Boyhood

What is a movie supposed to do if not relate somehow to the everyday and to make you laugh and think and reflect and hurt? Well, Richard Linklater seems to think these goals, which a relatively small number of movies ever successfully attain, are not enough. For him, a movie must challenge the very fabric of what a movie is. Boyhood is such a movie. Better yet, it’s such an achievement.

The narrative structure is, of course, what makes the movie so experimental. It is, after all, nonexistent, and yet, despite the problems it creates, like giving the film no tangible motivation supporting each chronological step forward, it flows better than almost any movie could ever hope to, and, above all, it forces the viewer to reflect.

Boyhood is like life. You go through life with all its pains and joys and monotony, and you come out the other end, not with the complete picture but with memories. The strange thing about memories is their unpredictability. What we remember is not always the most notable moments, though it often is. We are certainly going to remember getting “The Talk” from our dad in the bowling alley, but we may also remember, just as vividly, one of the nights we came home much too late to the accusatory figure and voice and words of our drunken stepfather, a scene that occurred a multitude of times, but that we, for one reason or another, remember this specific instance, though not because of any noticeable difference.

Linklater’s work, as I’ve said, makes us think and reflect and even goes so far so as to challenge what a movie is, but it also makes you laugh, and it makes you hurt. His direction and writing are utterly brilliant, bringing a lifelike intensity to each and every scene. This intensity is not just dramatic, but comedic as well, for what is life if not simultaneously a melodrama and a slapstick comedy all rolled up into one. His vision, the film’s massive scope, is one of the most complete ever, and Sandra Adair’s magnificent editing, no doubt aided by Linklater’s watchful eye, ties it all together with ease, creating a movie so free-flowing and fast-paced I never once looked at my watch during its 166 minute runtime.

It’s so hard to talk about acting in a movie like this. Actors and actresses change in both ability and knowledge as they get older. Thus, making a statement about some of the acting is rather difficult. Ellar Coltrane, as the lead, is slightly above average, I’d say. He’s rather good early on, and his later line deliveries are appropriately impassioned, but his role, not matter his age, is just too limited. Sure, he transforms, but it’s a natural progression from being 6 to being 18. His sister, portrayed by director’s daughter Lorelei Linklater, plays it too cute at the beginning, but matures into, I’d argue, the better actor of the two, though her part is too limited for her to make much of an impact. Patricia Arquette, too, is hampered by a limited role. She is never subpar and always exudes a fabulous sense of motherliness, but she’s too limited. The real star of the show is Ethan Hawke, who steals his every scene. Like his son, he transforms but as an adult, not in his transformative years, and his performance is really both entertaining and thought-provoking.

Boyhood is really all about Linklater and his vision, and oh what a vision it is! It’s a movie that challenges us to reflect on our own lives and that hopes we discover our lives are not about us. Instead our lives are about everyone around us, how they formed us, how they shaped us.

 

86

I've changed my rating from a 94 because the often atrocious supporting acting has stuck with me more than most of the other things about it. Also, Mason is just boring as hell.

22 Jump Street

This will be very short and not very well-written. I’m not having the greatest of times finding motivation to write reviews on non-Oscar contenders, so I’ve compromised by mainly just putting down raw thoughts with a little embellishment rather than going too much into the nitty-gritty like I normally do.

Is it as funny as the first? That’s the question that seems to be on everyone’s minds. Many reviewers thought it was, while I feel many I’ve talked to say it’s a close call, but that the original may still be funnier. I honestly don’t know. But it really doesn’t matter because 22 Jump Street is a fabulously entertaining, incredibly hysterical movie that, like its predecessor, breaks the mold of off-the-wall comedies and comes out the other side all the better for it.

Nowadays it seems every comedy is either a bad rom-com (why they’re bad will be left for an entirely different discussion) or a movie with ridiculous people doing ridiculous things. There’s a lack of decent gags (where have sequences like Michael Palin and the dogs gone?) and a plethora of terrible jokes and antics that are annoying rather than funny.

That’s where 22 Jump Street comes in. Sure, it’s silly and outrageous, but it’s not wholly defined by those characteristics. This is especially true of Schmidt and Jenko, the protagonists. They’re really average guys who do extraordinarily ridiculous things in specific situations. But that ridiculous thing is never the redundant. Their normality is also important. Most of the time, they’re like people you know. Their relationships with others are startlingly normal, even if they’re done in an over-the-top fashion. So when they do really stupid stuff it makes it that much funnier.

 

As many have said, the movie works because it’s so self-referential. Aside from the perfect use of references to sequel-quality, the meta nods to genre clichés (the 1^st did this excellently well), to various movies, and to the personalities involved in the movie are all terrific.

To delve a little into some specifics, the screenplay is spot-on and could end up as one of my year’s top five adapted screenplays, just as the original’s did. Once again, Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum are gut-bustingly funny. While most thought Tatum stood out in the original, I was more impressed with how great Hill was as more of the straight man. This time around, though, Tatum really is the MVP. He runs the show from beginning to end and headlines what I probably think is the movie’s funniest scene. But he couldn’t have done it alone. He probably couldn’t have even done it with anybody other than Hill; their chemistry is just that good, which leads to my next point.

Hill should really think about playing the straight man in more comedies. I know I’m in the minority as I find him only reasonably funny when he’s being ridiculous, but I think he really has a tremendous talent for knowing how to make the most out of a straighter part (not a completely straight one, though). Also, Ice Cube is not a good actor. He has just one setting and that’s loud, but he’s used to perfection here. His early scenes were a little too over-the-top for my taste, but his later scenes and reactions are some of the funniest in the movie.

After ruminating a little, I think I’ll say the 1^st installment is slightly funnier. The gags may be equally funny on the surface, but I think the original’s work on a purer level. You laugh because they really and truly were funny, whereas the gags in the 2^nd require the self-reference to achieve the same level of laugh inducement. Some of the originality is gone. That the gags and jokes are still pretty much equally as funny on the whole is really a testament to Hill and Tatum and to directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller as they easily could have presented the movie’s meta aspects poorly. All that being said, 22 is arguably a better overall movie than its predecessor. It has the laughs, but it also brings the heart. Its actual dramatic scenes flow naturally from the previous absurd scenes and are well-done. Schmidt and Jenko’s “break-up” scenes particularly stand out, being both heartfelt and hysterical.

I hope there’s a sequel and I hope there isn’t. The movie gets so much out of making fun of sequels that a less funny third one could ruin everything good that’s happened. That being said, a 3^rd one that knows how to be dumb could be great, and I thoroughly hope we get the chance to enjoy it.

84/100

X-Men: Days of Future Past

I’m going to make this short because you and I both have things to do.

Every once in a while, you find a diamond in the rough, a needle in a haystack, if you will. For the unfortunately burgeoning superhero genre, that diamond, or rather those diamonds, in the rough, are Bryan Singer’s X-Men movies. In the original trilogy (or tetralogy) of X-Men, X2 (United), and The Last Stand (Origins being that questionably included fourth installation), Singer directed the two best: the first and second. Last Stand and Origins are both enjoyable and entertaining enough, but neither attempts to be anything but an action movie, whereas Singer’s tended to include interesting, thoughtful commentaries in addition to being remarkably entertaining action flicks.

Thankfully, Singer has retaken the chair and has rattled off arguably the two most accomplished superhero movies ever not made by Christopher Nolan. Though it has its detractors, First Class is, in my opinion, a terrific movie that succeeds both as a pure action flick but also as a thoughtful commentary on intolerance, and not just that of the oppressors. In X-Men: Days of Future Past, Singer picks up exactly where he left off, delivering a great movie, though not one I can wholeheartedly say lives up to its immediate predecessor (The Wolverine is dumb and doesn’t count).

Beginning about 10-15 years in the future, the film quickly shifts into the 1970s and handles it perfectly. Wolverine (you know who) must find the younger versions of Professor X and Magneto (McAvoy and Fassbender) in order to prevent the human-mutant war that necessitated his time-travelling expedition to 50 years in the past.

The movie’s first scene in the ‘70s is hysterical, and its handling of the ins-and-outs of everything, from the clothing to the cars, is spot-on. The writing helps too, and milks as much humor from its premise as possible without overdoing it. But the script also tosses aside characters too nonchalantly. The really fast guy utilized at the beginning is soon forgot about when his powers almost certainly could have come in handy later on. McAvoy and Fassbender are also sidelined too much to Jackman. Dinklage’s part is also a great example of how to make a villain unthreatening, uncomplicated, and boring, three insults to the man’s significant acting abilities.

Singer’s direction is fluid and frenetic and, dare I say, terrific, strange considering the scatter-shot nature of several of his directorial flourishes (i.e. the Pentagon kitchen scene, the Prof. Xs’ conversation, etc.). But it’s by no means perfect. Too many of the action sequences are choreographed and directed (and possibly even written) so as to become too far-fetched. Most of these actions are results of the mutants’ powers, but if an event is such that I have to think too hard about how on earth it could have happened before I chalk it up to a superpower, then there’s a very good chance the powers have been overutilized. After the original plan goes up in flames, too many of the plot developments require too much suspension of disbelief as well. It almost seems as though the writers said, "It would be cool if this happened to screw everything up. Damn, how the heck are we going to get out of this jam? How about a semi-ridiculous plot twist?" When things like these happen, the movie’s realism, which its non-superhero, allegorical elements have in spades, is undermined.

In comparison to every single other X-Men film ever made, this one’s acting is bar-none the best of the bunch. As the young Professor Charles Xavier (Professor X), James McAvoy gives easily the greatest X-Men performance ever and arguably the greatest ever leading performance in a superhero movie. His borderline-leading-supporting performance is powerful and fun and captivating and emotionally fulfilling. Michael Fassbender, as Erik Lensherr (Magneto), is given much less to do than in First Class, but still manages to create an interesting, believable character throughout, even though the limited screentime I just noted does make his critical character transition too rushed.

Patrick Stewart gives his best performance of the series. His screentime, though, is just too little to make that much of an impact. Nevertheless his dream-based speech scene is one of my favorite scenes in the movie. The truest lead, Hugh Jackman, does a characteristically great job of being a solid, watchable lead, and his one-liner deliveries are all, without exception, hysterical and brilliant, but he never overcomes the unfortunate one-dimensionality the script prescribes for him.

Lastly, Peter Dinklage, who could make an excellent villain, is shunned by the script in terms of both nuance and menace. Usually when a villain is robbed of nuance, he’s only evil. But the script decides to scrap it all and provide Dinklage with some of the most unmenacing scenes and dialogue I can remember. Part of the issue, I believe, is Dinklage himself. He fails to create the sense of fearful hate the man needs. He also lacks the domineering physical presence his character needs. (Watch season two of Game of Thrones to see what I’m referring to. Just because you’re a dwarf doesn’t mean you can’t have a domineering physical presence.)

The action scenes are virtually all excellently done, and I firmly believe it should receive a visual effects Oscar nomination. But as has been previously mentioned, several of the scenes are too ridiculous for a moment or two.

I return to one of the film’s greatest strength, its ability to thoughtfully explore fear of the unknown. Singer’s first to X-Men films and First Class as well delved deeply into humanity’s fear of what it doesn’t know, of the pain we inflict on others when we don’t yet know what they are capable of because we are so scared they might destroy us first. It also takes a brief look at a question altogether unaddressed by contemporary reviews: nature vs. nurture. Lensherr is believes only a violent solution is possible because of the unimaginable cruelty inflicted upon him in his youth, while Xavier’s more pleasant upbringing made him a more caring person. This fourth Singer movie is no different. Its commentary on intolerance is smart and nuanced. Perhaps more importantly, it’s not heavy-handed.

By no means superhuman, the movie is still another fine example of the wonders Singer can do with superheroes.

82/100

Oscar Predictions 2014: April

It has now been over two months since my last post, and I unfortunately am still viewless. That's right, I have yet to see a theatrical release this year. Unlike past years, fortunately, this is not for lack of material. I want to see the following films, most of them because they're supposed to be good (the exception(s) are obvious):

The Grand Budapest Hotel - Wes Anderson is one of my favorite directors/writers around. End of story. Wait, Ralph Fiennes.

Noah - The controversy can die a quick death as far as I'm concerned. In the midst of all the religious schlock (and I'm a practicing Christian) released every year around the time (Easter), a Biblical film made for entertainment, something that arguably hasn't been done since the 1950s has just been released with CGI, bearded Russell Crowe, Emma Watson, and a probably underused Ray Winstone (also not 217 minutes long) , and I'll drown before I skip it.

The Lego Movie - I thought it was going to be seen as child-only material, but it surprised (not just me, I don't think), and I now I really want to see it.

Only Lovers Left Alive - Jim Jarmusch, Tom Hiddleston, Tilda Swinton, AND JOHN HURT!!! What's there to deter me?

Muppets Most Wanted - I'm sure it won't be as good as the initial reboot, but it doesn't need to be to entertain me (especially with Tina Fey in the cast).

300: Rise of an Empire - Eva Green

Enemy - Given Jake Gyllenhaal's powerhouse performance in Prisoners, I'm incredibly excited to see if he can continue putting out top-notch work.

Under the Skin – I like science fiction and appreciate Scarlett Johansson’s acting abilities slighty (ONLY SLIGHTLY) more than most, so when she’s praised more highly than ever before I’m in. Also, I’m a fan of well-made sci-fi, and this looks to fit that bill.

Jodorowsky's Dune - The trailer looked fascinating. I can also get angry it never was (nor will it ever be) made.

To a lesser extent, I also want to see:

Oculus - I don't like horror because I think the scare methods are clichéd and dumb nowadays, but this one, at least according to early reviews sounds different.

Draft Day - I'll admit it, I want to see it, unless it gets poor reviews, of course.

The Railway Man - It's probably be schmaltzy and pastiche, but I have to cover all of my bases. This is just the sort of film the Oscars like going for. The issue is, of course, it came out 6-8 months too early.

Joe - Nicolas Cage's beard looks horribly fake, at least in production stills, but Tye Sheridan gave the best child performance I've ever seen in Mud last year, and I can't wait to see what he does next. This is down here instead of above because I fear it will be too similar, and therefore inferior, to Mud.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - I haven't seen an entire Marvel movie since Iron Man (I've only seen parts of Iron Man 2), but the buzz this is receiving beyond just the usual good visual effects stuff is enticing.

Now on to the main point of this article, Oscar predictions, 10 months out. I’m not going to touch on the non-major categories, except to say that I hope Roger Deakins finally wins for Unbroken, regardless of how good his work actually ends up being in it.

The vast majority, if not all, of my contenders are taken from the contenders listed by Clayton Davis at [link to http://www.awardscircuit.com/oscar-predictions/ as Awards Circuit] (I just don’t have time to do it any other way), but where I place the films will be different

Best Picture:

First 10:

1.      Big Eyes—Tim Burton

2.      Birdman—Alejandro González Iñárritu

3.      Foxcatcher—Bennett Miller

4.      Fury—David Ayer

5.      Gone Girl—David Fincher

6.      Inherent Vice—Paul Thomas Anderson

7.      Interstellar—Christopher Nolan

8.      The Judge—David Dobkin

9.      Trash—Stephen Daldry

10.  Unbroken—Angelina Jolie

Next 10:

11.  Boyhood—Richard Linklater

12.  The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby—Ned Benson

13.  Exodus—Ridley Scott

14.  The Giver—Phillip Noyce

15.  The Grand Budapest Hotel—Wes Anderson

16.  The Homesman—Tommy Lee Jones

17.  Into the Woods—Rob Marshall

18.  Jersey Boys—Clint Eastwood

19.  Kill the Messenger—Michael Cuesta

20.  Suite française—Saul Dibb

Best Director:

First 5:

1.      Paul Thomas Anderson—Inherent Vice

2.      Tim Burton—Big Eyes

3.      David Fincher—Gone Girl

4.      Bennett Miller—Foxcatcher

5.      Christopher Nolan—Interstellar

Next 5:

6.      David Ayer—Fury

7.      Stephen Daldry—Trash

8.      Alejandro González Iñárritu—Birdman

9.      Rob Marshall—Into the Woods

10.  Ridley Scott—Exodus

Another 10:

11.  Wes Anderson—The Grand Budapest Hotel

12.  Ned Benson—The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby

13.  J.C. Chandor—A Most Violent Year

14.  David Cronenberg—Map to the Stars

15.  Michael Cuesta—Kill the Messenger

16.  Saul Dibb—Suite française

17.  David Dobkin—The Judge

18.  Angelina Jolie—Unbroken

19.  Richard Linklater—Boyhood

20.  Terrence Malick—Knight of Cups

Best Actor:

First 5:

1.      Michael Keaton—Birdman

2.      Joaquin Phoenix—Inherent Vice

3.      Brad Pitt-Fury

4.      Robert Downey, Jr.—The Judge

5.      Robin Williams—The Angriest Man in Brooklyn

Next 5:

6.      Steve Carell—Foxcatcher

7.      Brendan Gleeson—Calvary

8.      Philip Seymour Hoffman—A Most Wanted Man

9.      James McAvoy—The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby

10.  Timothy Spall—Mr. Turner

Another 10:

11.  Ben Affleck—Steve Carell

12.  Chadwick Boseman—Get on Up

13.  Benedict Cumberbatch—The Imitation Game

14.  Ralph Fiennes—The Grand Budapest Hotel

15.  Tom Hardy—The Drop

16.  Matthew McConaughey—Interstellar

17.  Viggo Mortensen—The Two Faces of January

18.  Michael Shannon—99 Homes

19.  Timothy Spall—Mr. Turner

20.  Christoph Waltz—Big Eyes

Many places have Michael Fassbender in Macbeth, but IMDB has that listed as a likely 2015 release, so I have not listed it. If Terry Gilliam’s The Zero Theorem ever gets a US release, Christoph Waltz may get in the Another 10 section.

Best Actress:

First 5:

1.      Amy Adams—Big Eyes

2.      Jessica Chastain—The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby

3.      Jennifer Lawrence—Serena

4.      Scarlett Johansson—Under the Skin

5.      Jennifer Garner—Men, Women, & Children

Next 5:

6.      Emily Blunt—Into the Woods

7.      Christina Hendricks—How to Catch a Monster

8.      Julianne Moore—Map to the Stars

9.      Rosamund Pike—Gone Girl

10.  Hilary Swank—The Homesman

Another 10:

11.  Cate Blanchett—Carol

12.  Jessica Chastain—Miss Julie

13.  Marion Cotillard—The Immigrant

14.  Kirsten Dunst—The Two Faces of January

15.  Nicole Kidman—The Railway Man

16.  Carey Mulligan—Far from the Madding Crowd

17.  Natalie Portman—Jane Got a Gun

18.  Charlize Theron—Dark Places

19.  Mia Wasikowska—Madame Bovary

20.  Reese Witherspoon—Wild

Like Fassbender, I left out Cotillard in Macbeth (who would’ve made it into my First 5) because of my uncertainty about the release date.

Best Supporting Actor:

First 5:

1.      Steve Buscemi—The Cobbler

2.      Robert Duvall—The Judge

3.      Oscar Isaac—Mojave

4.      Ray Liotta—Kill the Messenger

5.      Edward Norton—Birdman

Next 5:

6.      Josh Brolin—Inherent Vice

7.      Albert Brooks—A Most Violent Year

8.      Johnny Depp—Into the Woods

9.      Chris O’Dowd—Calvary

10.  Mark Ruffalo—Foxcatcher

Another 10:

11.  James Gandolfini—The Drop

12.  Andrew Garfield—99 Homes

13.  John Goodman—The Gambler

14.  Chris Messina—Manglehorn

15.  Scoot McNairy—Black Sea

16.  Gary Oldman—Child 44

17.  Joaquin Phoenix—The Immigrant

18.  Mark Ruffalo—Can a Song Save Your Life?

19.  James Spader—The Homesman

20.  Stanley Tucci—A Little Chaos

Best Supporting Actress:

First 5:

1.      Judy Greer—Men, Women, & Children

2.      Anna Kendrick—Into the Woods

3.      Samantha Morton—Miss Julie

4.      Meryl Streep—Into the Woods

5.      Naomi Watts—Birdman

Next 5:

6.      Patricia Arquette—Boyhood

7.      Holly Hunter—Manglehorn

8.      Jena Malone—Inherent Vice

9.      Noomi Rapace—Child 44

10.  Kristin Scott Thomas—Suite française

Another 10:

11.  Viola Davis—Get on Up

12.  Rosemarie DeWitt-Kill the Messenger

13.  Vera Farmiga—The Judge

14.  Brie Larson—The Gambler

15.  Lesley Manville—Mr. Turner

16.  Elisabeth Moss—Listen Up Phillip

17.  Miranda Otto—The Homesman

18.  Lily Rabe—Pawn Sacrifice

19.  Kelly Reilly—Calvary

20.  Krysten Ritter—Big Eyes

Julianne Moore could just as easily (probably more easily) be nominated here as in Lead.

Adapted Screenplay:

First 5:

1.      Gone Girl—Gillian Flynn

2.      Inherent Vice—Paul Thomas Anderson

3.      Trash—Richard Curtis

4.      Unbroken—Joel and Ethan Coen, William Nicholson, and Richard LaGravenese

5.      Foxcatcher—E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman

Next 5:

6.      The Grand Budapest Hotel—Wes Anderson and Hugo Guiness

7.      The Homesman—Kieran Fitzgerald, Tommy Lee Jones, Wesley Oliver, and Miles Hood Swarthout

8.      Kill the Messenger—Peter Landesman

9.      Suite française—Matt Charman and Saul Dibb

10.  Wild—Nick Hornby

Another 10:

11.  Child 44—Richard Pryce

12.  Dark Places—Gilles Paquet-Brenner

13.  The Drop—Dennis Lehane

14.  Exodus—Bill Collage, Adam Cooper, and Steven Zaillian

15.  Far from the Madding Crowd—Thomas Hardy and David Nicholls

16.  Into the Woods—James Lapine

17.  Men, Women, & Children—James Reitman and Erin Cressida Wilson

18.  Miss Julie—Liv Ullmann

19.  Serena—Christopher Kyle

20.  The Two Faces of January—Hossein Amini

Original Screenplay:

First 5:

1.      Big Eyes—Scott Alexander and Larry Karazewski

2.      Birdman—Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, and Armando Bo

3.      Boyhood—Richard Linklater

4.      Fury—David Ayer

5.      Mr. Turner—Mike Leigh

Next 5:

6.      Interstellar—Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan

7.      The Judge—Bill Dubuque, Nick Schenk, and David Seidler

8.      Magic in the Moonlight—Woody Allen

9.      Mojave—William Monahan

10.  A Most Violent Year—J.C. Chandor

Another 10:

11.  The Cobbler—Thomas McCarthy and Paul Sado

12.  The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby—Ned Benson

13.  The Good Lie—Margaret Nagle

14.  How to Catch a Monster—Ryan Gosling

15.  The Immigrant—James Gray and Ric Menello

16.  Jupiter Ascending—Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski

17.  Maps to the Stars—Bruce Wagner

18.  Pawn Sacrifice—Steven Knight, Stephen J. Rivele, and Christopher Wilkinson

19.  The Rover—Joel Edgerton and David Michôd

20.  Whiplash—Damien Chazzelle

As you can see, despite wanting to see the films I discussed at the beginning, I think they have zero chance of getting on the list early one morning next February.