Puzzle

You've played the video game thousands of times.

You're good at it.

You know the secrets for every level.

But you've played it over and over and over again to the point where it seems like you're stuck on an easy level forever, with no hope of playing something more challenging or diversifying your agile technique 'til the unforeseeable corked end of time.

Others don't seem to understand.

They like their levels.

They don't mind the routine.

But one day an unexpected diversion suddenly reignites cognitive passions which then exhilaratingly intensify an otherwise typical afternoon.

The predictable structure which has been forlornly upheld for what seems like eons finds itself briefly reinvigorated with novel motivational amelioration.

Harmless enough, additional challenges are sought the pursuit of which reveals hidden wonders complexly layered with alternative options, the new game's design possessing limitless imagination stretched across borderless frontiers inhabited by seemingly infinite individualities stressing nothing indistinct in particular.

The thrilling rush of discovery.

Invaluably articulated.

Marc Turtletaub's Puzzle adventurously fitting these pieces together to modestly celebrate romantic parentheses, each partner a redefined wilderness slowly homesteading unfurnished habitations.

Inexhaustible permutations.

Storylines, respect abounding and although some characters could be less rigid, none of them are presented angelically or monstrously.

Choice is vindicated, Puzzle's like an innocent investigation of manifold worlds the characteristics of which envelope varying degrees of boredom or fascination while taking factors like mood, time, compatibility, and eccentricity into account, leaving abundant room for interrogative developments, catalysts and breadcrumbs, Easter eggs and fireworks atmospherically blending, what's different today?, what can be creatively stitched and spooled?

With a brilliant ending.

Emerging in timeless craft.

Disobedience

I remember hearing years ago that when Amish children reach a certain age they're given the opportunity to leave their religious community to see if they prefer the alternative ways of the secular world.

If they do, they're free to leave their community without bitterness or regret, but if they don't they're free to return and live their lives according to their people's traditions.

I'm not sure which Amish sect utilizes this strategy or how closely its guidelines are adhered to.

Or if they're still in place.

It seemed like a fair way to religiously raise children, however, a method that doesn't force them to live a certain way but rather gives them the chance to choose that lifestyle for themselves.

Judicious and sustainable.

I'm not sure whether or not the children who choose to live a secular lifestyle can return and visit their families from time to time.

And I'm not writing about Kingpin.

Sebastián Lelio's Disobedience presents the return of a daughter who chose to live independently to the religious community that no longer acknowledges her.

The religion in question makes no difference.

There are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and other religions who all have sects that function as conservatively I'm sure.

This isn't a scholarly article.

I need a research assistant.

A loved one has passed whom she loved dearly, and she has returned to pay her heartfelt respects.

The last words of the deceased emphasized that God had given humans the ability to choose, had given us free choice, whereas animals and angels had been constructed to unalterably follow predetermined rules.

Regardless of the evidence that demonstrates that many animals don't exclusively follow their instincts, or proceed with some degree of variability according to their natures, after uttering these words he passed and his freethinking daughter returned shortly thereafterwards to express her genuine grief.

I don't know how communities strictly living according to ethical codes should proceed when such codes are challenged, but I do know that many such codes were written thousands of years ago when the world was a remarkably different place.

I've always found it suspicious that the New Testament ends like a novel.

Did God stop speaking to Christians thousands of years ago?

Did he or she decide it was time to start working on another project?

I wish I hadn't seen this film.

It was a terrible week for movies and it seemed like the best option until I sat down in the theatre and realized what it was about.

I find it's best not to talk about religion. Religious people can be very touchy when you start asking questions. What I learned from Christianity was that Christ loved and forgave and loved and forgave again and again and was a remarkable person whose example is worthy of the highest respect.

But when I see the warlike ambitions of so many of his followers continuing to flourish in whatever century I don't understand the point.

Religion for me is supposed to be about love, like the line from David Bowie's Soul Love, "and how my God on high is all love," but different religions who preach about love and kindness, as many others have mentioned, often violently confront one another, and that just plain sucks, period.

Ronit Krushka (Rachel Weisz) is a wonderful person who made an extremely difficult decision and was left with no support afterwards while she struggled to make a place for herself in the world.

If she had been able to continue her relationship with Esti (Rachel McAdams) without judgment, they likely would have added many wonderful nuances to their community and become strong contributing members.

Didn't happen that way, but some prominent patriarchs did seriously reflect upon their loving logical difference nevertheless, boldly taking a humble stand.

Heavy subjects that will only get me into trouble.

If God didn't create Ronit and Esti, who did?

Didn't God create everything?

Aren't Ronit and Esti also his or her children?