling -- after years of scrolling -- and thus found something familiar.  For me, this story is a reminder that God is mindful of all His children and watches over them in numerous ways.

Quotable Quotes

• "I'm sorry you couldn't have blank slates.  You didn't just adopt us, you adopted our histories as well." -- Saroo to Sue
• "So this is where you've been." -- Sue to Saroo, after seeing his maps

ISFS

Hidden Figures

Year: 2017

Director: Theodore Melfi

Starring: Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer, Janelle Monae, Kevin Costner, Kirsten Dunst, and Jim Parsons
Tagline: Meet the women you don't know behind the mission you do.
Synopsis: During the dawn of the space race, three black women helped NASA put America into orbit.

Review

It takes quite a movie to unseat Rogue One from the top of the box office.  Hidden Figures is quite a movie and deserving of that honor.  It's inspiring, fun, engrossing, and all around well made.

Films like this are really interesting in that they take what to me is history and make it come alive.  For me, Sputnik as the first satellite and Yuri Gagarin as the first man in space are facts recorded in history books.  I also know about Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon, thus "winning" the space race with Russia.  To me there's nothing dramatic about those things.  They're a historical given.  Not so in the world of the film, where there is very much a "How could we let this happen?!" mentality as the Russians send first Sputnik then Gagarin into space while NASA sputters.  Adding to my mentality shift, I saw the movie with mom who was in college during the time portrayed in the film.  She remembers listening to the radio and watching the television as these events unfolded.

Any film that can make history come to life in an exciting and fresh way gets points from me.

Of course Hidden Figures is about more than the space race.  The film strikes a good balance in terms of its portrayal of the segregated realities of l960s Virginia.  It never feels heavy handed.  But it also doesn't feel like it pulls any punches.  While there were plenty of times when I could only shake my head in frustration at some of the idiotic actions and words of some people, overall the film has a sense of hope and of moving forward with unified purpose.

The growing movement led by Martin Luther King is mentioned a few times during the film.  But the underlying message of the story is that the world isn't changed just by men like Doctor King.  It's changed by the "hidden figures" who live their lives and do their jobs with not only character and decency, but with purpose, gumption, and brilliance.  The more Katherine shines, the more other characters are forced to recognize her efforts and contributions.  The same is true of Dorothy and Mary.

It is the characters that make Hidden Figures shine.  Katherine, Dorothy, and Mary are all inspiring women.  They are intelligent, hardworking, tell-it-like-it-is women who also each have a good sense of humor.  I suppose you'd have to have a good sense of humor to put up with some of the nonsense they deal with.  The supporting characters also do a good job, especially the oft-exasperated Al Harrison (Kevin Costner) whose head is in space and can't always fathom the division going on here on earth.

My only critique of the film is that it felt a bit slow during the scenes with Colonel Jim Johnson and Katherine's courtship.  As part of Katherine's story, it makes sense to include it.  But it sometimes felt as though the film-makers weren't entirely sure what to do with those scenes other than fit them in.

Hidden Figures is rated PG and has some mild swearing.  There were moments of injustice where I wanted to shout "C'mon!" at the screen.  But there were more moments where I wanted to cheer at the triumphs.  Do yourself a favor and go see this excellent film.

*** Spoiler Section ***

As I said above, Hidden Figures never feels heavy handed, including in its resolutions.  For example, for most of the film Paul Stafford (Jim Parsons) has been standoffish (at best) toward Katherine.  Rather than end their arc with some forced apology, we see two small yet meaningful actions.  First he lets her add her name next to his on a report (something he adamantly refuses during previous attempts).  Second, he brings her a cup of coffee.  We see that his views have changed.  That is more powerful than a trite speech.

I have two favorite scenes in the movie.  The first is when Dorothy triumphantly marches all her "West Area" ladies from their segregated building to across the campus and into the shiny new IBM computer room.  The other is when Al Harrison throws open a door, shouts Katherine's name as she dejectedly heads down a hall, and holds up a security badge to her.  Those moments deserve far more cheers than any superhero saving a city.  Those moments -- or at least similar moments -- actually happened.  Those moments change lives.  And slowly but surely, they change the world.

Okay, my third favorite scene is the IBM people having to explain that the brand new computers they are delivering don't fit through the doors to the room.  All Al Harrison can come up with is "use the big hammer" to tear down the doorframe. #ProblemsofProgress

Quotable Quotes

• "We can't justify a space program that doesn't put anything in space." -- NASA big wig
• "Use whatever bathroom you want, preferably one close to your desk" -- Al Harrison to Katherine after he has torn down the "colored" ladies room sign
• "Yes, they let women do some things at NASA, Mr. Johnson.  And it's not because we wear skirts.  It's because we wear glasses." -- Katherine to Jim
• "There is no protocol for women attending."  "There's no protocol for a man circling the Earth either, sir." -- Paul and Katherine

ISFS