The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

HobbitPosterMy affinity for J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit goes back a long way. In elementary school I purchased a copy of White Fang from one of those Scholastic book order flyers that got sent home once a month, and thought it was the best book I had ever read. It was a gripping tale of adventure set amid a fantastic backdrop of otherworldly (to my midwestern self) locations with a main character for whom I could root wholeheartedly.  White Fang, as far as I knew at the time, was the epitome of literature.  That was, until my friend Joe showed me one of his favorite books-a 300-page tale with a funny-looking green cover about a three-foot-tall munchkin. I was skeptical about The Hobbit at first, but soon found that it had everything I adored about White Fang, but so much more. I became lost in the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and his traveling troupe of 13 tawdry dwarves. I wondered at the wisdom of the wizard Gandalf, and marveled at the beauty of Imladris. I began daydreaming of journeying through the black overgrowth of Mirkwood, exploring the halls of the Elven kingdom, and sneaking around inside Erebor, the lonely mountain which was home to the malevolent dragon Smaug.

I quickly devoured Tolkien’s other tales in the Lord of the Rings series, and though I never made it all the way through his other works like The Silmarillion, I remain an enthusiastic fan of his tales of Middle-Earth to this day. When Fellowship of the Ring came out in 2001, I saw it twice on opening night clutching my copy of the book tight while trying to ward off an ill stomach after eating movie theater popcorn and Coke for dinner.  Peter Jackson’s interpretation of the fantasy realms Tolkien dreamed up while fighting in the trenches of World War I had me hooked, and to this day I don’t think I have seen another movie that has so thoroughly captivated me while engrossing me into an entirely different world.

It was, then, with a bit of nervousness that I went into the theater last weekend to see the first in The Hobbit trilogy, An Unexpected Journey. The trailers were amazing, but early reviews suggested some problems with run time and creative licenses taken by Peter Jackson and his film crew. Would The Hobbit live up to my expectations? Would it crumple under the weight of all the extra material from Tolkien’s other books that were appended to the storyline? Would it be anywhere near as good as its forebears released over a decade ago?

Soon I realized my fears were unfounded. Bilbo Baggins and his adventure were in fine hands, and after ten minutes of cautious trepidation I settled down and let myself become immersed once again in the beauty and majesty of Middle-Earth.

Thorin Woodenbow...I mean, Oakenshield

Thorin Woodenbow…I mean, Oakenshield

The Hobbit is not a perfect movie. It might not even be a great movie. But it is a thoroughly captivating fantasy tale, the likes of which you have probably not seen onscreen since Return of the King. The pacing is a bit off, with the first half burdened by a great deal of exposition and backstory, often told through flashback, that seems somewhat extraneous but is critically important for understanding the larger context in which Bilbo’s tale of mischief and burglary is set.  For a Lord of the Rings geek, these deviations do not serve as a distraction and in fact enhance an already familiar tale with nice flourishes that others might find extraneous.  I can understand why casual theater patrons might be somewhat put off by the many inclusions in this film that seem to have little bearing on the story at hand, but I say bring ’em on. Tolkien crafted a beautifully complicated world, and if showing a bit more of it means an extra ten minutes in a theater seat then I’m all for it.  Rest assured all the core elements from the book are present and accounted for, if altered slightly for the cinematic presentation.  The troll campfire, the visit to the Last Homely House, the passage through the mountains, the riddle scene…they’re all here and all very well done. While some might take issue with the changes Jackson made to some of these, particularly when Bilbo and Gollum (who looks even better and more expressive than he did in the previous trilogy) match wits to determine Bilbo’s fate, I mostly just sat there with a stupid grin on my face enjoying the fact that I was getting to watch all of this on the big screen.  Picking nits about changes from the source material here is kind of irrelevant for me, when the resulting film is so engrossing.

Even Frodo shows up, though his character wasn't born yet. Don't worry, it all makes sense when you see the movie.

Even Frodo shows up, though his character wasn’t born yet. Don’t worry, it all makes sense when you see the movie.

However, there are a few structural issues that did bother me and detract from the film as a whole.  There are essentially two main characters in the film, even though the book focuses almost entirely on Bilbo.  The titular hobbit is the one with whom we spend the most time, as is to be expected. But Thorin, the leader of the company of dwarves, receive almost equal billing.  He is essentially this film’s Aragorn, and a somewhat obscure enemy named Azog is brought out from the depths of Tolkien’s extended materials in order to give Thorin a mortal enemy with whom to do battle. His inclusion is somewhat of a dumbing down of the main storyline, and his pursuit of the band of treasure-seekers is rather unnecessary given the many perils the company encounters along their journey already.  I can understand this from a storytelling perspective, as the Thorin/Azog battle helps propel Jackson’s version of Tolkien’s story and leads to a climax absolutely dripping with gratuitous cinematic clichés that probably appeal to the casual moviegoing types or significant others dragged to the theater against their will, but it’s something that this film could have done without.

I have read more than a few complaints about the length of The Hobbit, and I must admit that this type of criticism puzzles me. I tend to doubt that few moviegoers who are even remotely familiar with Jackson’s previous Lord of the Rings movies would go in to The Hobbit expecting a 90-minute cartoon. This is heady stuff, and Jackson’s vision of Tolkien’s world is one that I enjoy letting wash over me and consume my senses. I enjoyed the almost three-hour run time, and it was filled with such fantastic scenery and interesting characters that I almost wish it were longer (and will no doubt be when it is released on Blu-Ray).  As far as I’m concerned, the longer run time simply meant more movie to enjoy.

The Hobbit is not the epitome of literature, and the movie is not the apex of film. But it is a good book, and this is a genuinely good adaptation. For anyone even remotely interested in fantasy movies, this is certainly one to see.  For those on the fence, it’s worth a shot and you might find yourself pleasantly surprised.

Rating:[Rating:4.5/5]

Life of Pi

The durability of the human spirit comes into focus under the expanded eye of Ang Lee’s ambitious opus Life of Pi.  Think the attempted magnificent reach of this year’s earlier tanker Cloud Atlas molded down into Cast Away.  I won’t say Ang Lee, an auteur of his own making, entirely succeeds in his gargantuan spiritual quest, but his film is such a visual and magical triumph that I can’t discount it because of its under-compensating grasp.

Like its Cloud Atlas brethren, Pi is based on a so-called un-filmable novel penned by Yann Martel.  Perhaps he sorted out the details a tad better than screenwriter David Magee (Finding Neverland).  The story involves a 13-year-old dreamer boy from India named Pi forced to leave his homeland with his family and the animals of the zoo they own.  They board a vessel and voyage out to sea for the United States where the father has earned newfound employment.  A late night’s early rumblings and flashes of lightning awaken Pi and he takes to the deck to experience the powerful storm’s beauty.  Eventually the roaring waters overtake the ship and flood every level, drowning Pi’s family and most of the animals.

Pi is loaded onto a lifeboat and finds himself caught on a mini-ark with a wounded zebra, a ferocious hyena, a wise primate, and a dangerous bangle tiger.  The hyena soon attacks the zebra and monkey, leaving the tiger, named Richard Parker, to end the hyena’s life.  Pi faces the entrapping vastness of the sea while simultaneously fending off Richard Parker until they both come to an understanding with each other.  Pi takes to catching fish for himself and his new companion in order to keep each other alive until they can be rescued.

The film is filled with outstretched symbolism to the point where Pi is forced to interpret most of the symbolism for later characters in the story.  An adult version of Pi (Irrfan Khan) narrates the fantastical journey to a young reporter (Rafe Spall).  “You will believe in God,” Pi tells him.  The entire odyssey consists of Pi’s relationship to God throughout the catastrophic tests he faces.  We learn young Pi becomes fascinated with religion early on as a child, first acquiring his parents’ Hindu roots before becoming enraptured in Catholicism where he grapples with the impossible love of God sacrificing his innocent son for the sins of the world.  Later, Pi finds Islam literally in passing.  His father instructs him that he cannot follow three religions at once and to either pick one to follow, or simply look to science to answer the majority of his questions about existence.

Pi isn’t quick to lean into his father’s request, just as Pi isn’t quick to see the carnivorous tiger as a simple wild animal.  “In his eyes, there is a soul.”  Throughout his journey, Pi cannot explain why God has placed him under the weight of such loss and misery.  But Pi never loses hope and never accepts that God has abandoned him.  He also may not be able to narrow down the ‘correct’ version of God, but he never loses faith that God loves him and is consistently carrying him through every obstacle.

Life of Pi is Ang Lee’s quest of faith for the audience.  The film reaches a wobbly conclusion that lessens a bit of the fantastical impact of the themes blooming to life, but the film is so majestic and ambitious that I couldn’t help but be captured by the spirit of it.  While many may view this as an opportunity to shoehorn the incarnation of God into a catch-all for every religion and belief system, I viewed it more as a thoughtful exploration of sorting out the attributes of God rather than the versions.

The film also works largely due to the lavish spectacle it is wrapped in.  The production values are top-notch.  You will not see better special effects all year.  This is the first time that I can truly say the CGI effects used to create living creatures had me 100 percent convinced I was watching real animals.  Lee also utilized impressive 3D technology to enhance the experience in the same way Avatar used it.  The images have a crisp and life-like depth.  I can’t recommend the film’s visual aesthetic enough.  If you choose to take a leap of faith on this film, see it on the big screen in 3D.

Life of Pi is certainly not a perfect film, but I think it examines a dedication of faith along with all of faith’s questions and doubts—and does it well for a major studio production.  In a world trying desperately to erase any and all versions of a Creator-based faith by replacing it with a faith in unprecedented and foolish chance of existence, Life of Pi, despite its shortcomings, is somewhat of a miracle.  The pacing and conclusion may test some viewers’ patience, but I think those willing to invest in the story will still find the film plenty worth their while.

A quick note to parents: the film pushes the limits of its PG rating with some very intense moments of animals attacking other animals.  None of the shots are particularly ‘graphic’ or bloody, but there are scary instances for young kids.

[Rating:4/5]

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2

Regardless of who you are, for better or for worse, you have been waiting for the final chapter of The Twilight Saga.  The series has become the butt of all movie jokes over the last four years for reasons I can only fathom stem from its towering success.  Critics and audiences love to hate the popular one, and despite Twilight’s often deafening writing, I’ve come to accept that the films have been designed to appeal to a very select audience of teenage girls.

Now we have reached the fifth and final installment of this wooden epic—the ultimate morose love story drawn out over ten hours.  Breaking Dawn Part 2 finds Bella (Kristen Stewart) as a newborn vampire with a half immortal-half human child, Renesmee.  She’s married to Edward (Robert Pattinson) and on the cusp of a major attack from the Volturi, led by Aro (the maniacally over-acting Michael Sheen), upset by the disturbance in the undead force.  A half-blood of sorts has never been seen in the blood-sucking world.  Aro is under the impression that the abomination child is a toddler vampire, a being outlawed by the cloaked tyrannical reign.  The Cullens must assemble of horde of vampire companions to interact with Renesmee and prove to the Volturi she is not a full-blown vampire, but rather a half-blood and therefore not against the law.

An endless list of vampire characters are introduced through expository means from all corners of the world.  The group becomes an X-Men of sorts with varying powers in preparation for the ultimate throwdown with the powers at be.  Bella learns of her power as a ‘shield,’ able to stop another vampire’s gift and protect those she chooses from harm.  She can also apparently conduct a powerpoint presentation in her brain and send it to Edward.

If you’re wondering whether or not the battle for vampire supremacy takes place, rest assured it does.  Men will have something to watch as they did in Eclipse.  The battle often pushes the limits of its PG-13 rating, and features more beheadings than 300.

Brothers if not twins if not clones.

At this point I didn’t expect anything to change regarding this franchise.  The writing, the tolerable performances from Stewart and Pattinson, the awful performances from Lautner and some other supporting actors, the silliness of it all—very much intact.  Add in some impressive action, a few sprinkling surprises (one of them being Robert Downey Jr’s clone—Omar Metwally), and a baby’s face drowned in embarrassingly hideous CGI (seriously, it looks worse than the talking E-trade baby!), and you have what Twilight has always been, only now it’s over.

This installment is passable, no better than the series’ highs, and not quite the series’ low—New Moon.  If you’re a Twi-hard, you’ll love it.  If you’re in the hater camp, you’ll still hate it.  But can we all finally admit that these movies really aren’t the worst movies ever made?  Oh wait, yeah, there is New Moon.  And even the first film has gotten much worse over time.  I better just stop thinking about it.

[Rating:3/5]

 

Skyfall

I have to guess that Daniel Craig’s James Bond doesn’t like his job much.  He continues his profession to fill a void with another void.  After all the hammy fun of previous actors playing the role, Craig’s interpretation is probably the most realistic because he approaches the character as an actual human being with a scarred soul, rather than an immortal playboy hero. Yet, I still wonder if Craig is ever going to have any fun.

Sam Mendes’ Skyfall, the latest of the 007 franchise, attempts to humanize the infamous covert British agent by tearing away at Bond’s wounds, wounds we never knew he had as far as the films are concerned.

Could it be more ironic that Craig feels a bit of disdain for the role?  Especially since Skyfall has the character about to walk away from his profession following the series’ most explosive opening sequence in which he is accidentally shot by his own agency.  Bond survives the bullet and attempts to leave behind the hired gun by drinking himself into the night with scorpions resting on his arm.  Once danger strikes London, he reconsiders early retirement.

He returns home with a problematic shoulder and in desperate need of a shave.  M, or Mom (Judi Dench), is about to lose MI6 after a bombing on the agency’s headquarters, as well as the hacking of her own confidential files including the identities of the agents on her payroll.  As soon as these spies begin turning up as corpses, M only trusts Bond to seek out the individual responsible.  This leads Bond to Shanghai where he reunites with his former partner (Naomie Harris).  He also finds himself introduced to Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe), a woman under the threatening grip of a mad villain, Silva (Javier Bardem).  I call Silva mad, but really as played by Bardem, he is the most terrifying of all Bond villains, kind of like a blending of the Joker and Bane in terms of insanity, genius, intimidation, and character backstory.  How fitting it is then that Bond takes on the persona of Bruce Wayne throughout the film.

Silva is interested in the destruction of MI6 and has stolen the computer files necessary to track down its agents and kill them.  Bond and a few others may be the last hope to save the organization.  Mendes, the very capable director here, gives Bond, M, and Silva plenty of dimension and texture with this film.  Why do we actually care about Bond?  Why do we root for him after 50 years?  Why is Silva so evil?  Why is M so attached to Bond?  Mendes actually answers some important questions all the while dazzling our senses.  In fact, the more I reflect on Skyfall, the more I’ve come to appreciate it a lot more than I did a week ago.

This is by-and-large the most visually stunning and entrancing James Bond adventure we will ever get.  The exotic locales of Instabul, Shanghai, and even London look absolutely gorgeous.  The action is filmed in a much-appreciated, non-contemporary style—meaning you can actually see what’s happening.  Try making any sense of the action in Quantum of Solace.  Skyfall also boasts terrific performances from the entire cast.  Attempt to pin down a disappointment in this bunch… I dare you.

While Craig has never been my favorite Bond, he fills the role perfectly for this particular film.  I’ve never appreciated the grit and glum of his interpretation.  But this generation is all about the dark and grim.  And given the backstory Mendes presents for the character, we begin to understand why this Bond resembles a tattered Bruce Wayne, or a thankless Jason Bourne.  In fact, this film really marks a turning point for the character and for the franchise.

Before the film fizzles into a tense-thriller version of Home Alone, Skyfall centers on Bond looking at himself, literally reflecting in mirrors, and making sense of his past.  MI6 also does the same as the government attempts to shut them down.  With changing times and new threats afoot, are 007 and his cohorts necessary?  Is it time for a new agency?

But Skyfall reminds us of Bond’s brand of justice, and the immortality of rogue action-taking.  Perhaps that’s the immortality of this franchise.

[Rating:4/5]

Lincoln

I understand that many people feel as though they already know the story of Abraham Lincoln . We grow up learning about him in grade school and are taught all about his wonderful achievements as a president. So why would Steven Spielberg want to research and fine tune for over a decade to make this movie? Probably the same reason any artist takes a long time on their work—he wanted to make a masterpiece.

The story focuses around the last few months of Lincoln’s presidency and life. Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) is forced to balance two of the most important decisions of his presidency in ending the Civil War and passing the 13th amendment that would forever abolish slavery in the United States . In order to accomplish these tasks, Lincoln employs the help of his Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn) to secure the votes needed for the amendment while he attempts to secure surrender from the southern states. In addition, he must also deal with his personal demons relating to his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field), and his son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Much of the action is concentrated on the debates over the amendment vote in the House of Representatives. Led by the strong supporting role of Tommy Lee Jones who plays Rep. Thaddeus Stevens, the back-and-forth between Jones and his opponents offers many of the humorous and memorable moments from the film. However, the most powerful and memorable scenes come from Day-Lewis’s portrayal of President Lincoln.

The film may start out a little slow for some viewers, but the political drama and humor throughout the film are definitely enough to keep the attention of the audience. Never has the portrayal of the United States legislative process been so enthralling. Besides, the overall goal of the movie is not to thrill people with action sequences, but to offer a new perspective on the one of the greatest presidential stories of all time. Spielberg does a fantastic job of mixing dialogue-driven exchanges and brooding shots of Lincoln that reveal the inner turmoil felt at the end of his life. The movie allows Lincoln’s character to shine without sinking too far into the rhetoric that slogs many political dramas down.

Ultimately, this film is driven by the outstanding performances turned in by Day-Lewis and his supporting cast. This is not necessarily the flashiest of roles for Day-Lewis, but one that should cement his status among the greatest and most respected actors of his generation. The nuance and subtlety that he brings to the part of Lincoln will leave most moviegoers wondering if he really is the beloved 16th president. The sheer gravitas that Day-Lewis lends to the role is unparalleled.  Sally Field is excellent in the role of  the eccentric Mary Todd Lincoln. The wide range of emotions she conveys allows the character to be tragic, yet accessible to the audience. Tommy Lee Jones also turns in one of the greatest performances of his career that is sure to garner some praise and accolades come award season. The brilliant directing by Spielberg only helps to make this film one of the best of the year and a certain best picture contender come January, even if it may not be considered his greatest masterpiece of all time.

[Rating:5/5]

 

 

 

 

 

Argo

Ben Affleck’s pro-America thriller Argo has a little bit of something for everyone.  If you’re interested in a little-known piece of 30-year-old history.  If your curiosity is roused by the nooks and crannies of the Hollywood studio system.  If you want laughs.  If you crave suspense.   If you want to see good actors invest in a smart script, look no further.

Do you know anything about the 1979 Iranian Revolution in which an angry mob of the nation’s protestors stormed the neighboring U.S. Embassy for a takeover?  Did you also know that six American Embassy employees escaped the takeover and took refuge in a local residence owned by Canada-born immigrant?  How about a covert plan to send in a CIA agent to rescue them under the guise of a Canadian movie producer shooting a major science-fiction picture in an exotic locale?  I knew none of this.

Ben Affleck plays the all-brains CIA agent, Tony Mendez whose ridiculous plan is ‘the best bad idea’ the government has to extract the six hostages—men and women expected to absorb fake Canadian identities and pose as a film crew in order to fly out of Iran alive.  If they raise any suspicion about their covers, they will likely be executed.

Sounds grim?  Don’t take Affleck for granted.  In hatching the scheme, Affleck and his writers of the film have plenty of commentary to swath over Hollywood studio system of decades-past.  Alan Arkin and John Goodman deliver huge laughs as film industry veterans sculpting the ultimate cover for Mendez, and they have a ball doing so.

Affleck, whose talent has surged in the last five years, has proven that his abilities extend beyond Boston-set crime thrillers.  With Argo, he proves immensely capable both in front and behind the camera.  His character Mendez wrestles with the life-and-death demands of his job as six lives depend on his scheme.  Meanwhile, his family suffers from his absence at home.  But just when you think Affleck is all deep-rooted drama, he drops huge laughs in by the barrel, taking shots at the film industry and the occasionally stupefied CIA.

I see major award attention headed Argo‘s way—not because it’s an Oscar-bait film—but because it’s actually a very good film that audiences will eat up due to the fact that it is suspenseful, funny, well-made, and even educational.

[Rating:4/5]

Looper

Looper Science fiction movies like this don’t come along very often.  Though Looper has all the hallmarks of the genre, such as time travel, futuristic weapons, and head-scratching plot twists, it offers something rather unique among its peers of late: a unique and compelling story with enough grounding in a familiar reality to keep even casual moviegoers interested.  This smartly directed actioner-slash-head-scratcher does not dwell on the ins and outs of its central conceit too long, and instead focuses on keeping the pace solid and the action tight.  Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) works as a Looper, whose job it is to dispose of the scum of the earth…from the future.  30 years from now, when targets are captured by criminal organizations they aren’t just offed and dumped in a river like in The Godfather.  Instead they are sent back in time where Loopers blow ’em away and burn the bodies.  No fuss, no muss.  What could possibly go wrong?

All is well and dandy for a while, and Joe goes on living his shallow life of partying, doping, and hooking up with women at the local strip joint until he finds himself staring down the barrel of his blunderbuss at a particularly troublesome target: himself.  This, in Looper parlance, is known as “closing the loop.”  It’s the point at which a looper paradoxically ends his own life, thus resigning himself to three decades to live, until he is captured by the criminal organization in the future which sends him back in time to the present, at which point he shoots himself in the chest.

Confused?  Try this trick: just don’t think about it.  This sentiment, trite as it may be, is actually recommended to us by Joe as he converses with his future self in a diner.  Older Joe (Bruce Willis) urges his younger self to not dwell on the whole past/present/future thing too long, and soon afterwards the two of them are firing weapons, breaking windows, and dodging bullets like one would expect in any action movie.

Instead of dwelling on the nuts and bolts of temporal displacement and other quantum conundra, it’s best to just enjoy Looper for what it is: a smart, well-paced above-average popcorn flick with a healthy dollop of cerebral icing on the cake.  Think of it as this summer’s version of Inception, but a bit more dark and a lot more violent.

Following Joe’s failure to close his loop, he finds himself on the run from his boss Abe (Jeff Daniels, chewing through scenery worse than Willem Dafoe in Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man. But gosh, it sure is good to see him in a grumpy-old-man role like this.) who simply will not tolerate this sort of failure from anyone in his organization.  Joe escapes to a remote farmhouse where he encounters someone who may, or may not, hold the answers to some of the questions that have plagued his future self for years.  The resulting shootouts and climax are taut and emotional, with a particularly poignant performance from child actor Pierce Gagnon that is certain to have some parents in the audience squirming in their seats.  Topping things off is Gordon-Levitt’s pitch-perfect imitation of Bruce Willis, which is so nuanced it ought to earn him an Academy Award for Impersonating a Co-star.

Looper doesn’t have the weight-of-the-world heaviness of Terminator 2, the flat-out action of Aliens, or the suspense of Predator.  But its tight narrative and thought-provoking questions almost earn it a presence among its cinematic counterparts.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

Obama’s Amercia 2016

Remember those pictures that were so popular back in the 1990s called Hollusions? The first time you walked up to one, all you saw was a field of dots sprayed on a piece of paper, like snow on a TV screen. You had to learn to focus (or rather not focus) your eyes in the proper way. It took patience. The first time, it could take an hour of looking, but suddenly, you would see the dots arrange themselves into a holographic image. Some of them were beautiful, some were a little bit scary, but once you learned to see them, it was hard to imagine how you ever missed them, and hard to be patient with those who still couldn’t see the picture.

That’s what it was like for me to observe Barack Obama’s candidacy, then his presidency, asking the tough questions, and finally to see this excellent film made by Dinesh D’Souza. Obama was a phenomenon in 2008. Watching one of his rallies was like watching a Michael Jackson performance. You saw male and female, young and old, black, white and all others. A huge crowd of people from many walks of life, all united in, not the support, but the worship of one man. A man who, like Jackson, was “black” but … not really; his skin not very dark, his features resembling those of his white mother, and not one drop of slave blood in him. Rather, he reflected his international background, projecting a mix of ethnic groups. His platform was equally nondescript, one of “hope” and “change,” with no concrete positions expressed until after he was in power. He was a blank canvas, upon which the naïve projected whatever they desired.

Can you see it?

However, many have been puzzled by Obama since 2008, as there doesn’t seem to be a pattern to his actions. His actions cannot be explained by the usual differences between Republicans and Democrats. You might recall that, when the congressional vote was nearing on Obama’s universal health care plan, Democratic voters were calling their Congressmen in large numbers, begging them not to pass the bill. Obama had enough close allies to push it through, however. Around the same time, Obama was in the middle east, apologizing to America’s enemies. He had no problem using force in Libya to depose a dictator who was no threat to America, yet he does nothing to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. When his actions in Libya led to the murder of an ambassador and several other Americans, he again apologized to radical Islamists for the First Amendment. He blocks efforts to drill for America’s life blood on American soil, yet encourages such drilling in South America. Seeing all this, millions of us can’t help but ask “Does he want  America to fail?”

D’Souza covers the way in which Obama was lauded by millions, not as a good candidate for a job, but as a messiah. Millions stamped themselves with

A drawing from obamamessiah.blogspot.com. The post gives no indication of being satirical or facetious.

his “O” icon. Paintings were done of him resembling the traditional Jesus. Classrooms full of children were required to sing songs in his honor. Crowds of people were on TV, literally weeping for joy when he was elected. I want to be clear about something: D’Souza does not spend this film bashing Obama. He simply covers some truly embarrassing behavior of real Americans from the past several years.

I’m thankful for D’Souza. He grew up in India, and, just as it took a child to point out that the emperor was naked in the famous tale, it seems to take a newcomer to America to say the things that some of us just can’t, however true they may be. D’Souza points out the fact that Barak Obama is the first President in American history to be elected primarily because of the color of his skin, and is brave enough to say that no white (or Indian) man would ever have been ushered into the White House after just four unremarkable years in the Senate.

But what’s really impressive about Obama’s America 2016 is the depth of the journalism. D’Souza has put enormous effort into digging up Obama’s past, traveling around the world and interviewing everyone from his extended family in Kenya, to those he knew in Indonesia,  to people who worked with him on the campaign trail. Using Obama’s two autobiographies as a guide, D’Souza pries his way into Obama’s head to see what makes him tick.

Does Obama want America to fail? D’Souza unearths a straightforward answer to this question; one that, after the care and thoroughness of his search of Obama’s past, is very hard to argue with. Most of the way through, I suspected that this was actually a pro-Obama film. D’Souza remains objective in his explanation of the emotional journey of Obama, and you really do start to feel with Obama. And with all the adorable footage of Kenyan children in Obama shirts, you can see how people fell so madly in love with Obama. But the last 15 minutes of this film give you the mental equivalent of finally seeing those dots arrange themselves into a picture. It becomes clear why Obama does the things he does, and it is genuinely scary.

Obama’s America 2016 is available to rent at Redboxes across the nation, and you need to see it before you vote.

Can you see the picture yet?

[Rating:5/5]