The Man With A Child in His Eyes or my review of “Boyhood” *****

There is so much about this movie I could comment on, that it’s almost over whelming.  First of all... what a concept!… but is it a gimmick? I suppose it could be like the movie Memento, you’re either distracted by “the gimmick” or you revel in its originality. So here you have them making a movie over a 12 year period literally taking a boy (Ella Coltrane) from 5 to 18 right in front of your eyes, not employing two or even three actors to play a boy at those ever changing years. At one point there was an audible gasp in the theater when the boy started walking to his locker at around the change of 14 to 15. “That’s the same kid?”, we all thought.

In it’s artistry I would almost compare it to The Tree of Life minus the death of a child tragedy and all… but I would hesitate doing that, because there are those, including me, that that might say that movie was closer to looking at paint drying than a ‘paint’ing…Ha But because it was filled with all these scenes that just cause waves of childhood memories to flood in at times…. and it was the same thing with The Tree of Life.  So conditioned by that tragic movie, I was watching the kid in Boyhood…..and I would cringe. When the kids would do dangerous, crazy things, as did I, as did we all? But ***spoiler alert**** nothing ever happens despite all the cringing…  I survived… as does he, but it’s kind of that “lack of Hollywood” drama that I’m sure some people will find fault with in this film.

There is drama with the mother really picking some losers over the years which I’m sure some people will try and point out as a “dumb woman plot flaw”. But I think this story is partially autobiographical, and that, the director,  Richard Linklater grew up this very way, plus it is obvious the mother is VERY intelligent, as she later gets her degree and a better jobs etc, but I think you could tell she was always putting her kids first even in picking a ‘provider’ over a ‘companion’.  So like many an auteur in film, their own life is a springboard of settings… from the obvious nostalgic feel of Junior High and High School of the near perfection of a movie Dazed and Confused all the way to even including a ‘true story’ like Bernie.  Not that he had anything to do with the events of that story (although I think I heard Linklater set up a place for the real Bernie to live now that he’s out of prison? ) anyway I digress…  A movie like Bernie is “autobiographical” in sense that the state of “Texas”  is it’s own character in the film and it’s Linklater’s point of view on all the different characters and people that make up that state. It’s kind of like the way Woody Allen used have “New York “in his films as a character.

The other thing that will probably turn some people away, but makes me love it all the more, is the way these interesting and intelligent people can have really fascinating philosophical discussions as part of everyday life. From Dazed and Confused with the kids getting stoned on the football field to the ‘talk all night’ or ‘all day’ like movies of Before Sunrise and it’s sequel Before Sunset (A modern My Dinner with Andre sort of approach) to the totally ALL philosophical exploration of the animated brilliance of Waking Life.  All these “smarts “ sort of creep into the movie too as the boy grows into a teenager with maybe too deep of thoughts…  but it plays so well with the mother eventually teaching at college, the dad being creative, and spontaneously fun etc… they raise a VERY intelligent kid in their own way and it’s just amazing.  And the sister too, (the director’s daughter Lorelei Linklater) grows along side her on-screen brother right before your eyes and is a joy to watch.

I was going to talk a little about one scene in particular but it goes along with another scene I had kind of forgotten about.  I was researching the soundtrack (which I’ll get to in a bit) when I started reading the comments on IMDb.com And while I brush off a lot of the haters out there I saw one conservative getting all bent out of shape about “Hollywood’s bashing Bush and praising Obama” etc… and sometimes it’s like they were watching another movie.  The Dad(actually "Mom" and "Dad" were never known as anything else in the movie) being a creative liberal of sorts rebelling against his conservative Texas parents has a few choice words about the so-called “Texan” Bush, and another scene has some house-wife was all gushy about them putting Obama signs in her yard etc… and it was a fleeting glimpses of something the Dad was doing to spend time with the kids and it was sweet and funny…  to be ‘offended’  is just like how Fox News goes looking for trouble where there is none. 

I’m guessing they probably had a similar problem with the scene I WAS going to point out because I think it shows Linklater’s true mastery. The kid has a birthday at the grandparents, he unwraps a bible from grandma, and then grandpa gleefully gives him a shotgun. The “praise the lord and pass the ammunition”, scene could be seen as making fun of these Texas caricatures, and it IS funny…. but you might as well say Jack Black and Linklater where making fun of religion when Bernie from “Bernie” sang those hymns. Because I think there was some real respect for those songs. Here too he maybe poking fun.. but there’s still a real respect and reverence for all things Texan… for instance after the birthday party he shows the family at church, and instead of a fire and brimstone speech from some evangelistic preacher, Linklater has the most pleasant pastor speaking in the most down-home inviting voice and even though it’s almost a throw away scene,  it grounds that whole section of the film and then later the grandfather is teaching the kid how to shoot and the kid is having fun… and so those ‘bible thumping, gun nuts’ are just people. That’s Linklater.

So yes, there is no plot, per say, and that’s going to drive most people crazy, and aside from a few dramatic scenes of the “parade of losers” to quote the boy at one point….  It’s a movie with nothing but brush strokes of events leading to him being 18… and then…  The End… which, again, will leave some people scratching their heads, but me wanting to cheer…. As I watched the credits I anxiously awaited the songs so I could ‘relive’ things like remembering the opening scene, of the little boy staring into the sky contemplating...life? and Coldplay is singing “ Look at the stars, Look how they shine for you.” and so there you are, about to take the ride of your life inside this kids head, ending with him STILL contemplation life in the last scene. But back the music... while the years some songs were released, helped make milestones for ticking off the years  with Sheryl Crow soaking up the sun as they drive away from the old house(2002) , to moving to the suburbs of Arcade Fire (2010)  But then there’s also a scene like Dad’s “playlist” of the Beatles “Black Album”: his collection of Beatles and Post Beatles  for the son’s “education”, so that when “Band on The Run” comes on... you know it's from Linklater’s (and my)childhood (or the Dad’s) but it just elevates the movie into a contagious nostalgia and love of the characters.

So all I can say this movie is SOOOOOO much more than a gimmick… everything about it, is masterful strokes of genius that I enjoyed immensely. As I said, I could go on and one about the “politics” the music, the acting of Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawk or all the others that had to showed up year after year to make this, but suffice to say…. Five Stars.

I have an Addendum: In another synchronicity of the character's/my/ and Linklater's life, is the one scene where the girl asks about the book he's carrying which was "Breakfast of Champion's" by Hoosier author Kurt Vonnegut Jr.. Of course having read at a pivotal point in my life too, and having just recently visited the Vonnegut Museum in Indianapolis, this movie reminded me how that book is sort of a "Catcher In the Rye" for modern day cynics. So another nice stroke in the masterpiece painting that is "Boyhood".

Floating Flotsam, and Harrowing Heroics or my review of “Gravity” *****

Gravity is a cinematic achievement. There’s no doubt about that. From

the earth seen from space vistas to weightless debris, it’s a stunning film to watch. And I’ll just chime in here with each and every critic I read thus far in saying that seeing this on a small screen is unimaginable. I saw it in 3D and on an I-Max screen and it was incredible. Now as far as 3D goes it’s nowhere near the beauty that “Life of Pi” had going for it, but there’s only so much you can do in the emptiness of space, but still, the teardrop that seem to float out above about row three was very effective.

So with all this visual marvels is there story here? I say ‘yes’, if the story you’re looking for is simply survival of getting from point A to B to C. I read one review that said trying to give Sandra Bullock’s character some melodramatic back-story was its only flaw. Now I wouldn’t go that far, and I’d even say the drive and strength that her character musters is essential and all part an incredible performance (a “performance of a lifetime” as Peter Travers in Rolling Stone points out) of SandraBullock.

Now I’d heard this was something of a “chamber theater piece” meaning simplistic sets and all dialog between two people, in a survival setting, something like “Open Water” where the whole movie is just two people talking. Well ***spoiler alert*** GeorgeClooney’s role is small. But, then again, what he does with that small role is big. His veteran astronaut, Matt Kowalsky, playboy-type, playfully playing, easing the tension, really plays well against the rookie virgin voyage of Sandra’s Ryan Stone.  And this guardian role effectively tethers them together literally and figuratively before and after the initial disaster when a Russian satellite destructs and sends debris hurtling towards them.

Sandra Bullock      George Clooney

Sandra Bullock

I had a conversation talking about the back story and how there maybe could have been a flashback to before the mission and other elaborate storytelling devices, but I pointed out how from the very beginning with the opening shot: an amazing 13 minute floating camera that slowly pans, dips, and follows from one crew member to the next, puts you right in the action and feel of those astronauts. And then all the way to the end of the movie it’s almost told in real-time… only minutes of oxygen, only minutes of orbit, before burning in the atmosphere, and so on. You are almost literally sitting along side for the entire ride. To do anything else, like a flashback, would have broken this spell.

So some classic movies may have intricate plots, with twist and turns and in depth character studies etc.. but this too has an character arch of nauseous rookie to triumphant survivor and with every just missed grab of something to hold onto, there’s also scenes of ‘if she didn’t hold on to that hatch flying open she be gone’, that are just as entertaining, and with all it’s stunning visuals of the absolute vastness of space the director Alfonso Cuarón keeps this story grounded(pun intended) in a very human story.

In conclusion, I just want to add that without even realizing it, I really am quite the admirer of this director’s work . Only now am I realizing the diverse range of films I’ve seen are all done by the same guy.  I even probably agree with Peter Travers that the best of the Harry Potter movies The Prisoner of Azkaban was done by him. Plus I have seen his native language movie the coming of age Y Tu Mamá También and one of my all-time favorite films Children of Men. And now adding this stunning achievement makes for quite a résumé.

Which is scarier: A house full of girls or ghosts? Or my review of The Conjuring ****

The Conjuring is a…. well, is a great film. Much like my review on Elysium I was going to say “is a great horror film” but unlike my reserved genre labeling holding back my opinion of praising that film as a science fiction film, this hesitation at such labeling this as simply a great 'horror film' is actually in praise of the movie here. Horror films can so easily be dismissed onto the pile of shock gore fest splatter films and the like, that when a real well made scary film comes along, it really does stand out.

I read some other review I don’t remembers who’s but they pointed out the first thing I too noticed.  There is an opening prologue of sorts, with it’s stark title card, revealing a previous haunting that made this movie have all the earmarks of the aspirations of making a movie to the likes of The Exorcist. While it’s fails to deliver on the scale of that horror epic that fact it comes close to that cinematic high mark in terror, is something to commend indeed.

Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston playing parents of 5 girls

Compared to a movie like James Wan‘s previous excellent Insidious which dealt in parallel universes and plains of existence etc…  this one was shackled by “based on” or “inspired by” or whatever they framed this one with the “true events” setting.  And while that gray area or “dark” grey area, if you must, may extend to a lot of leeway in the levitation people and objects etc… there are some things you just want to say are true for sure, like this family had five girls… ranging from pre-school to high school age. In fact, the person I saw this with and I were humorously trying to keep track, when they had a shot of four of the girls heading to school and we thought we had it… until we were reminded of the pre-school girl! Any sane scriptwriter would have lessened the madness of the reality in this scenario!

But like when the paranormal specialists are brought in along with a local officer the actual mayhem of a simple breakfast among such a crowd was almost comical in presenting this as a real situation. But any comic relief or quite moments were certainly offset with real scares and jumps.

Lili Taylor playing Hide and Seek

One scene that puzzled me in the previews was why clapping hands would be scary, but when the girls are playing a version of hide and seek that include the three allowed clues of where you’re hiding to the seeker, the simple game takes on ominous proportions. And the jump factor still works even though you’ve seen it many times in the previews.

As film progresses you actually find time to separate out the girls, understand the foreboding of the paranormal specialist and her history, and the shear stamina of the parents played by Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston who obviously had their hands full even before they bought the to-good-to-be true countryside deal of a house from the bank.(When you buy something “as is” in an auction you’re probably hoping for some simple water damage not a house full of ghosts…) Anyway the way the interaction of all these people happen really draws you into an investment to liking these people even the paranormal investigators Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson illicit great empathy for them and all the children actresses , and so when one girl starts sleep walking, or the covers are pulled off another, or one sees a little boy in the mirror of a toy, the creepiness factor really builds.

Now eventually things build from the simple scare of a night gowned girl suddenly passing in the frame, to objects and people actually being thrown around the house, plus there’s TheSixth Sense like visions people have of past suicides and such, that build up to the real scare of the mother slowly becoming possessed by the evil presence that was supposedly the start of all the others.

Vera Farmiga               Patrick Wilson

And while it’s true most of the chills and thrills are all done without any blood and gore I suppose it’s the gruesome possession and exorcism that really give it it’s R rating.

The idea of “specialists” seems to have garnered weight ever since the creepy little lady in Poltergeist, for instance, even though the investigators  Patrick and Vera’s characters  are based on real “investigators” Ed and Lorraine Warren that wasn't important to films like the original The Amityville Horror movie even though the same two were involved in the case because at that time the only “specialist” most people associated with evil would be a priest.

Even though this movie supposedly took place around the same time as original The Exorcist that movie treated science as baffled and completely  inadequate with what cursed little Regan. Whereas this movie incorporates the sympathies of science to assure the couple that they “aren't going crazy”. With investigative tools of the time: automatic triggering camera, temperature changing sensors, and super sensitive audio equipment etc.. no infrared or ectoplasm thingamajigs of modern day, but you get the idea. But even here, of course, logic, science and all that tries to give the family foothold on sanity are subjected to pure evil that must be cast out with old fashion exorcism…

The possessed devil doll from the prologue tying in with the Warren’s daughter had some true suspension and horror to it, but was almost was like Wan had bitten off a bit more than he could chew…  unlike the mom who bit off a piece of the police officer’s cheek causing them to throw sheet over her head..ha!comic relief… So even though the daughter subplot was a stretch, and the ending is a bit extreme in it’s chaotic deliverance from evil for the family as children are trapped beneath floor boards or in the car or I forget where all, the unrivaled suspense that got us there to the turmoil and whirlwind of an ending is truly terrifying and extremely well done.

To have and (make sure) to have not… or my review of Elysium ****

Elysium is a…well, is a great movie. I hesitated there only because I was going to say  “is a great science fiction movie" and while this is most definitely a science fiction movie,  I think Neill Blomkamp had too many balls in the air for me to champion this movie as classic science fiction. From the heavy emphasis on action mixed in with all the commentary on poverty, pollution, and health care etc… he had chainsaws, bowling balls and bowling pins in the air for this juggling act… But don’t get me wrong this is about as good as it gets with film making and story telling. Personally I thought the heavy emphasis on the action made it loose some of the overall effectiveness on all the other social commentary it had going for it. To me, by definition, great social commentary is something that all great science fiction has. And while I think Neil had great aspirations for doing just that he also had an eye on the box-office potential of super-hero level box-office potential.

What's interesting is I saw this with a conservative friend who also likes science fiction but in hindsight it’s something I should have asked them about because liking science fiction HAS to be at odds with much of their regular day to day thinking .

The Elysium space station

Matt Damon

Most of the best science fiction rally against corporations out of control, or rally the against the repression of freedom of thought and expression, fighting  the corruption of power and money, human rights over misguided self righteous morals etc… all those things his political party usually stands for…. And while they were typically busy with counting the number of “F-bombs”  rather than counting the number of crimes against humanity, all the action I think helped mask the extremes of the ‘haves’ against the ‘have nots’ and it's "class warfare" message. This way it did not seem to offend their senses the way the director's previous attempt at the allegories of apartheid and all ‘the good things it had to offer’, that were so well played out in his District 9. And speaking of that movie... considering the relatively tiny budget he worked with on that one, it was very interesting to see him balance the "brain and brawn" with the slick and fantastic look of this film with it's much bigger budget.

Matt Damon  Alice Braga

But aside of all the "action versus message" in this film what I really liked was some of the turns this film took. Every time this movie started to head in a predictable direction Neil would throw in a curve ball, literally crashing things to the ground like when they were delivering the prisoners to the orbiting space station Elysium. Now there may have been a few stretches of believably in the plot where Matt Damon's character Max just happens to get a lethal dose of radiation that sends him on his suicidal mission, at the exact same time Jodie Foster's character Delacourt, the security leader of the one-precenters on Elysium is planning a coup, but these complaints are minor when dealing the humanity Matt Damon’s character builds up as Max trying to save all those on Earth in particular his childhood friend Frey(Alice Braga) and her sick daughter that needing to get to the instant healing only available on Elysium.

Jodie Foster

Now, Richard Roeper called Jodie Foster’s acting something like the worst performance in the history of film, or something like that, while Peter Travers said she was “killing it, as a Dick Cheney in heels.” I was probably somewhere in the middle. And while I would be hard pressed to particularly defend the locked jawed grit she was grinding out, the Cheney comment is laughably accurate.  In particular, I liked the fact she was not ‘chewing the scenery’ as is often the case with great actors in villainous roles.

Sharlto Copley

So the idea of how rich people really don’t care if poor people have access to medical care is scarily reflective of today’s world… just look… yet another vote by old rich white dudes against health care for the poor is in today’s headlines… and taking the idea of unregulated corporations polluting the world to climate changing levels wrapped up around several cool gun battles, and fight scenes between a exoskeleton enhanced Matt Damon and psycho villain Kruger(Sharlto Copley)  can seem a bit flippant, or incongruous, still...I walked away from this film extremely entertained and yes even intellectually challenged, so having said everything I just said, it really is a great ‘science fiction movie’… “f-bomb” ? “Was there?  ‘spose so… and how many tattoos did they have?”