IRREVERENT Magazine - Movie Reviews

For some reason, an Oscar™ nominated movie in which nothing really happens.  The screenplay was based on the Broadway play in which nothing really happened either.  For the rest of this review, I may space out periodically or discuss other subjects entirely, so continue at your own risk.

Here the priest sits next to a nun. Get ready for 90 more minutes of this.It's the 60s I'm pretty sure and some Catholic school has just admitted its very first black student.  This is a big deal 'cause it's the sixties and these particular white Catholics are slightly less prejudiced than the rest of the population.  This may or may not have been around the time of Martin Luther King's speeches, which would make sense given the historical context.

Martin Luther King was born on January 15, 1929, and in 1964 was the youngest person ever to win the Nobel Peace Prize for promoting the radical idea that how a person's skin pigmentation has gradually adapted to his or her environment shouldn't matter when it comes to political rights.  Not that you could tell today, however, with the prevalence of white supremacist hate groups that make their 1960s counterparts look like silly underachievers by comparison.  Apparently, some people are still very, very concerned with the gradual evolution of skin pigmentation in response to migratory patterns.  One can see the appeal.

In my dream, you honkey's gradual changes in skin pigment didn't force me to the back of the bus!Oh yeah so anyway, the Catholic school admits the kid and the priest (Seymour Hoffman) goes out of his way to make sure he's doing okay.  This immediately raises an alarm in a nun's head (Meryl Streep), who's just been appointed Chief Busybody to Keep an Eye on the Priest In Case He's a Pedophile.  She then proceeds to mercilessly tormet and persecute this poor bastard, even forcing him to resign, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence that he's done anything wrong.  Ahh, sweet religion.  She would've burned him at the stake, but the producers were shooting for a PG-13 (look for the Director's Cut, for those brave mascochists who buy this puppy on DVD).

DVD versus Blu-Ray, do you really think the future is blu?  I'm not that old and I've already seen three large-scale format changes, tape to CD, VHS to DVD, and now DVD to Blu-Ray.  But is the last one really a game changer?  What's the value proposition really to Blu-Ray over DVD?  Is high-definition enough to warrant replacing your movie library, at great personal expense... yet again?  It took years for DVDs to become ubiquitous and cheap because it took the movie-making industry years to retool and reskill.  Am I really that patient?  And at the end of it all, do I really just have some extra pixels and a new menu system?

 

Disclaimer

Opinions, random thoughts, gestures, gesticulations, comments, bizarre rantings or anything anyone on the planet (or elsewhere) may possibly find objectionable, actionable, stupid, pointless, and/or misleadingly silly may or may not be shared by the management of IRREVERENT Publishing, LLC. Celebrity voices in the IRREVERENT Podcast are impersonated. People, products or services mentioned or depicted in IRREVERENT Magazine are referenced only for humorous or satirical comment, and are not intended to imply an endorsement of IRREVERENT nor any other product or service unless explicitly stated otherwise.