Saturday, August 23, 2014


Unlike me, the Washington Post rarely gives out four star reviews, and when they do it's for sure a movie to be taken notice of. Their most recent one to my knowledge was Guardians of the Galaxy, a very fitting rating for such a fantastic piece of pop art. So back when, around April or so, I saw Locke got it's highest possible rating, I added it instantly to my list of movies to check out for later. When I finally got the opportunity to watch it, I popped it in with eagerness, anxious to see how if it's praise and lauding was legit...and I've never been so thankful for the Washington Post.

This review may be short, as describing what Locke concerns is giving away the movie's very element of surprise, how it creeps up on you. How you slowly, and this is all I'll say, start to realize that, however confident and reassuring his Ivan Locke may appear, Tom Hardy plays a man who in the course of a few hours begins to experience his life deteriorate before him, vanish into thin air as he drives to a destination he won't allow himself to be absent from. I w
ill provide some interesting trivia: the movie was filmed in the course of one night, and then repeated for a week, with voice actors in hotels reciting their lines as Tom Hardy picked up the calls on his car's phone system. So what we're seeing is essentially a play performance, cut together to include the best takes, with a stylish background of cars, streetlights and signs in-between the monologues and dialogues Locke exchanges with family, coworkers and...others.

Before going into Hardy, who I talked about in depth a few years back before his iconic role as Bane, I want to congratulate one other actor in particular: Andrew Scott. His Donal, one of Locke's coworkers, is occasionally bumbling, tipsy, aggravated, but he alone is the film's main source of humor amid the devastating backdrop of material with a ton of gravity. He was a joy to listen to. But now on to the man whose shoulders mostly carried this film's weight: Mr. Hardy. I watched the film that caught Christopher Nolan's eye to lead to his international breakout in Inception; Bronson, where he plays the most dangerous prisoner in Britain. He was brash, violent, psychopathic even, but he was always fascinating to observe. He's the exact opposite here: restrained, calm, with a soothing Welsh accent. Your emotions run the gamut with this man: he's a creep, he's disturbed, he's a good father, a great worker, he's pathetic, he's lonely, he's passionate. You only see his top torso, but, expressing himself with telling facial expressions and plenty of profanity, you see completely the man Ivan Locke is, and what he will be once this endless night comes to a close.

Steven Knight (who weirdly just had The Hundred-Foot Journey come out, which he wrote, especially since it's the last thing I'd imagine him penning) has created a severely flawed man, but never an unlikable one. The truth is so pure here you'd be disappointed to see anything else come out Locke's mouth, he's one of the most honest men I've seen depicted on film. Great direction, a bravura solo performance from Hardy, appealing night visuals and some absolutely brilliant, Oscar-worthy writing, Locke is sure to become the movie cinephiles protest the most over that was robbed at this year's upcoming Academy Awards.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014


It completely disheartened me to read a text last night informing me comedic legend Robin Williams died of an apparent suicide. I commented on the death of Phillip Seymour Hoffman as a warning sign to those struggling with addiction, I commented on the death of Michael Clarke Duncan because he was in my all-time favorite movie The Green Mile. Not since the latter's death have I felt such remorse and sadness for a celebrity's demise, and this time it's so much worse.

As a tween going into middle school, a school where I knew pretty much no one do to circumstantial events, I went to a very kind woman's house every day in the morning as a sort of daycare. She would pop in a movie every day for me, then when the bus came paused it, and the next day I would finish it up. On average it took me about three days to finish a film if it was about two hours, which was the longest the children's movies she played ever were. I really got into movies after the Oscar season of 2008, but this was an enormous platform that set the stage of what was to come. My absolute favorite film at the time was Jumanji, and I distinctly remember telling her this, so she went out of her way to get it from a neighbor for me to watch.

For a guy who doesn't enjoy watching movies over and over nowadays, I've seen Jumanji at least 15 times, maybe 20. That amount of watchability is usually reserved for a Disney movie (including Aladdin), but Jumanji was different. With its fantastical sense of adventure, excitement and special effects, I was captivated every time, and Williams' performance as Alan Parrish is almost entirely responsible. That movie rests squarely on his shoulders, and even though his typically manic, Williams persona doesn't shine through, he's still a joy to watch. With those mischievously piercing blue eyes, Williams made us fall in love with him over and over again. How could you not in roles in Flubber, Night at the Museum, Hook, Robots, and yes, even Jack, which I hold to be a little underrated despite the critical thrashing it got since it came from the man who helmed The Godfather.

Besides being stellar in movies geared towards kids, he was an outstanding, exceptional thespian, with complex, fascinating roles in the likes of The Fisher King, Mrs. Doubtfire, The Birdcage (which I just watched today out of tribute) and his Oscar winning turn in Good Will Hunting. The moment he grabs Hunting by the throat and tells him to stay out of his personal life is probably what got Williams the award, it's a jarring moment when the usually jolly actor threatens a man's life. It's superb acting, and it's amazing because Williams going over the top wasn't Williams going over the top--it was just his persona. He even popped up for a brief, memorable role on my favorite show "Louie." His "Inside the Actor's Studio" appearance made one man become physically in pain after laughing so hard. That about sums up Robin Williams.

Going on the various social media platforms and seeing his genius and legacy being celebrated, it warms my heart to know how many people grew up cackling with laughter at the Genie's wisecracks, seeing him go drag as Mrs. Doubtfire, or make us chuckle with Ben Stiller as Theodore Roosevelt. The selfish thing for me to think here is that I haven't even seen some of his best work: Good Morning, Vietnam, Awakenings, Dead Poets Society, One Hour Photo, or a single episode of "Mork and Mindy." He had such a wide ranging, eclectic body of work one is never sure which Robin Williams they'd get. And now that the man is gone, we can all relive his filmography over and over.

You're free now, Genie.  


Hype for a movie varies a lot nowadays. Social media, and websites like this one, blogs and whatnot, can carry a movie a long ways. Movie stars aren't enough in today's world I don't believe. You don't really need an A-listers presence to tell a good story anymore, and the ushering in of special effects has also helped in this. Websites like Metacritic, IMDb and primarily Rotten Tomatoes tell you if you should invest your $8.50 into a couple of hours of entertainment. Part of Boyhood's strategy, at least some of it anyway, of getting butts into seats was toting its incredibly rare 100% Rotten Tomatoes score, which has since dropped to a much less impressive 99% after two critics disliked it. And you can listen to those two people, who I'm sure have very valid opinions...or you could listen to the other 176 people, make that 177 now including me, who are citing Boyhood as one of the finest movies this year, and an accomplishment in the world of cinema.

It's a question that's been thrown around a lot I believe: why not wait a few years to gradually show the progression of a life instead of hiring actors who look like their younger counterpoint to play older them (though they would've had to wait an awfully long time for Kate Winslet to transform into Gloria Stuart for Titanic)? Richard Linklater has flirted with this concept with his Before trilogy, showing a couple's relationship every nine years. He's also had tremendous success with directing Jack Black in two of finest roles: Bernie and School of Rock. He's made two uniquely animated, rotoscoped movies, the stoner classic Dazed and Confused, and has scored a pair of Oscar nods. But then again, he also made the remake to Bad News Bears and his debut feature, Slacker, which some consider a cult classic, but I think to be pretentious and loooooong-winded, even with its interesting concept. The good outweighs the bad in this case, and Boyhood is the peak in his career by far, which for an artist like Linklater, is saying a big deal.

I can't go terribly much into detail about Boyhood, because it is not really a motion picture as it is an experience. Not a Gravity type of adventure, but you literally, and I know that word gets literally tossed around literally a lot, but you literally witness the choice moments of an American life. And that is something to be lauded for the years to come. Ellar Coltrane is the film's focus, a boy with divorced parents, his older sister, and a whole life awaiting him when we first see the adorable child at age six, watching him physically and mentally grow into the thoughtful, soft-spoken, confident man he becomes when he moves into his dorm room at the end of it, as I'm about to do in 16 days as of this post. Patricia Arquette is his caring mother, a woman with unfortunate luck with men, but a devotion to her kids nonetheless. Lorelei Linklater, the director's daughter, is the sometimes sassy sister to Coltrane's Mason. Ethan Hawke, who I believe has the best chance of being nominated among this cast, is the liberal, "fun dad" who shows as much devotion as Arquette's Olivia, but sees them on weekends, so seeing him is a treat. I cheered internally the most when the kids stayed with him for a while, his Mason Sr. is a blast to watch.

I can't count how many times I gasped out of recognition of something onscreen, and I'll just say this one as not to give too much away: when one of the children in the film plays the round, oval 20 Questions, which I most definitely had as a kid (one regular, and one Harry Potter version, but I go on). Little things like that not only make this film relatable to someone who primarily grew up in the 2000s, but it's a time capsule for us millennials alike. No I don't have a sister or divorced parents, but a solid portion of my friends do, and I've seen the impact on them up close. Mason endures alcoholic stepdads, bullies, that terrible MySpace era in 2009 where everybody had hair like the picture above. He doesn't have super powers, he doesn't get into a terrible amount of trouble, he doesn't have any discernible talents besides photography skills. He's your everyday kid, and we get to see not the milestones (first kiss, first car, learning to ride a bike, etc.) but the little moments that compromise the rest of the 350 days of the year that aren't holidays, vacations, what have you.

In Boyhood Linklater has created an unsentimental look at life here in the States, complete with era-appropriate songs, events, hairstyles and all. You'll laugh, maybe cry if you're a parent, but everyone will go away seeing at least a fraction of themselves in Mason or his family. It's the finest film of the year so far, and I hope it gets an Academy Award for every year Linklater, his incredible crew, and his incredibly game cast took to craft this monumental motion picture.

Rating: 4/4 stars

Friday, August 1, 2014


It was almost bittersweet going to see GOTG. My most hyped about non-Oscar movie, featuring a cast of characters I know nothing about by the director of an extremely weird 2006 horror movie backed by the biggest movie studio in the galaxy right now. I'll still go see  Thor 23 and all the other sequels but I love nothing more than seeing a new superhero movie, and this folks, is one for the books.

Adding to the magic and mythos of this excellent movie was coupled with the fact that it was my very first film I've seen before the general release date...not a midnight movie (it was only 7:50) but wow it was a cool feeling buying those tickets online. I don't even think I've seen a movie opening day, but my friends and I decided it was simply the only way to go to see a movie of this caliber. Gleefully diving into the unknown, we got seats third from the front (get there early, boys and girls) and took in a deep breath as the last of the 80 trailers ceased playing.

The last time I felt I was apart of a truly moving moviegoing experience was seeing Gravity in 3D last year, where I genuinely felt I was up there with Sandra Bullock (I would've told her I liked The Heat.) Even though we skipped the third dimension on this trip, the buzz in the air made this feel like a great cinematic experience. I always hear about people who saw Star Wars for the first time in 1977. I'm not saying this was a comparable experience, but man was it cool. Marvel has given birth to an utterly cool, breathtakingly hilarious and visually splendid motion picture, where raccoons handle weaponry and Vin Diesel's a tree.

Let me drive a point home: GOTG is the funniest superhero movie of all time, no doubt about it. Iron Man has great wit from RDJ, but everyone of the Guardians has at least one funny line, most of them belonging to Rocket (Bradley Cooper) and now-superstar Starlord (Chris Pratt.) Pratt said how grueling his regimen was to get in shape for the role, and it paid off. I'm not saying an audience couldn't buy a schlubby superhero (look at Hancock) but it's one of those basic requirements. The few complaints about this movie is Dave Bautista's acting as Drax the Destroyer, but the character is simple, so it works fine. Zoe Saldana validates her spot as the go-to sci-fi is it that she looks good in every color under the sun? Equipped with Rocket and Starlord's whip-smart wit, who's the perfect foil for this team? A limited vocabulary hero in the form of tree alien Groot, who will steal your heart by the end of this movie.

There's no weak link. In other words, there's no GOTG of Hawkeye. Every one of the team members has a purpose, a meaningful contribution to the greater good of the ragtag misfit band of antiheroes you find yourself wildly (G)rooting for. My only beef here is the villain of our story, Ronan (Lee Pace.) Pace had so much more scenery to chew in last year's Desolation of Smaug. Here he's the only thing that reminds me of lesser Marvel movies; the meh villain.

But here's the thing...I don't want to spoil anymore of this movie. I went into it avoiding the Rotten Tomatoes score, the YouTube critics I listen to, the newspaper...anybody. Totally isolate yourself from anything GOTG if you can. Submerse yourself in this beautiful world James Gunn has created, complete with hysterical irreverence, a dynamic soundtrack and gorgeous visual effects that will linger in the imaginations of young people like another galaxy did only 37 years ago.

Rating: 3.5/4 stars

Friday, July 25, 2014


Reading the reviews of Richard Linklater's Boyhood, you just start to get emotional simply getting the feel of what the movie is going to be about. For a while it had a perfect 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, a feat movies like The Godfather have only accomplished on the site. There's no negative backlash yet, nothing that could hurt the chances of everyone on board. Boyhood has all the elements of a movie that will win Best Picture at this year's Academy Awards.

Look at the facts: every single Best Picture nominee last year was released from October on, kicking off with the special effects extravaganza Gravity. A movie hasn't won Best Picture since 2009's The Hurt Locker, which got an extremely low-key limited release in the summer. I remember wanting to see it, then seeing it explode into pop culture once the Golden Globe nominations weren't released. The bottom line: you have to have your movie released later for the voters to remember you. But Boyhood seems like the picture that ingrains itself in your memory, despite a July limited release. It already made over a million dollars last week, arriving in 15th place at the box office, coming out in less than 40 theaters.

Experimental films do not usually come out on top come Oscar night...this is true. The Tree of Life, a movie which I have no understanding of when I viewed it or after thinking about it, was up for 3 Oscars a few years ago, including Best Picture and Best Director. But it didn't have a snowball's chance in ever being able to seriously win either of those too, despite getting very early praise from critics who pretended to know what it was about. But that's the thing: people still argue over what The Tree of Life truly was; everyone knows what Boyhood is about! It's literally a coming of age drama, where we see this family morph into who they have become, the cultural milestones around them revealing of the era. It's an experimental premise without being too pretentious, even for an event like the Academy Awards.

Despite the three hour running time (something that's never stopped the Academy from handing a trophy to a movie, i.e Titanic, Return of the King, Gandhi, The Last Emperor, etc.) critics say this movie has an organic flow to it, and the time, much like real life, goes by just like that. On this day in late July, I predict acting nominations for stars Ellar Coltrane, Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke, with twin nominations for Linklater for directing and writing, and, in what I think is at least a lock for this film, a win for best editing, and a win for Best Picture. There might be some technical awards thrown in there, but for sure I think Boyhood will become the 87th movie to win the prestigious prize. I can't wait to see it and I can't wait to be proven right or wrong come February 22, 2015.

Friday, July 18, 2014


Anyone who knows me or has read this blog knows I'm a big James Franco fan, but I don't worship the guy. I love his zany performances in Spring Breakers and Pineapple Express, respect his more serious work in excellent dramas like the first two Spider-Man movies and especially 127 Hours. But here's the weird thing I noted in my Oz the Great and Powerful review: he's been upstaged by primates: twice. The first came courtesy in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, where Franco had the spotlight easily taken from him by Andy Serkis' masterful creation: Caesar. The other problem with the 2011 prequel to the superior 1968 original was, though it was building up to it, it still focused too much on humans when all we want to see were the apes. I am very happy to say this film took note of our laments, and corrected them.

Caesar is a father now, his wife just giving birth to another baby boy, along with his other son, Blue Eyes. It's been a decade since humans have approached the ape-topia that Caesar and his followers (an accurate assessment and probably accurate in the real world; Caesar is the Alpha Ape among this crop of primates). That is until a team of survivors who are immune to the disease that has spread across the world stumbles upon their territory...and it's all downhill from there.

Taking a severely darker tone than Rise, it's hard to imagine this even being in the same franchise as the last. The film is visually darker, most of what you see is the withered, sometimes human-inflicted sable fur as the apes try to live in their own world. You're almost disappointed to see humans, and I expect to see less in the forthcoming sequel. What makes this movie such a triumph is the character development of the apes. Franco's character was a great father to Caesar in the original, and this helps him see past the prejudice his fellow apes have against the human race: a perfect parable of racism and xenophobia nowadays. And honestly...why trust the humans? And to the humans: why trust the apes? As is revealed in this film, with the primates becoming genetically smarter...apes are becoming more like us. They suffer the conflict and hardships and love and betrayal that comes with the burden of being like man. It's the price to pay for their rebellion, and it's shown brilliantly in the movie. I thought all these thoughts after the film of're too mesmerized by the uncannily realistic effects to ponder anything else at the moment.

Nitpicking the film is just a movie reviewer's way of not admitting they had a great time watching apes with guns on horses. What a ballistic visual that was; I predict that'll be seared in the imaginations of future visual effects artists to come. The unbroken take where Koba, (an Oscar-worthy Toby Kebbell) the main antagonist to Serkis' more human-friendly Caesar, kills a man, tosses him aside like trash and hops into the vehicle is highly notable. When Caesar is about to seriously hurt Koba after Koba questions his authority, you see the conflict register on his forget this is a CGI animal and become enthralled in the story. Along with X-Men: Days of Future Past, which I didn't review because I was so late to seeing it, this is a fine example of how Summer '14 will go down in the history books.

Rating: 3.5/4 stars

Wednesday, July 2, 2014


Getting "TFIOS" for my 17th birthday
It's only too easy to dismiss TFIOS as a chick flick if you are unfamiliar with the source material. While it does sound a bit sappy that two cancer stricken kids would meet together and fall in love, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the works of John Green, and his signature, smart alec wit. There hasn't been a wrong note in his novels, Looking for Alaska probably being the most deserving in my book. Avoiding most cliches of the hospital drama, Green instead chose to go the route of love, not pandering at all to his fan base, who appear to be nearly as intelligent as the rapid, word churning YouTube vlogger himself. The big question to nearly every adaptation in the business: is it as good as the book?

Honestly...nearly. The film isn't flawless like your teenage daughter will tell you, but it's a very solid addition to not only the teenage romance canon but to cancer movies, which can be partially indistinguishable at times. Even the term "cancer movie" would probably be shoved into a Lifetime Original Movie classification. But, with the grace and talent of Ms. Woodley and relative newcomer Ansel Egert, along with a big handful of chemistry between the two of them, this movie begins to reach the potential greatness that its Young Adult source material provided it.

The script retains a lot of Green's original dialogue, and that's never a bad thing. When in doubt, just go with the words that made the material popular to begin with. Woodley has always, always impressed me in anything she's been with on the silver screen. She deserved a pair of Oscars for her work in one of my all-time favorites, The Descendants and The Spectacular Now, an equally excellent teen romance I actually liked slightly better than this movie. Both had equal amounts of gritty, teenage love realism, but I'm going to tip it more in favor of Miles Teller instead of Egert, who, while bringing a right amount of cockiness and confidence to the complex role of Gus, can be a bit one-note.  Teller's alcoholic, more subtly sad portrayal had more punch to it.

TFIOS is loyal to the material, and hardly deviates. Willem Dafoe is a wicked surprise as the author of Hazel's favorite book, and Laura Dern is equally fine as Hazel's mother, though I would've loved to see a stronger connection between mother and daughter, but it's not really their movie, is it? The romance is spectacular here, a chemistry not easily found in teen romances nowadays. Scribes Michael H. Weber and Scott Neustadter have a winner on their hands, their third including Spectacular Now and (500) Days of Summer, showcasing their knack for modern love. I can't wait to see what they do with Green's next movie treatment Paper Towns, the superb novel that introduced me to the master author in the first place.

Rating: 3/4 stars