Monday, July 28, 2014

Believe the hype: 'Boyhood' is the definitive coming-of-age movie

There is no such thing as a universal adolescent experience. Socio-economic, cultural and gender factors play an enormous role in how our lives unfold. And on a micro level, the role your parents play in your upbringing, for better or worse, has a huge impact on who you are, at least initially.

That said, Richard Linklater's sprawling new film, Boyhood, comes closer than any film I've seen to capturing the nature of growing up -- especially in the last decade or so.

Remarkably, the movie accomplishes this without even once resorting to cliches or anything remotely resembling a "Hollywood moment." In fact, it's one of the least self-consciously cinematic films I've ever seen.

Not a single shot really calls attention to itself, the cinematography is straightforward and the performances, while uniformly excellent, don't feel the least bit broad or unconvincing. The film feels like your favorite Freaks and Geeks episodes (in my opinion the best portrayal of adolescence ever on television) condensed into a cohesive 2 hour and 40-some minute opus.

And I say all this after expecting to be disappointed. For weeks I've heard nothing but rapturous praise for Boyhood and I was convinced it could never live up to the hype. This is partly because we are so cynical about so-called "Oscar bait" films now. No matter how excellent a movie is you will always find detractors. There are people who take pot shots at 12 Years a Slave for example. And I figure if The Godfather were released today there would be whole Internet memes about how Marlon Brando mumbled too much.

Such is life in the new social media age -- which actually dovetails nicely into the film, which brilliantly captures how communication and how we relate to each other has evolved and continues to both isolate us and connect us in interesting new ways. But I digress -- there's a lot of film to cover here.

For the uninitiated, I will explain the film as best I can. It is actually sort of plot-less, which may alienate some traditional filmgoers, but it invigorated me. Basically you get to know a young boy named Mason (and his extended family and friends) from age 6 to 18. This is largely a snapshot of a life, with moments both profound and passing, which add up to a pretty compelling portrait of a teen who's life is about to really begin.

I'm of the mindset that you don't really become the person you are until college and the movie pretty much affirms that concept. Although it also shows how early life experiences can inform the perspective you carry with you once you make the first move to live on your own.

Since there is so much to unpack about the film I will focus on broad strokes:

The movie is so incredibly unassuming. Every moment feels real and incidental. The story just "happens."

The performances are all very believable and honest, particularly Patricia Arquette who should be a shoo-in for a best supporting actress nomination for her incredibly sympathetic portrayal of Mason's exasperated mother.
Ellar Coltrane and Ethan Hawke in Boyhood
The film does a wonderful job of making passing references to the time period without clobbering you over the head with them. We are reminded of 9/11, the Iraq War, Obama's election and much more in ways that are both funny and telling, without the movie getting overwhelmed by them. The theme of this movie is that you don't seize the moment, moments seize you. The same thing is true when it comes to these milestone events.

Characters pass through this film much in the same way people pass through our lives. We have moments with someone, sometimes memorably, often casually, but when they show up later, perhaps at an opportune time, only then do we realize how much they meant to us. There is a scene late in Boyhood that I won't spoil, but which I think some more cynical viewers will call out as maudlin and manipulative. In my opinion it could have been but Linklater underplays it so beautifully, it really is truly touching.

Speaking of Linklater, I was never an obsessive fan. I enjoyed Dazed and Confused, loved School of Rock and appreciated a lot of his other work like the existential Waking Life and the quirky biopic Bernie. But I was never a diehard acolyte. But I binge watched the Before trilogy prior to Boyhood (the largely two-person series of romantic films starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy as the same lovers over the course of 9-year intervals). Those films, teeming with life, while largely plotless and structure-less, prepared me for Boyhood's unorthodox rhythms and ambling pace. These are definitely not films for everyone, and could easily be dismissed as indulgent, and yet they spoke several truths to me that still reverberate.

And while I'm on the topic of Ethan Hawke movies, let me also praise his dynamic performance here. His scenes alongside Ellar Coltrane, the remarkable young man who plays Mason over a 12-year-span, are some of the most poignant depictions of a father-son relationship I've ever seen. Hawke has certainly starred in his fair share of stinkers, but he can be wildly entertaining and likable when he wants to be. And here he never hits a false note.

The same can largely be said for Coltrane, who gives such a naturalistic performance it can be easily overlooked. One of the great joys of Boyhood is watching him evolve from a somewhat introverted, shy kid into a very witty, self-aware and perceptive man. In later scenes Coltrane comes alive and shows an attractive charisma which suggests he could be a major star.

Patricia Arquette and a young Ellar Coltrane in Boyhood
The movie's title spells it out, it's a movie largely centered on a boy, so it may not be something that everyone relates to. Certainly for me, the scenes of male bonding and bullying really rang true. But the portrayals of the main character's sister (played terrifically by the director's real life daughter Lorelei Linklater) and girlfriends over the years are fully realized in the film too. Linklater seems to really appreciate giving women their due in his films, which shouldn't be so extraordinary, but unfortunately it is.

Is Boyhood a masterpiece? I think so. I find myself having spirited discussions about it for days afterwords, which is almost always a good sign. Is it flawless? Of course not, no movie is. It's probably a little too long and some moments arguably are a little redundant. Still, it's a movie that feels true. Many films promise to be a look at real life in America, 1999's wildly overrated American Beauty comes to mind, but they're actually very conventional, corporate suits/test-audience-influenced pablum.

Boyhood lived up to the overwhelming critical praise it's received. It was hilarious, humane and definitely thought provoking. I am sure it will go down as one of the great films of the year.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

'Snowpiercer' may be the future of movies and that's a good thing

Tilda Swinton in Snowpiercer
Good old fashioned word-of-mouth and widespread critical acclaim has accompanied two recent, "small" movies -- Boyhood, which I intend to see shortly, and the gonzo sci-fi epic Snowpiercer, which I caught last night on-demand (more on that in a second).

Snowpiercer is an odd curio. It boasts an eclectic international cast (including Captain America himself Chris Evans), solid production values and an exciting original premise.

It's the year 2031. Global warming has largely destroyed the planet, the lone survivors live aboard an incredibly souped-up super train but are brutally segregated by class.

Despite such a unique and timely premise, the movie is barely getting a release in theaters and is being offered simultaneously for an affordable price for viewers to download and watch at home. The production of the movie, directed by South Korean Bong Joon-ho, was apparently somewhat plagued by conflict, with Joon-ho reportedly clashing with producer Harvey Weinstein over the film's length. Still, you'd think a movie with plenty of action and rave reviews would get a real chance to capitalize on the marketplace.

It's been a disappointing season for summer movies both financially and critically.The year's biggest film -- also starring Chris Evans -- is the latest Captain America film, a solid superhero flick, but in my opinion not a movie that really reinvigorates the genre. Other than 22 Jump Street, the new Planet of the Apes and the new X-Men film, most of the big event movies have stumbled. The summer could have used Snowpiercer, instead viewers have had to discover the movie on their own.

This may be where the industry is headed. Costs continue to skyrocket while attendance is either stagnant or dropping. Young people are rarely drawn to theaters in droves anymore and the studios are content to churn out sequels or films based on established brands/franchises to appeal to an increasingly crucial foreign market. So where do discerning adult American filmgoers go?

Well, for one thing, they're flocking to television more and more -- especially when programming like House of Cards and Breaking Bad can rival many mainstream films for quality and impact. But the industry and audiences are also still embracing new avenues to provide and access content, and Snowpiercer seems to be a sign of things to come.

Chris Evans in Snowpiercer
If it is, I'm heartened, because this is a bold, unapologetically political adventure that I think will resonate far longer than most of the mainstream record-breaking fare. It's not a flawless movie, but it is an endlessly inventive one that really sticks with you after the credits have finished rolling.

I must admit I approached the movie with a certain level of cynicism. I thought 'yet another post-apocalyptic thriller'? Boring. And Chris Evans? Boring. But the movie rises above its genre conventions and Evans shows new depth I've never seen from him before. I was a big fan of Jong-hoo's breakout 2006 film The Host, where he had fun both sending up and revitalizing the monster movie, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Just like in The Host, Snowpiercer wears its politics on its sleeve. Evans leads a sympathetic cohort of unfortunate souls condemned to live at the back of the train, where they are fed only a mush of protein and their children can be snatched away for God knows what. The film quickly establishes the downtrodden as our heroes and the decadent 1% who inhabit the front of the train as the enemy.

The climate change backdrop is compelling, as is Tilda Swinton's deliriously over-the-top and barely recognizable turn as a shill for the mysterious Wilford, who constructed the train's "sacred" engine and appears to control the train's rigid hierarchy from his isolated perch. There are elements of Terry Gilliam's work here and the Mad Max movies, but what sticks out most for me about Snowpiercer is its truly international flavor.

Evans does his leading man thing, but Kang-ho Song (a Korean actor and one of the stars of The Host) is nearly his equal and his part doesn't contain an ounce of cliche. It was also nice to see Octavia Spencer is a terrific turn that eschews wisecracks for genuine pathos. The movie does have a sense of humor, but its earnestness is what's most refreshing.

I'm not sure if it'll make my top 10 list, we're still months away from the "quality" movie season which now seems be shrinking each year, but Snowpiercer is great entertainment and a real dose of originality during a sequel-obsessed summer.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

20 reasons why 'Blade Runner' is one of my favorite movies

Blade Runner
As much as I love Blade Runner I am consistently amazed that it was even made. And the fact that it came out in 1982, the year of E.T. and generally more light-hearted fare, makes its unlikely resilience over the years even more impressive. Viewing it today, it's easy to see why it bombed when it was first released and remains largely a cult film today.

It's slow paced. Although it has Harrison Ford in the lead role of Rick Deckard (a 'blade runner' tasked with 'retiring' errant replicants -- an invented term for androids), he's mostly devoid of his usual charisma and he spends most of the film getting beat up by the bad guys, including two women.

The plot is murky and moody, and the movie's finale is dark and mysterious. This is not the stuff of mainstream science fiction blockbusters.

And yet, the movie has endured, partly due to its groundbreaking, and incredibly influential, production design -- but also because the film's slyly complex script continues to raise questions, provoke debate and inspire countless films in its wake.

Even if you haven't seen Blade Runner, I guarantee you've seen a movie that has ripped it off. Arguably no movie has played a bigger role in shaping our perceptions of what the future world might look like.

Each time I see this movie I love it more, which, to me, is always the hallmark of an all-time favorite. It stars two of my favorite actors -- Ford and Rutger Hauer, it's Ridley Scott working at the peak of his powers, and it's that old rarity -- a big budget movie with smart ideas in it. Here are 20 other reasons I adore this movie.

The opening shot
1) The opening shot - From the very first startling image, a flame reflecting in a close-up of an eye, Blade Runner announces itself as something unlike any other sci-fi movie before or since. It's a film interested in arresting, poetic images, as much as it is story and character.

Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner
2) Practical special effects - As my girlfriend and I watched this movie the other night, she kept marveling, and rightfully so, at how phenomenal this movie looks. And what's most incredible about its scope is that it wasn't achieved with computer effects. Most of what you see on the screen was practical, built by hand and in some cases functional. It keeps the film from being dated.

3) Different versions - Personally, I am an aficionado of the 1992 director's cut, but I love it when a movie is so epic that there are various versions that fans can enjoy. There is the much-maligned theatrical version, which features voiceover from Ford. There's the more violent European version. And yet another cut from Scott, deemed the final cut, from 2007.

4) The score - Vangelis, the moody electronic group, will always be most famous for their classic inspirational theme from Chariots of Fire, but their work is equally memorable here. Their score perfectly meshes with the film's smoky, rain drenched visuals. It manages to be both sultry and creepy at the same time. And the final theme, which plays over the end credits, always gets me amped.

5) Unlikely casting coups - Sean Young, infamous for being difficult and quite possibly crazy, is terrific here as a woman who learns rather abruptly that she is a replicant and all her memories are simply "implants". Darryl Hannah has always been a hit or miss actress for me, but in this movie she strikes just the right note as a seemingly innocent "pleasure model" replicant, with a sinister side.

6) Edwards James Olmos - For me, one of the movie's standouts is the always-terrific Edward James Olmos as the mysterious Gaff. He spends most of the movie speaking a strange, indecipherable dialect and yet you can't take your eyes off him. When he finally speaks English, in the next to final scene, he may have the best lines in the movie. And his routine of making little Origami pieces takes on added gravitas with each repeated viewing.

7) Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty - As I've written before, Rutger Hauer is a one of my favorite character actors, and a reliable villain. His menacing and theatrical performance here is arguably his best and most memorable. He has a way of delivering his dialogue; his patience makes him more profound. And the arc of his character is far more surprising than most traditional sci-fi bad guys.

8) Voight-Kampff tests - One of the coolest conceits of this movie (which forms the bedrock for some of it's best scenes) is that a seemingly random question and answer interview can determine whether someone is a replicant or not. The questions seem meaningless, and yet are strangely hostile.

Darryl Hannah in Blade Runner
9) Tyrell - I don't know what the deal is with character actor Joe Turkel, but he projects genuine menace in two of my favorite films, this and The Shining. It's a small but pivotal villain role he plays here -- Tyrell -- creator of the Nexus 6 replicants. He is cold and heartless, but undeniably brilliant and innovative. His dialogue is pitch perfect and his demise is one of the most unforgettable in movie history.

10) Joanna Cassidy - There a lot of very sexy women in Blade Runner, but for me the most alluring is the professional snake charmer (and secret replicant) played by Joanna Cassidy. Her revealing outfit is certainly flattering to the eye, but it's her confidence that make her stand out to me the most.

11) The set design - Part of why the landscape of Blade Runner is so cool and effective is that it looks lived in. Too many futuristic movies before and since look too pristine and/or extreme to be believable. But Ridley Scott and his team made a point to make their world look retrofitted and a plausible extension of the tech-drenched climate of the early-80s. Part of the joy of watching the movie in 2014 is seeing how its predictions of our world today were often quite accurate.

12) The violence - Every once in a while I enjoy a movie that makes violence look pretty (I am thinking of Hard Boiled or The Matrix) but generally speaking I think it should be portrayed how it really is -- brutal and terrifying. Ford's lead character gets hurt badly in this movie and you get a real sense of the strength and power of the replicants in scene after scene. It gives the movie a weight that frothier sci-fi films don't have.

13) The unicorn reverie - So this one is hard to explain without spoiling the movie for you. I'll just say that in the director's cut of this film, Ridley Scott presents the audience with a gorgeous image of a unicorn, which seems totally believable and has huge significance when it comes to the meaning of that version of the film's ending. It's a great touch, which speaks volumes.

14) Flying cars done just right - When we think about the future, we think about flying cars. Blade Runner has them but instead of souped up speedsters, they glide and hover. This may be more a symptom of the limits of 1982 effects and technology but they work like gangbusters.

Edward James Olmos in Blade Runner
15) Life cycles - Another one of the great conceits of this movie is that replicants have a four-year lifespan programmed into their hardware, something they push back against as they grow in consciousness.

16) The silences - This probably turns people off of the movie more than anything else, but I find, as I get older, that too many sci-fi/action spectacles substitute noise and a blaring soundtrack for actual narrative or thoughtfulness. They bombard you with CGI and the whole enterprise becomes forgettable rather quickly. Because Blade Runner takes its time and really lingers on its imagery, you always remember it.

17) The humor - For such a dark film, there are some strange moments of humor that I appreciate more every time I see it. They're not what I call "ha ha" funny scenes, more like throwaway lines. For example, in the final minutes, Roy Batty is pursuing Deckard -- who is pathetically trying to scale a building to get away from him -- and Batty teasingly asks, "Where are you going?"

18) The Deckard-Batty fight - Speaking of which, this is a mano-y-mano battle that in no way matches expectations. It's scary and intense, with Batty basically toying with Deckard until he decides (SPOILER ALERT) to let him live.

19) The Roy Batty monologue - Again, SPOILER ALERT, right before his demise the nominal villain of Blade Runner turns out to be the most humane, soulful 'person' in the movie. Hauer delivers a profound little monologue about his life, and how his memories are lost to him now like "tears in rain." Incredible stuff -- that was largely improvised by Hauer himself.

20) The director's cut ending - Do I need to say it? SPOILER ALERT. Olmos' Gaff delivers that great line "it's too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?" Deckard goes to retrieve Sean Young's character so they can ostensibly run away together. But on the way out the door he finds something, left behind by Gaff, which pretty much confirms that Deckard himself is a replicant. They leave. Cut to black. Mind blown.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

'Mean Girls' is no masterpiece, but it's a fun diversion after a decade

Mean Girls
Why do high school movies always insist on reducing people to types? Is it because that's pretty much what we actually do to each other in high school? And since the people making these movies are always pretty far removed from high school -- even if they write the material -- they are usually working off of their own memories, which are likely less nuanced.

Probably part of the reason so much of us hated high school, or like me were somewhat indifferent to it, is because whether you wanted to be or not, you were labeled, grouped, and simplified into being a "thing" and if you dared to not be conformist, it was worse.

At its best moments, Mean Girls, which shockingly is now a decade old, sort of gets that. For a certain generation of filmgoers this is their Citizen Kane, and while I like the movie just fine, it's incredibly conventional and sort of simplistic in a way I wouldn't expect from a writer as talented and creative as Tina Fey.

For all the brouhaha over Lindsay Lohan, and how this film is routinely held up as a tribute to her talent -- she's really just OK in it. She's a decent straight woman to a cast of far more interesting characters. I also wish she wasn't saddled with an under-cooked romantic subplot with a thoroughly boring and unconvincing male character. The dynamic between the girls is what makes this movie funny and interesting to me.

Amy Poehler as "The Cool Mom"
I'm not even all that amused by Lizzy Caplan and Daniel Franzese as Lohan's vaguely goth and flamboyantly gay friends respectively. Their characters feel dated and the constant self-referential nature of their quips takes me out of the movie. Why does Hollywood insist on making characters who are supposed to be kids talk like adults?

Still, Rachel McAdams, Lacey Chabert and even Amanda Seyfried are pitch perfect as "The Plastics". The movie nails how the so-called popular girls are always the most neurotic. I also think two of the funniest things in the movie are supporting turns from SNL vets Tim Meadows as the social awkward principal and Amy Poehler as a Kris Jenner-esque type wannabe "cool mom."

Ironically, this character doesn't seem too far removed for Lohan's real-life mom, and I think is an archetype worth a film of its own.

For my money, everything Mean Girls did ten years ago Heathers did far better back in 1988. That movie works better for me because it eschewed any attempt to appear realistic and instead chose to be savage satire aimed at the heart of "popular" society. Its off-kilter sensibility, even danger, is missed in Mean Girls, with generally light-hearted tone and, for the most part, feel-good ending.

Nevertheless, this movie really resonated and still does to this day. Some of its one-liners and catchphrases have really worked themselves into the millennial speech pattern (stop trying to make 'fetch' happen!) and it clearly rings true for some people, just not me. I enjoy it as a diverting time capsule of mid-2000s white people problems.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

I finally saw 'Love Actually' and I didn't love it, actually

There are a handful of movies that "everyone" has seen that I have studiously avoided. Usually it's because the genre or subject matter doesn't interest me (the Harry Potter films), but sometimes it's because I feel like the movie has become so hyped that it could never live up to the inflated expectations I'm inevitably going to have.

This conceit probably applies to Love Actually, the British ensemble romantic comedy I have repeatedly been told I "have" to see, more often than not by very attractive single women. I tend to be very responsive, as a rule, to what very attractive single women tell me to do -- but for years I haven't been able to bring myself to watch this cult classic, even though it's been streaming on Netflix for months.

Well, I finally bit the bullet and just as I suspected I didn't really think the movie was anything all that special.

Don't get me wrong, I am not someone who is turned off by the concept of a holiday movie -- I just like my Christmas themed films to have a little edge or nastiness to them (think Gremlins or National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation). And when it comes to romantic comedies, I struggle, because I feel like there's almost no suspense about how they're going to end so I typically find myself predicting scenes before they happen.

About 10 minutes into the movie, once the somewhat intrusive early-2000s score dies down, Hugh Grant, playing as he almost always does some variation of Hugh Grant, appears as the prime minister having a "meet cute" with an underling. As soon as the scene ends you know they're going to get together and there will be the inevitable class/status conflicts, misunderstandings and eventual reconciliation.

Love Actually
The movie attempts to fight that possible lethargy by over-stuffing the movie with tons of famous or soon-to-be famous faces. The effect becomes overwhelming around the time Laura Linney shows up.

Very few directors can deftly weave multi-plot movies -- Robert Altman was the master of it. But the director of this film, Richard Curtis, as Roger Ebert put it in his favorable review seems to be "working from a checklist of obligatory movie love situations and doesn't want to leave anything out."

That said, the movie has its virtues -- prime among them an utterly likable, charming cast populated by attractive and appealing actors like Liam Neeson, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Colin Firth, Emma Thompson and Keira Knightley -- just to name a few. They all labor gamely to keep the overlong movie from becoming too corny.

I enjoyed the moments of savage British humor. Bill Nighy is a riot as a washed up rock star trying to mount a comeback with a truly awful holiday song. And the subplot of Martin Freeman's character, performing as a stand-in in a sex scene, is genuinely amusing and original.

But the movie doesn't have anything to say to me. It's just a movie with cute British people acting extra cute and British. It veers into sitcom territory and never quite feels cinematic. The women are all openly longing to be loved, the men are all aloof until they aren't. And the music is always tugging at your heartstrings or telling you how to feel, depending on your point of view.

Now before I am assaulted, I understand that this a movie very close to a lot of people's hearts. I have more than my share of comfort food movies too, so I can respect that. But it's not a very good film.

And it might be fair to say that this harmless trifle ended up spawning a whole genre of awful ensemble romantic romps over here in the states (all those movies named after holidays), and that, to me, is unforgivable.

Monday, July 14, 2014

'Rocky Horror' virgin no more: Popping my midnight screening cherry

Tim Curry at peak hotness
This weekend I finally realized a long-held film buff goal -- I intended my first midnight screening of The Rocky Horror Picture Show with a coterie of sexy, uproarious friends. In addition to a vicious hangover, I came away with several takeaways.

Before I get into all the details, I'll answer everyone's first question: did I dress up? Yes and no. I wore glasses and a bowtie in homage to Brad, with a custom-made "Rocky Horror Virgin" t-shirt made by my girlfriend.

Perhaps I'll take the leap into wearing drag the next time, although my friends who did left some big heels to fill.

I've always enjoyed the movie on its own terms, ever since I first discovered it during its endless re-runs on Vh1. I've never known if it became a phenomenon because people thought it was so bad it's good or if people were just slow to catch on to how awesome it is.

I'd like to think it's the latter and not the former, mainly because I'm the kind of guy who gets emotionally attached to films I like. As my girlfriend very aptly put it, Rocky Horror is "absurd and it makes no sense but it's still incredibly fun and sexy." It's also pretty wildly subversive, especially for a 1975 film.

My favorite thing about it has probably got to be Tim Curry's performance. One of the rare performances that is probably equally titillating to both men and women -- his Dr. Frank-N-Furter has one of the greatest movie entrances of all time, a spectacular voice, wit, charisma -- he's breathtaking.

A close second would be Susan Sarandon, who is so incredibly sexy in this movie it should be a crime. Obviously she still looks phenomenal today, but she has never looked more delicious than she does here.
Susan Sarandon at peak hotness

As for the midnight experience? Well, of course it was a blast. I had been to this kind of thing before, most specifically The Room, but obviously this is the mother of all midnight screenings -- so I was a little worried I would be intimidated by the whole thing.

To prepare, I watched the movie a couple times beforehand to try to learn the call-and-response gags and I got properly wasted to weaken my inhibitions.

When my crew of friends arrived I was pleasantly surprised to see (with the exception of a few film snob geeks) that the crowd was incredibly sweet and welcoming to newcomers like me.

The screening opened with an impromptu dance party and then Rocky Horror first-timers were beckoned to the front of the theater to either drop it like it's hot or perform their best fake orgasm. I didn't participate in this only due to drunkenness but I did get to see my girlfriend and an Aussie friend of ours pretend to be in the throes of passion with each other. Not half bad.

Once the screening got going it was a delight to play along with the prop throwing, although I don't know if I could ever memorize all the one-liners you're encouraged to hurl at the screen.

Perhaps it was the fact that I was surrounded by funny, upbeat friends -- but the whole experience has a warm, supportive vibe about it, even if we were encouraged to scream "slut" at the screen on a regular basis.

It's an experience that everyone who wants to have an open mind should have. Again, the movie itself is not so much to be understood as enjoyed. The finale, which takes a sudden turn to sci-fi is confusing at best, and the songs while enjoyable enough are not exactly compelling musically.

But who cares? The movie is a joy to behold for its vivid visuals, its unabashed sexuality -- both gay and straight, and its undeniable originality. It's about to enter its fortieth year playing in theaters, the longest theatrical run in movie history, and after this unique experience I can easily see it running for forty more.

Friday, July 11, 2014

Give 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' a chance, you won't regret it

There is a certain contingent of film snobs who will  never give Dawn of the Planet of the Apes a chance. They dismiss it as a CGI ape movie, or as a reboot of a rehash of a dated B-movie.

Nevermind the fact that remakes have been a Hollywood staple forever. And yes, sometimes they can surpass the original.

If you can get past those kind of biases and the snark and accept this movie on its own terms, you will not be disappointed.

I can safely say -- barring a huge surprise -- that this is the movie of the summer and one of the best films of the year. The reviews are right, believe the hype -- it's fantastic.

Director Matt Reeves -- who has shown a real visual flair and knack for storytelling with Cloverfield and even more so with Let Me In (one of the most underrated horror movies ever) -- has said he set out to make "The Godfather of ape movies," and boy, did he ever.

Let me start at the beginning. I am not a fan of the 1968 Charlton Heston original and its offspring. I found the movie entertaining for its camp value and its influence on the sci-fi genre, but I found the racial subtext of the film to be more than a little problematic.

What's memorable about Tim Burton's 2001 reboot is how unmemorable it was. It was a pure money grab (arguably the beginning of a decline in Burton's talents) and it added nothing to the original's audacious concept of apes ruling over humans in a futuristic version of Earth.

Still, there was money to be made and from a creative standpoint, a fresh way to approach this material. The best reboots have resurrected series or characters who had appeared to run their course (think Batman after the debacle of 1997's Batman & Robin) by taking them in a completely different direction that still retains what we like best about the original conceit.
Clake and Serkis in Dawn of the Planet of Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes accomplished that and more. Not only was it the surprise breakout smash of the summer of 2011, it also featured perhaps the best use of CGI I'd ever seen and completely sidestepped the political incorrectness of the early Apes films by having the monkeys appear to be real -- instead of actors in elaborate make-up.

This brilliant choice -- buoyed by incredible motion capture work by the genius Andy Serkis -- eliminated the element of the Apes films that made them silly. Instead of hyper-articulate, even urbane character actors playing dress up, you got to see creatures evolve, and form a sophisticated consciousness, personality and eventually, ability to communicate.

I am happy to say that Dawn of the Planet of the Apes tops its predecessor in every way. I have heard some comparisons to the place The Empire Strikes Back takes in the Star Wars pantheon. This is apt. The film is riskier than the first one from the start. It plunges you right into the world of the apes, which, make no mistake about it, are the real protagonists of this film.

The story is darker and scarier. Since the events of the last film, a sizable portion of the world's population has been wiped out by a virus and the apes have retreated into the woods where they have established their own society. Humans are desperately trying to find sustainable energy, which for reasons I won't spoil, lead them into direct contact with the monkey population.

The apes are lead by Ceasar, the indelible character brought to life by Serkis in the 2011 film. Here he is older, wiser and even more richly detailed. This is a character with a real presence. There is not a false note in the characterization and the artistry. If there was ever a case to be made that a special Oscar be given for a performer it should be Serkis for his motion capture work here.

Like in Rise, the weakest element here are the human beings. But at least Jason Clarke imbues his character with a lot more expressive feeling than the detached James Franco did as the human star of the original. The rest of the non-CGI cast is fine, but the real show here is the battle among the apes -- whose growing and maturing culture shows real nuance and tensions.

The expressiveness of their face, the excellent use of sound to create their movements and their voices -- are a feast for the eyes and ears. Again, if you're someone who can only snicker at the sight of an ape riding a horse, this is not the movie for you. But I was so drawn in by the filmmaking prowess that I ignored the absurdity (and yes, the occasional plot hole) and went along for the ride.

For a summer movie season that has been largely disappointing for me, I finally found a movie I can get behind wholeheartedly. Along with The Grand Budapest Hotel and Under the Skin, it'll likely make my top 10 list for the year.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Dear Melissa McCarthy, don't become the next Adam Sandler

Melissa McCarthy
Like most moviegoers, I first became aware of Melissa McCarthy when I saw her in her breakthrough, Oscar-nominated role in the blockbuster film Bridesmaids.

And like most of America I fell in love with her improvisational, outrageous comedic style. She practically stole the movie with her lovable performance as Megan, the bridesmaid who dreams of starting a fight club.

I was thrilled the Academy Awards gave a rare nod to a comedic performance and was also excited to see someone who did not fit conventional Hollywood standards of beauty and stardom become a household name almost overnight.

But then came Identity Thief, The Heat and Tammy -- each film seemingly more conventional and contrived than the last (although I must admit I haven't seen Tammy and don't intend to). Suddenly the buoyancy and unpredictability of this undeniably talented comedienne has metastasized into something far worse: shtick.

Don't get me wrong, some of my favorite comedians of all time have scored repeatedly by playing roughly the same notes of their signature persona. For instance, while I've appreciated Will Ferrell's attempts to stretch as an actor, I've always liked him best when he plays a clueless blowhard buffoon.

But his movies tend to have "ideas" in them, some satirical take or even strains of dark humor. What has troubled me about McCarthy's mainstream hits of late is how formulaic they've seemed.

At first Identity Thief seemed like it might be inspired. The casting of Jason Bateman and McCarthy as a modern day Odd Couple had a lot of potential. But the movie tries to reign McCarthy in my giving her a maudlin backstory that's supposed to tug at our heartstrings.

The Heat went too far in the opposite direction. While I admire the film's front-and-center female relationship, it casts the McCarthy character as almost an over-the-top cartoon. There's nothing "funny" about police brutality, I don't care who's perpetrating it. And it seemed like director Paul Feig (who also helmed Bridesmaids) gave McCarthy full reign to do whatever she wanted, instead of helping her shape a performance that resembled a plausible human being.

Identity Thief
In Bridesmaids, McCarthy was wild and crazy but she also came across as humane and likable.There was certainly humor derived from her size but there was also plenty of more cerebral gags and glimpses into her character's sort of unusual worldview.

One of my favorite bits in the film was that her character was actually an extremely successful and powerful figure in the government with the "highest possible clearance."She may have seemed like a nut, but she was formidable and nobody's fool.

One of her best scenes, which conveniently passes the Bechdel test, was opposite Kirsten Wiig during the film's denouement.

It's a combination pep talk/beat down and it shows a real depth to her character as well as her considerable comic chops.

Her upcoming film St. Vincent, opposite Bill Murray, looks promising, if for no other reason than she seems to be playing a down-to-earth person who could actually exist on planet Earth. I was relieved when her new film Tammy under-performed because my hope is it'll give her pause before she churns out more generic comedies where she yells and screams for 90 minutes only to later reveal that she has a heart of gold.

Does that persona sound familiar? It's pretty much what Adam Sandler has been doing for nearly 20 years. Again, like McCarthy, I think Sandler is talented. His early comedies showed a real knack for utterly strange humor and intensity. And his dramatic work in Punch-Drunk Love showed he can give a fully-realized performance if he pushes himself. But Sandler seems content to rake in big bucks making subpar films with his old SNL buddies. People keep showing up and buying tickets but his "brand" will forever be associated with junk.

I'd hate to see McCarthy meet the same fate. The movies need more voices like hers.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Revisiting 'The Master': Challenging 2012 film isn't so bad after all

The Master
Some movies I adore instantly, others grow on me after a few viewings.

And then there are films that I come to admire if not quite enjoy.

P.T. Anderson's divisive 2012 film The Master (which seems to be very loosely based on Scientology) probably falls into that last category for me.

I was very disappointed by it when I first saw it. Mainly because I am a huge fan of Anderson's -- I had both loved and owned all of his previous films -- and the pre-release buzz had me stoked for a potentially shocking and thought-provoking masterpiece.

Once I saw the movie I definitely respected its craftsmanship and I found Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance to be extraordinary -- but the movie itself was too opaque and kept me at arm's length. I came in wanting to the love the movie and left thinking it was a movie that couldn't be loved.

While most of the critical praise was rapturous, audiences largely stayed away and the movie wasn't much of a player during awards season.

I must admit that I too had largely written it off until I read the phenomenal book Going Clear, which investigates the origins and modern practices of Scientology. While I knew Anderson and others took great pains to persuade viewers that his film was in no way an indictment or portrayal of that religion, the parallels are impossible to ignore.

For those of you unfamiliar with the movie, it's about a troubled, hard-drinking WWII veteran, played by Joaquin Phoenix, who becomes something of the pet project of an eccentric, but incredibly charismatic leader of a new religious sect called The Cause. The organization, while murky, seems to promote the ability to heal emotional and physical wounds through traversing time to contact past lives.

Now, upon second viewing I have come to like The Master a lot more than I did the first time. That said, I still have my quibbles. The first time I saw the movie I was incredibly alienated by Phoenix's incredibly mannered, mumbly lead performance. I think my irritation at his off-screen antics (his faux retirement from acting, etc.) probably colored my impression quite a bit. Now, I like what's he's doing more. He's very physical and unpredictable and it lends the film a real danger.

He is a nice counterpoint to Hoffman's largely in control "Master" -- although the late actor show's enough of the man's temper and insecurity to make him much more complex than an avuncular guru. Amy Adams also is terrific in a much-to-small part as Hoffman's totally dedicated wife.

Joaquin Phoenix in The Master
The film's first half is stellar, the set-up of Phoenix's bizarre, broken protagonist, his "processing" session with Hoffman (which has been compared to the Scientology process of auditing) and their worlds colliding all make for compelling drama.

But for me the film's second half goes off the rails a bit. Don't get me wrong I don't need my narratives to be nice and tidy but this film seems lost at a certain point where Phoenix and Hoffman's characters become estranged only to reunite in an odd, protracted scene where one of them serenades the other.

The first time I saw The Master I couldn't understand what Hoffman's character ever saw in Phoenix's.

He is a liar, a lout and something of a sex addict. But on second viewing I came to think that the Hoffman character truly wants to believe his own rhetoric and he sees Phoenix's character as his ultimate challenge. He thinks if I can break/mold him -- my philosophy actually works.

The arc of the Phoenix character doesn't work quite as well for me. He seems at times to be a brainwashed follower of "the Master" (otherwise known as Lancaster Dodd) and in another scene he is a true skeptic. Meanwhile a son of Dodd is introduced and he claims his father is "making it up as he goes along" but then later in the film he appears to have drunk the Kool-Aid as well.

And the final scene, which I won't spoil, calls into question everything that proceeded it -- and not really in a good way. Still, I was never bored watching this film and I'm willing to consider that with repeated viewings over time I will begin to appreciate it more.

I definitely recommend it as a piece of filmmaking that is actually trying to be about something and aims to be profound -- even if I think it falls just short of accomplishing that goal. Personally, I feel like Anderson did a far better job probing the mind of a deeply antisocial person in There Will Be Blood -- a masterpiece that wasn't particularly audience friendly but still hit the sweet spot.

Phoenix showed more humor and grace in Her and there can never be enough good things said about the late Philip Seymour Hoffman. Even if the subject matter of The Master doesn't intrigue you, his work in the film is something to behold.

His death remains a tragic loss, not just to his friends and family, but to those of us who truly cherish great acting and challenging films.

For me, this is a challenging movie, one that I have issues with, but also one I can't outright dismiss as a failure.

At least, not anymore.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Michael Keaton is making a major comeback (for real this time)

Michael Keaton
Last night I revisited one of the most underrated movies of the 90's, Ron Howard's The Paper, a fast, funny and smart look at the a New York Post-like tabloid. The movie boasts an incredible cast (including Robert Duvall, Marisa Tomei and Glenn Close) and is headlined by the great Michael Keaton.

It's fascinating to look back on a time when Keaton was a bankable, above-the-title movie star. Twenty years later, many film fans have wondered: "what happened?"

The easy answer is a lot of mediocre, forgettable movies that flopped. Remember Jack Frost, the movie where Keaton played a talking snowman? I hope not.

The truth is Keaton was always better than the material he chose, with a handful of key exceptions.

Still, when he was on his A-game, working with a truly great collaborator, like Tim Burton, he was one of the most unique and exciting leading men in movies.

He exploded onto the scene in 1982's Night Shift as a motormouth goofball who hatches a scheme to run a prostitution ring out of a morgue. His hot streak continued with the lightweight, but entertaining comedies Mr. Mom and Johnny Dangerously. In 1988, he had his big breakthrough, starring in the intense drama Clean and Sober and as the iconic "ghost with the most" in Beetlejuice.

Birdman
At this point everyone knows about the brouhaha over Keaton's casting as Batman in the 1989 blockbuster. Nowadays we can all laugh at the outrage since it's a commonly held opinion that Keaton's performance in that film and its 1992 sequel remains the definitive portrait of the Dark Knight to date. I agree. Christian Bale was terrific. But Keaton was the most believable Batman. As Burton put it so well, you could see him putting on the suit.

And then a strange thing happened. After he wisely passed on the campy direction the Batman series was taking with Batman Forever, he seemed to fade into obscurity. With the exception of a couple standout supporting roles in Jackie Brown and The Other Guys, Keaton was no longer the A-list icon he was in the late 80s and early 90s.

In the interim his work has been reappraised and he has become something of a hipster hero. He's popped up in direct-to-DVD dreck, cheesy family movies and in more amusing places, like on 30 Rock.

This year, for the first time in has career, he is generating serious Oscar buzz for a leading role in Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's new comedy-drama Birdman. If the trailer is any indication, it's going to be a visual masterpiece, with Keaton re-taking his rightful place as the unconventional movie star he always was.

The film looks to be somewhat semi-autobiographical, as the now 62-year-old actor plays a washed up performer who is haunted by his most iconic character, the titular superhero Birdman. It's ironic that Keaton was such a controversial choice to play Batman, and now it's impossible for some audiences to see him as anything but that character.

As I've written before, the 1989 Batman is my favorite film of all time hence Keaton's lead performance also ranks among my favorites. It's a brilliant study in eccentricity with rage bubbling under the surface. Jack Nicholson chews the scenery with the showier role but it's Keaton who has the most compelling presence.

For those of us who recognized what a distinct talent Keaton was (even when his movies were a letdown) we've been waiting for him to make a major comeback. Now, twenty years after his last truly great lead role he seems poised to have the biggest year of his career.

I'm excited to see him soar again.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Giving props to Paul Newman: The legendary actor's essential films

Paul Newman
Paul Newman was a very unique actor.

He arrived during the slow demise of the studio system but he pre-dated the "new Hollywood" boom of the late '60s and early '70s.

He was a Method actor who trained with the legendary Lee Strasberg and yet he is rarely viewed as a contemporary of James Dean, Marlon Brando and Montgomery Clift -- even though he was.

Perhaps because his good looks and his career endured so much longer and straddled so many periods of film compared to his peers -- it's been hard to classify Newman.

In so many ways he is the quintessential movie star in the same vein as people like Brad Pitt and George Clooney are today. But he was also an incredible humanitarian, a political activist and a thoughtful, nuanced actor who wasn't afraid to show and edgy vulnerability in an above-the-title role.

He has always been a favorite actor of my father's -- he often calls Cool Hand Luke his favorite film -- so I was introduced to him at a fairly early age. I loved his collaborations with Robert Redford, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Sting, two perfect films that created the blueprint for the modern buddy comedy-adventure.

Like so many leading men, Newman struggled early in his career to be viewed as something more than just a pretty face. He finally started earning more accolades for his later work, in which the still startlingly handsome actor began to portray a more grizzled persona. This may be my favorite version of Newman -- but he really was an icon at any age.

For those who only know him as the charitable face behind the Newman's Own franchise, I've compiled this list of what I consider to be his essential films/performances.
Hud

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) - This gorgeous, incredibly well acted adaptation of Tennessee Williams' classic play is best enjoyed if you approach it with the understanding that Newman's character, Brick, is a closeted gay man. The censorship of the era prevented the film from going there. But Newman's searing performance (opposite a never-better Elizabeth Taylor and Burl Ives) speaks volumes.

The Hustler (1961) - Quite possibly Newman's best and most iconic performance from his early career. He plays "Fast Eddie" Felson, a cocky and in-over-his-head pool hustler who's life takes a tragic turn when he tries to topple a legendary player, the easily under-estimated Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason). This movie oozes effortless cool.

Hud (1963) - A complex character study about a selfish, womanizing cowboy who clashes with his old-fashioned father in a small Texas town. Newman once again shows his ability to imbue inherently unlikable characters with enough charm and sensitivity to make them totally engaging and irresistible.

Cool Hand Luke (1967) - Newman plays the heroic (even Christ-like) titular character is this classic movie set in a prison. The movie's anti-conformity message resonates to this day and Newman's performance as the tirelessly irrepressible Luke is one of this most moving and memorable.

Paul Newman on the set of Slap Shot
Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid (1969) - The first pairing of Redford and Newman is a western classic. The episodic (and comedic) adventure has it all. It's beautifully shot, has a perfect score and the chemistry between its stars can't be beat. Newman plays the motormouth "brains" behind their bandit duo and he shows off his flair for comedy throughout.

The Sting (1973) - Although Redford has the more dominant role in this best picture winner, Newman gets plenty of opportunities to shine. One of my favorite Newman scenes ever is when he plays an uncouth drunk in order to rope in the target of the heroes' heist. One of the all-time best Hollywood capers.

Slap Shot (1977) - Newman once called this raucous and proudly politically incorrect sports comedy his favorite movie that he ever made. It's certainly an enduring cult classic. This vulgar, violent ode to the spirit of hockey is a great showcase for the aging actor, who plays a relatively pathetic character who is trying to get one last moment of glory. A "fun" movie with a very bittersweet ending.

The Verdict (1982) - As I've written before, this may be the greatest legal film of all time. It definitely contains Newman's best late career performance as a down-on-his-luck, hard-drinking lawyer who sees a medical malpractice case as his shot at redemption. It's a chance to see darker shades of the Newman persona and a gravitas that has come from a career of excellent performances.

The Color of Money (1986) - Newman finally won the best actor Oscar for his reprisal of the Eddie Felson role in this underrated Hustler sequel directed by Martin Scorsese. This time Felson serves as a mentor to a natural pool player (a terrific Tom Cruise) who he molds (for better-or-for-worse) into a manipulative hustler not unlike his former self. A powerful, visually dynamic film and one of my favorite Newman performances.