REVIEW: Trainwreck

8/10 - Is The Dogwalker also a movie? I'd watch the hell out of that. 

2015 was the year of Amy Schumer. Her show Inside Amy Schumer went into its third season, winning a Peabody Award. She hosted the MTV Movie Awards, and opened for Madonna on her latest tour. She had a stand-up comedy special on HBO, and in the middle of all that, she wrote and starred in this film. I assume in 2016 she'll take a nap then do it all again.

Trainwreck is a return to form for comedy director/producer Judd Apatow. It's about a party-girl slash commitaphobe, Amy (Schumer) who finds herself falling in love with celebrity sports doctor, Aaron (Bill Hader). It feels like a very successful marriage of Schumer's brand of raunchy comedy, and the character stories that Apatow is drawn to.

While Amy's character might seem familiar to those who watch her show, it's a refreshing change of pace for romantic comedies. Even the most die hard rom-com fan has to admit, the all-work-and-no-play trope has really run it's course for women in these movies. Turning the tables put Amy's character in the front and center as by far the most interesting person in the film.

What came as a surprise was the amount of heart in the movie. Comedies lately don't seem to even need a story, just a loosely stitched together series of events. When Bill Hader's character begins dating Amy, I was waiting for the film to go off the rails. Maybe influenced by Judd Apatow, the story stayed realistic instead of veering into improvised lines. both Schumer and Hader showed refined dramatic chops. Hader was the perfect charming boyfriend, and Schumer showed a lot of vulnerability in her relationships, especially the scenes with her father, Colin Quinn. Just more proof that these two are big movie stars in the making.

The athletes that crossed over into acting for this film were some of the funniest cast members. John Cena plays a dimwitted boyfriend of Amy's with some of the best lines in the whole film. LeBron James plays a fictional version of himself who could star in his own spin off.

One of the best takeaways from Trainwreck is Tilda Swinton. She is absolutely unrecognizable as Amy's boss and magazine editor Dianna. Apparently her character was inspired by Vogue Paris editor Carine Roitfeld, but it reminded me of a toxic combination Anna Wintour and Janice Dickinson. Tilda has been transforming herself on screen for years, but this transformation is so dramatic it should up up there with Charlize Theron in Monster.

If Trainwreck had been a funnier movie with over the top comedy sketches it would be a great disservice to the talent in the film. It's an old story told in a new, refreshing way. Definitely a standout for 2015.

IMBd - Trainwreck (6.5)

Wikipedia - Trainwreck

Rotten Tomatoes - Trainwreck (85%)

Amazon.ca - Trainwreck

REVIEW: Ant-Man

5/10 - Honey I Shrunk the Franchise

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has really become this behemoth of films. Among the cannon, I somewhat forgot about Ant-Man and when I sat down to watch it, I was hoping it would be more of a stand alone comedy type film, something to stand apart from the usual Marvel fare. While Guardians was funny, it was also establishing a massive sci-fi universe, and Iron Man is an action franchise. Paul Rudd is more romantic comedy hero, then Avengers hero. There was this potential to poke fun at the Marvel hero franchise and make a really great movie. 

Instead, Ant-Man shrinks among the superhero competition. Ant-Man stars Paul Rudd as Scott Lang, the criminal with a heart of gold. He's conned into wearing the Ant-Man suit by the original Ant-Man, Hank Pym (Michael Douglas). They collaborate with Pym's daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) to battle the bad guy who wants to do bad things for bad reasons, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) aka Yellowjacket. 

Ant-Man reminds me quite a lot of the 2011 Seth Rogen vehicle, The Green Hornet. Both films were action movies that should have been funny, but weren't. I couldn't help but feel like Ant-Man was a different movie being crammed into the Marvel formula. There is no reason to cast Paul Rudd other than to make that character funny and charming. I can't say Scott Lang was either. Rudd is pretty established in the types of roles he plays, which is why this film felt like there was so much untapped potential. 

Michael Douglas is a respectable mentor for Ant-Man. He makes a good straight man for jokes, because on paper Hank has the personality of oatmeal. Douglas has that enough on-screen charisma to make it work, and he seems like a guy you want in your corner. Evangeline Lilly is sports a shockingly unflattering haircut that seems to steal every scene she's in. Corey Stoll is a great

character actor, but this role is pretty silly. He's somehow the head of what can only be a massively expensive military defense experiment and yet is clearly deranged. It's always disappointing to me when movie bad guys don't have a good back story. 

I think the right path for Ant-Man was to keep the scope of the Ant-Man universe small. By referencing the Avengers, and taking the story into Spider-man territory, Ant-Man forces itself to compete with those films. It just doesn't hold up. At it's heart, Ant-Man is a heist movie, using Rudd's charisma as a cat burglar, and the size advantage of an ant to pull the heist of the century. What happens is Ant-Man ends up in a fist punching battle with a literal army of Ants riding into war. Ant-Man lost the battle with a training montage. At no point should Paul Rudd's super power be throwing a fist. I love the guy, but I just don't buy it. 

IMDb - Ant-Man (7.5)
Wikipedia - Ant-Man
Rotten Tomatoes - Ant-Man (79%)
Amazon.ca - Ant-Man

REVIEW: The Great Gatsby

6/10 - At least Pitbull wasn't on the soundtrack.

“In my younger and more vulnerable years
my father gave me some advice that I've been
turning over in my mind ever since.

"Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,"
he told me, "just remember that all the people
in this world haven't had the advantages
that you've had.”

I do have a great fondness for The Great Gatsby. I disliked the book when I was forced to read it in school but I've grown to really love it over the years. There's something beautiful, and poetic about the writing of F. Scott Fitzgerald.

With far less poetic subtly, Baz Luhrmann adapted the novel into a visual showcase that is The Great Gatsby in 3D. I'm not the biggest fan of his films. I find they peak in the first act and I lose interest by the end. A a trend that continues with The Great Gatsby.

Gatsby is a tale of romance and heartache in the roaring 20's. The narrator, Nick Carraway (Toby Maguire), recounts the summer he spent reuniting with his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) and discovering just who the mysterious and legendary Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) is.

The first half of this movie is really a spectacular. It opens on the legendary parties that Gatsby's reputation was built on. This is where Baz Luhrmann shines. The frantic pace works well, showing Nick getting swept away by the idealistic lifestyle of his upper class neighbors. But then the movie crawls to a stop. The Great Gatsby isn't a fast paced novel, it's a slow character story that shows how Nick grows disenchanted with the idols he once held in high regard. For the film that means an hour in there's a clunky halt to the once fast pacing, and suddenly it's a movie about long tea parties filled with subtext. Suddenly the lush environment becomes jarring, and distracting to the story. Suddenly the movie feels about 90 minutes too long.

The best reason to see this film, is without question for the fantastic cast. It's not often Leonardo DiCaprio plays a role where he's mostly happy. He embraces all of that Gatsby mystery, with a smile  that oozes charm and charisma, but with fear brewing beneath the facade. Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton as Daisy and Tom Buchanan are a terrific individually. They both bring dimension to their otherwise shallow characters. The missing element is the chemistry that pulls them together or pushes them apart, but that doesn't seem so necessary in this film as the relationships seem to take a back seat to the production design.

Baz Luhrmann's style is really appealing. He creates fantastic images that are better than the imagination. That scene from the trailer with Leonardo DiCaprio raising his glass with the fireworks behind him is stunning. It's a style that needs an operatic story, which Gatsby is far from. I'm not opposed to changing the original story, regardless of how revered it is. In this case even the most dramatic story changes wouldn't make the aesthetic and novel more compatible. Instead of being engaged in the characters, I found myself disappointed in how flat out boring the movie was. Perhaps that's a good reflection for the tragic elements of the story, but the audience should feel for the characters, not feel like they wasted their time.

"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future 

that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, 

but that's no matter- tomorrow we will run faster, 

stretch out our arms farther... And one fine morning-

So we beat on, boats against the current, 

borne back ceaselessly into the past."

IMDb - The Great Gatsby (7.3)
Wikipedia - The Great Gatsby
Rotten Tomatoes - The Great Gatsby (48%)
Amazon.ca - The Great Gatsby

REVIEW: Jurassic Park

10/10 - Hold on to your butts!

Jurassic Park is probably my all time favorite movie. 

It's got dinosaurs and it's awesome. That's it. I love it. 

It's also a tight, intelligent story, that totally holds up over 20 years later, with impressive special effects, wonderful characters, and a concept that permeated pop culture for decades. This is Spielberg at his best. One of the iconic adventure film. inauthentic raptors and all. 

To celebrate my favorite movie, I just want to share some of the great moments that make me love this film. 

That Alan Grant introductory monologue, telling a kid why a velociraptor is scary and not a six-foot turkey. This was a great moment to legitimize Alan as a knowledgeable scientist, with a healthy respect for dinosaurs, and foreshadow what was to come. But why is this kid on a archaeological dig? Where did he come from? Why is the kid there if he doesn’t know anything about dinosaurs? My biggest question, why do all the other adults let Alan tell this innocent kid about what it will feel like to get eaten alive? That’s kind of messed up. What a great scene.

"If The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists."

How freaking great is Jeff Goldbulm. In the making-of special features, Spielberg said Goldblum was a naturalistic actor who always sounded like he was coming up with the lines in the moment. It's so true, that's definitely the appeal of Dr. Ian Malcolm. Thank you Michael Crichton for this phenomenal character.

"I’m always on the lookout for the next ex-Mrs. Malcolm." 

I love the way the way the raptors are the mystery element. The very first scene shows an animal cage, and then something goes wrong and a guy gets eaten. Back to that Alan Grant monologue that happens to me more real than he knows. Then at Jurassic Park the pen for the raptors doesn't show anything, they're all hidden under big leafy trees and bushes, but get to destroy an airlifted cow. Even Muldoon, the Kenyan game hunter, says "they should all be destroyed." The T-Rex might have been the "star" but these guys were the unseen danger. J.J. Abrams has become famous in recent years for using the mystery element in his movies, and this is the sort of thing that inspired him. Raptors are all we heard about in the first half of the movie, so you knew when you saw one in the second half, you were in big trouble. 

"The park will open with the basic tour you’re about to take."

The combination of Samuel L. Jackson as the chain smoking Ray Arnold and Wayne Knight as the nefarious Dennis Nedry is just so delightful. Sometimes character actors make a movie, and in this case, the almost cartoony relationship between these two adds so much depth and texture to the world.

“Find Nedry, check the vending machines!” 

The inexplicable appearance of a cliff that didn’t exist 15 minutes earlier. If you ever noticed that,
congratulations you continuity expert! It's my favorite goof. The T-Rex paddock is a major set piece, as the jeeps break down next to it, and we spend a lot of time looking beyond the fences to see if our movie monster will appear. The little goat sits waiting just beyond the fence, we can see the ground inside the T-Rex pen, it's all flat. Then! A few scenes later! The Jeep the kids are in gets pushed like a kickball inside the T-Rex pen where it... falls off a big cliff. Where did this cliff come from? It's the exact same location the goat was in earlier, and now it's a 30-foot drop. What happened here? It's made even better when later, Ellie goes to look for their missing Jeep and somehow sprints down to the bottom of this cliff and back up to their search car in about a 3 minute round trip. Pretty impressive, Ellie!

"...He'll lose you if you don't move. But no, not Velociraptor. 

You stare at him, and he just stares right back"

It’s almost cheesy to look back on the set design now, but the creation of these elaborate set pieces are what made Jurassic Park so great. It wasn't just a location, it was a theme park. It was Disneyland for dinos. Everything from the animal cages to the door handles had such distinct branding, unique to this world. Now, those images are quite iconic, with the Jeeps going down in movie history as one of the more memorable vehicles.

"T-Rex doesn't want to be fed. He wants to hunt. 

Can't just suppress 65 million years of gut instinct."

Finally, maybe my favorite thing about Jurassic Park, the score. John Williams is just a genius. I think every movie score that gets stuck in my head has been composed by John Williams. It's hard not to love those themes. There's not situation where singing the Jurassic Park theme doesn't immediately make everything a thousand times better.

"Hammond, after some consideration, I've decided, not to endorse your park."

Even though Jurassic Park is so high on my list of movies, I haven't watched the new Jurassic World yet, as I'm re-watching the whole series before getting to it. I'm sure it's a great addition to the Jurassic franchise, but lets be honest. Chris Pratt is no Jeff Goldblum.

IMDb - Jurassic Park (8.1)

Wikipedia - Jurassic Park

Rotten Tomatoes - Jurassic Park (93%)

Amazon.ca - Jurassic Park

REVIEW: Aloha

3/10 - Perfect movie to leave on the TV for your cats when you go out. 

I really like Cameron Crowe, even though his movies aren't pushing the limits of filmmaking. At his worst he captures heart and sincerity in his movies, and that's better than most. I also really like Emma Stone, who doesn't. Bradley Cooper, yes please. Rachel McAdams another delight. Bill Murray?! Are you kidding, sign me up for this film.

None of those talented people could save Aloha. It's a shallow snooze-fest with nothing worthwhile to say. Halfway through I was wishing someone would buy a Zoo.

Aloha follows Brian a military contractor (Bradley Cooper) as he dicks around on Hawaii going between millionaires who want to exploit the Hawaiian resources (Bill Murray and Alec Baldwin) and the native Hawaiians, inexplicably represented by Emma Stone. Brian's ex-wife is also there with her new husband (Rachel McAdams and John Krasinski) where they do some stuff with their kids.

There is very little about Aloha that doesn't feel contrived. I've come to expect Cameron Crowe rom-coms to feature very little conflict and represent more personal journeys, and this is almost an attempt to do the opposite. It's so story heavy that it doesn't play to any of Crowe's strengths and it just an incomprehensible bore. Even Bradley Coopers character doesn't come across as likable, and all the other characters seem to exist solely as predictable roadblocks. The story becomes a diluted cocktail of American military pride, astrophysics, Hawaiian culture, and romantic feelings, where none of those story points fully come through, and all them them become weaker in combination.

I can't even sign off on this film representing Hawaiian culture despite the name. There's the obvious Emma Stone controversy that I can't add to, other than to agree that she was a terrible casting choice and her character does Hawaii a disservice.

Perhaps I'm disappointed with the film because I had hoped that beyond the initial kick back the film faced, there might be something redeeming about it. I couldn't find anything to make this movie worthwhile. There's no major trainwreck moment, it's just the kind of movie that makes you want to netflix and nap.

IMDb - Aloha (5.5)
Wikipedia - Aloha
Rotten Tomatoes - Aloha (19%)
Amazon.ca - Aloha

REVIEW: Ex Machina

8/10 - Go ahead, try to outsmart this movie 

I love indie thrillers. There’s something great going on in indie films right now as they tap into old school film techniques to make good stories on a low budget, while big blockbusters don’t have to. With limited sets, and strategic use of special effects it’s easy to become immersed in the world of Ex Machina. 

In the film, Caleb is a programmer at a massive tech company who wins the opportunity to visit the reclusive CEO of his company, Nathan, to work on a top secret project. Spoiler alert, the project is androids. Nathan has developed a robot with sophisticated A.I. and asks Caleb to conduct a Turing test (remember Alan Turing from last year’s The Imitation Game?) to determine if the robot could pass as human. 

Conceptually, there’s a lot going on. There are philosophical questions about artificial life and the repercussions of their introduction to society, but more than that, what it means to someone like Caleb. The android being created isn’t a program run on a Mac. Her name is Ava. She is an attractive young woman, with big doe eyes. Ava seems so naive and innocent, but we already know her appearance was designed to deceive. 

This opens up so many other thematic concepts, like gender roles. Ava was designed by a man to be a woman, so how does that affect her? Or how the constant surveillance of the compound impacts those in it. Very quickly the home begins to feel like an elaborate prison. It’s the cerebral concepts that make this movie psychologically tense. Very little is obliquely threatening, and yet everything feels somehow wrong. 

If it’s not already obvious, Ex Machina is quite heavy on the ideas. Fortunately, the story doesn’t get lost among them. The audience is lead along a deliberately journey, steadily paced, with a great payoff. Writer/director Alex Garland had a unique vision for this film, styling it to be overly polished and almost inhuman. It strikes a good balance of selling the narrative and evoking imagination. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention the fantastic cast. Oscar Isaac is a powerful force as Nathan. He’s a scary presence in the film, with a difficult character because the majority of the film seems to circle his psyche. Domhnall Gleeson, Caleb, has been in some great films lately, and this is another highlight for his resume. Alicia Vikander gives a striking performance as the robot Ava, who is the specimen, the love interest, the protagonist, and the villain. 

With all this heaping praise, it might seem like this is the best movie ever, but I don't think it's going to be everyone's cup of tea. There are plenty of issues with a movie that’s largely just two guys talking about A.I. theory. Some people might dare to say it’s boring. Like any sci-fi film it needs to have a certain amount of buy-in from the audience too. Stylistically it feels claustrophobic, and I think the ending will be divisive, however you could argue those elements were intentional.

Flaws and all, I really enjoyed this film. Alex Garland has been creating cult classics for many years and I can only hope he inspires other filmmakers. It's the kind of movie you want to watch late at night with the lights off and a bowl of popcorn. 

IMDb - Ex Machina (7.7)

Wikipedia - Ex Machina

Rotten Tomatoes - Ex Machina (92%)

Amazon.ca - Ex Machina

Review: The Gambler

4/10 - When did Marky Mark turn into Kevin Bacon?

I'm not sure why I was supposed to watch The Gambler. Did people think it was a good movie? Is it a comedy? Is it a drama? It's like a movie that just came into existence and disappeared just as quickly. Which makes sense because even after seeing it, because I still have no idea why this movie was made.

From what I gather, this was a remake. That's important because in the context of 2015, this is an irrelevant movie. I can't see this movie getting made on spec right now and getting any attention. It's a movie with an irrelevant story about irrelevant characters for today.

The plot rundown is something about Marky Mark being a rich baby who has a wicked job as a professor but gambles away everything he earns, and screws around with one of his students.

I think the biggest take away from The Gambler was how much I am becoming skeeved out by Hollywood. The very talented Brie Larson plays the young innocent love interest. And while their relationship was somewhat inappropriate within the story, because he is a teacher and she is a student, all I could think about was the idea that she was probably birthed with "Good Vibrations" playing in the delivery room. This age gap is becoming so common, and the more I see it the more awkward I find it. It's easy to look at the context of each relationship in each movie individually and justify the age gap as being part of the story, but it's something that happens so often it's really a gross trend that I'm not a fan of.

Back to the movie itself, I can't decide if I think Marky Mark gives a good acting performance. With a lot of unintentional condescension, I found myself impressed that he could spout out long poetic lines while his literature professor character lectured his class. There were no scenes of him running with a gun while explosions were going off in the background. which is pretty much the only reason he does movies anymore. I totally loathed his character though, and I largely attribute that to his utter lack of charisma and charm.

Jessica Lange, on the other hand, is a gift to the world. Although she is not a major character, all of her scenes come into sharp focus with her presence. Frankly, this movie is worth watching for the pleasure of watching Lange slap the Froot Loops out of Marky Marks mouth.

Overall The Gambler about reckless people making poor decisions, without any consideration for the consequences of their actions. There's nothing sympathetic about a character with an endless supply of cash who's problems come from gambling that money away, especially considering the state of the American economy today. I actually found that the higher the stakes were, the less I cared about the outcome of story. As interesting as some of the set pieces and scenarios were, they were so underutilized with a plot that cannot possibly resonate with the audience.


IMDb - The Gambler (6.1)
Wikipedia - The Gambler
Rotten Tomatoes - The Gambler (46%)
Amazon.ca - The Gambler

REVIEW: Mr. Holmes

6/10 - Wasps?! Not in my backyard. 

Sherlock Holmes has become a massive media icon. The modern day BBC miniseries, Sherlock stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes. Elementary, a CBS procedural features Johnny Lee Miller portraying Holmes in NYC. Other shows like House, Forever, and The Mentalist are essentially re-imaginings of Sherlock Holmes. Among the absolutely massive list of Sherlock Holmes films that have been created over the years, the 2009 Guy Richie franchise Sherlock Holmes was a recent success starring Robert Downey Jr. It's hard to get away from Holmes, whether it's in a summer blockbuster, straight to DVD movie, or a Japanese puppet show. The list of actors who have portrayed Sherlock Holmes is both impressive and infinite.

Added to that list is now Sir Ian McKellen.

Mr. Holmes is a family film about Holmes during his retirement. He returns to a home where he is cared for by his housekeeper, the underutilized Laura Linney, and her young son played by Milo Parker. Two immediate things came to mind when I began watching this film.

The first was "My GOD Ian McKellen has aged!" which I felt was a sentiment shared by many in the audience. Don't fret, he's actually playing older than he is in real life, if you can believe that. They hired a 70 year old actor to portray a man in his 90's. Hollywood has some fabulous makeup artists, and Ian McKellen is not as fragile as he appears in this film.

The second thing that struck me as unusual was that this was a live-action family film. Do those even get made anymore? Animated films have become so wildly popular (thanks to Pixar) that they have really swamped the kids film market. When I think back to all the great family films from the 90's it becomes really clear that they aren't being made anymore, just big budget blockbusters with a PG rating. Mr. Holmes is somewhat of a call back to that old fashioned idea of a family movie. Not a cheesy comedic kids movie, but a family film for everyone.

If you're wondering why I've spent most of this review talking about the context of Mr. Holmes as a movie, and not the movie itself it's because I found this film utterly forgettable. The characters were quite limited, and the emotional story for the leads was a bit strange to me. Holmes evokes images of the detective, someone only interested in cold hard facts. This Holmes tale is saturated with sentimentality. Holmes seems to bond with this young boy more than he ever did with his partner Watson, someone he worked with closely for many years. I also felt a disconnect between the three story-lines, as they felt like separate stories that didn't enhance one another.

Ian McKellen, however, gives a truly stellar performance as Sherlock Holmes. His character transforms from a younger version at the height of his career, to an older and frail man who needs tending to. He gives a sincere performance with tremendous subtly, without ever condescending the audience. I only wish there was a franchise of Sherlock Holmes films wherein McKellen could reprise the entire history of the fictional character.

Laura Linney and Milo Parker round out this cast as mother and son. Laura Linney is one of those fantastic actresses who tends to fall off the radar. I really enjoyed her acting in this, but I thought her role was a bit flat. I wish she had been given the opportunity to bring more depth to that character. On the other side of that coin, young Milo Parker as Roger is a delight. He is as much the main character of this story as Mr. Holmes is, and he does a great job carrying much of this film.

While the expectation for a jaw-dropping mystery reveal is somewhat unfair, the mysteries in this story simply felt unsatisfying. Perhaps I'm being heavily influenced by the previously mentioned Sherlock Holmes installments, but I don't think I would praise any film with such a wishy-washy ending. That being said, this film is a far way from being unwatchable, and I actually believe many audiences will enjoy Mr. Holmes. McKellen is brilliant, and it's a tense and fascinating story that isn't often portrayed on screen anymore. It's just not for me, someone who over thinks the plot.

IMDb - Mr. Holmes (7.6)
Wikipedia - Mr. Holmes
Rotten Tomatoes - Mr. Holmes (87%)

REVIEW: The Search For Freedom

4/10 - What's love got to do, got to do with it?

Why do people like extreme sports? What is it that drives people to them? That's the premise of this documentary, finding out from athletes what draws them to these sports that put them at risk.

Needless to say, viewing this at the  Maui Film Festival where surf culture reigns king, the movie did quite well.

I would like to know how this documentary came to be. It mashes together footage of athletes from all parts of the globe without ever giving time to introduce them, introduce the sport, or explain why we are watching it.

From the top of snowy mountains with skiers racing against avalanches, to the hot beaches in Hawaii where surfers tame the tides, this film tries to be inclusive of everything that would be considered an extreme sport, including skateboarding, mountain biking, sky diving, snow boarding, BMX, and wind surfing. Perhaps the biggest flaw was not focusing on a few in depth examples of extreme sports. Instead it touches briefly on all of them. No, really. All of them.

It hops from sport to sport, athlete to athlete, with only generic comments about the rush they feel to connect the scenes. This movie is dense with sports interviews, and thin on context. This movie is desperate for a narrator.

Despite it's sloppy execution, there are some great moments that illustrate the way sport culture has evolved and the level of accomplishments that have been achieved. Legends like Tony Hawk discuss his career in skateboarding, in direct comparison to the children who are making those same achievements today.

Really, it's the jaw-dropping cinematic shots that tells the story. These athletes are driven, passionate people who are often viewed as social outcasts for their discipline and dedication to the sport. The slow motion, high def scenes of those athletes rocketing through the air on skis or skates is enough to explain that thematic question. The footage captures a palpable adrenaline rush that fuels these athletes more than anything else. That's something that resonates with thrill seekers.

Seeing those scenes of the highest heights that can be reached through extreme sports, one thing is clear. There doesn't need to be an explanation to get it. It would have been nice if there was one, though.

Rotten Tomatoes - The Search for Freedom
Film Website - The Search for Freedom

REVIEW: Live from New York

5/10 - I got a fever... And the only prescription... Is another movie. 

The premise of a documentary looking at the history, highlights, low-lights, and impact of the long running sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live is something the world was definitely looking for. Thankfully SNL celebrated it's 40th anniversary and mostly did that with a 3 hour television special. No need to go to the movies!

It was a big of a challenge to separate this documentary from the 40th anniversary television special, that aired in February. If you enjoyed one, you'll enjoy the other but there's only so much SNL to reminisce on.

Part of what separated the documentary Live from New York was putting SNL is a larger context. Political impersonations were compared directly to footage of the figure in question, a nice way to show the impact of the show. They showed your favorite sketches, and featured interviews from a variety of cast members. It was a nice way to look back at the evolution of television over the years.

However, this movie is all nostalgia and good feelings, without a lot of critical thinking, and definitely no big revelations. It's a perspective on SNL with rose-colored glasses that undermines some of the issues that have plagued the shows history, like drug abuse, sexism, racism, and dismisses them as being unimportant. Instead of acknowledging those unpleasant truths, it relies on the content of SNL sketches being enough to entertain the audience with little else to say.

Live From New York is an enjoyable watch, because it's a "best of" featuring great moments that cause belly laughs. As a movie, it's quite hollow.

IMDb - Live From New York (6.8)
Rotten Tomatoes - Live From New York (48%)
Film Website - Live From New York

Thanks Blogger, you jerk.

After being in Maui for the Maui Film Festival I had a bunch of movies primed and ready for reviews. We saw some AAA+ studio films, some documentaries, and some indie's. It was a great mix and a great experience.

I wrote up those reviews. I swear I did.

It seems Blogger ate them. Because those posts are now empty.

I'll try to get them up as soon as I remember what movies I saw. I also might revolt and switch to WordPress. Stay tuned.

REVIEW: The Imitation Game

Best Picture Nominee
Best Adapted Screenplay Nominee

8/10 - Like a paint-by-numbers Oscar flick

In 2014 Graham Moore won the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for The Imitation Game. This was the first movie he had produced into a feature film. His short but moving speech revealed his own struggles as a kid, not having a place in the world.

"When I was 16 years old, I tried to kill myself because I felt weird and I felt different and I felt like I did not belong. And now I’m standing here and, so, I would like for this moment to be for that kid out there who feels like she’s weird or she’s different or she doesn't fit in anywhere. Yes, you do. I promise you do. You do. Stay weird. Stay different."

A beautiful speech that gives insight into how he was able to create such a fantastic script. The Imitation Game is a film about the life of pioneering computer scientist Alan Turing. His brilliant mind ostracized him socially, compounded by the fact that he was openly gay during a time when homosexuality was illegal. Turing gets recruited to help crack the Nazi enigma code and help save his country. The same country that cruelly punishes him for being gay. Moore may not have experience working as a military code-breaker, but his own life experience helped create a remarkable tragic figure on screen.

The Imitation Game really is a remarkable film, if almost too polished. It creates a lovely balance of intriguing character with high stakes intensity. This simply is a display of Cumberbatch's talents to create a nuanced character. If you ever heard the advice, "don't show the work" this is exactly what makes Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal wonderful. Every moment embraces this character effortlessly. I was also surprised by Keira Knightly as well, who has never been a memorable actress to me. The film also has a good share of twists and unexpected surprises that makes it more than just a character study.

If there is a flaw in The Imitation Game it's the film's total lack of flaws. Turing says the right things at the right time, and it lost some appeal to me for that reason. Here's the scene where he says something funny. Here's the scene where he does something heroic. Here's the scene where he says a wise proverb. It's a difficult thing to criticize because if I was writing a movie I would want to create a script as tight as this was. However, some charm lost as the overall effect is very much the Hollywood standard without a unique flare.

Like Interstellar, this is a movie that seems to be plagued by a public need to identify inaccuracies. I stand by my belief that this is a movie. It's not a history lesson, nor a biography. Movies have no obligation to be accurate. They only have an obligation to entertain people, largely through fictional stories. If The Imitation Game was a launching point for you to research the life of Alan Turing or his achievements, or the enigma code, or the history of gay rights then the movie did a fantastic job.

I'm not sure if I think this was the year's best picture. As much as I enjoyed the historical fiction of Alan Turing and the Enigma code from The Imitation Game, I don't think it pushed the boundaries of storytelling the way some other films did this year. It certainly is a fantastic film, worthy of being seen and talked about, but a bit too much of a replication of The King's Speech and other historical films to be a stand out for me. Everything about The Imitation Game screams that it was made to win awards. Perhaps it should win them, but I don't value that very much as a movie-goer.


IMDb - The Imitation Game (8.1)
Wikipedia - The Imitation Game
Rotten Tomatoes - The Imitation Game (89%)
Amazon.ca - The Imitation Game

REVIEW: Interstellar

10/10 - Epic is a really good word for this movie

Christopher Nolan is a director that built his name on action adventure movies that brought audiences to new worlds with imaginative concepts. Coming off films like The Dark Knight and Inception, the expectations for his sci fi space opera were quite high.

Interstellar is a journey that takes the audience from a dystopian future to the limits of outer space. It's the ultimate cowboy movie, throwing a good ol' farmer into a new territory, looking to claim land for the US of A. This whole film has the feel of being bigger than this movie, bigger than it's story. Perhaps even bigger than Nolan could wrangle. It is a fantastic cinematic experience though, perhaps the best of the year. It hands the ability to infinitely discover the universe to the audience. Interstellar truly feels like a masterpiece, worthy of a grand scale.

The story itself is about Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) a NASA engineer turned farmer who struggles to raise a family during an environmental crisis. Coop gets recruited to join a mission to explore a nearby wormhole, as they believe nearby planets could help save the dying Earth. It's a mission to provide a future for the son and daughter he leaves behind.

What sets Interstellar apart is that it doesn't just tell a story, it shares an experience. We tend to break films down into categories, in order to decide whether they were worthwhile. Story, acting, special effects, audio, what was good and what was bad? In any film, Interstellar included, those specific areas can be picked apart and examined as a contributing part to the film as a whole. In this film, I was so enraptured with the rabbit hole we had been thrown into, that it seemed rather irrelevant to pick apart the individual areas of technical design. The overall effect was so powerful and storytelling so innovative that I felt as though I was a part of the mission the astronauts were on.

For the sake of the review, I'm obligated to share those criticisms. The emotional story was a bit uneven, and I left with more questions about Coopers family then I had answers. At some points conversations felt long, and claustrophobic.

The biggest issue seemed to be the trouble in bridging the science fiction elements to an audience of people without physics degrees. Part of that comes from the desire to tell a story with an explanation grounded in reality but also, science fiction in film seems to arise a bizarre sense of entitlement for scientific accuracy. I get where this comes from, we want to trust and believe in the universe so that story lives on. I can only presume some journalists didn't get the "fiction" part of "science fiction" because I've read a thousand articles desperate to point out minute scientific inaccuracies.

Frankly, we need a better outlet to explore our fascination with great movies, than to credit or discredit the film with educational tidbits of astrophysics. "Debunking" the scientific accuracy only serves to undermine the outstanding achievements of this film.

From beginning to end, Interstellar is an outstanding movie. It utilized every aspect of film making to give the audience an experience never seen before. From the silent explosions in space, to the shocking affects of gravity on a new planet, Interstellar pushed the limits of what humans can experience by putting it on the big screen. If there is ever a film worthy of putting down your phone and offering it your fullest attention, this is it.

IMDb - Interstellar (8.7)
Wikipedia - Interstellar
Rotten Tomatoes - Interstellar (72%)
Amazon.ca - Interstellar

REVIEW: Life Itself

8/10 - It eluded us then, but that's no matter - tomorrow we will run faster...

Life Itself (2014)

In 2013 when Roger Ebert passed away, something interesting happened. There was undeniably a massive loss felt by many people who Roger had touched, but the wave of grief went far beyond his friends, family and colleagues. There was a struggle to articulate why his loss was so profound. Ebert was a pop culture icon as a film critic, his job and his work is something that's largely impersonal. For example, I've read at least a hundred film reviews this week for different movies and I don't think I could even give the name of one off hand, let alone tell you anything about their personal life. For so many of us, Roger Ebert represented something different. His work cultivated a personal relationship with the public that separated his job from his life.

That's what made Roger special. His job was to give opinions, but he gave us honesty and sincerity. He was a passionate person, and wasn't ashamed to be outspoken and vulnerable. That quality is rare. His gift for writing that reaches deep down to the heart of the matter, made him stand out. In a culture that has rejected poetry and fine arts, movies have become our outlet and reflection of selves. Ebert brought an art back to that medium. He elevated what films were and reminded us that while we go to be entertained, we are writing our own historical narrative and searching for humanity.

The documentary Life Itself was released in 2014 but it took me some time to come around to see it because I anticipated I would be crying throughout. The film is based on Ebert's own memoir that was released in 2011 of the same name.

Siskel and Ebert: At the Movies

The documentary began filming in 2012, and is filled with new footage, his own stories and jokes, exerts from the book, interviews from friends and family, pictures and old clips. It chronicles Roger Ebert's life from a young man with the gift of the gab, to his cancer treatment and dealing with having his voice literally taken away from him. It's an insight into his life with Chaz, Gene Siskel and At the Movies, and the ups and downs of his life.

Although there isn't a lot of terrible revolutionary information or shocking new scenes that I've come to expect with contemporary documentaries, there is a lot to enjoy about this film. Particularly, admiration for his generosity and tenacity. It wouldn't be a interesting film if he was portrayed as a saint and nothing else, however it's easy to see how he became such a likable figure even at his worst.

At 2 hours, Life Itself was a longer documentary than I was expecting, but I recommend it wholeheartedly. It is, without question, a movie designed to pull at your heartstrings, but I might venture to guess, that's the reason most people see it anyways. I'm not sure if there will ever be a critic so renowned as Ebert, and this is certainly a tribute to his legacy.

Two thumbs up.

IMDb - Life Itself (8.0)
Wikipedia - Life Itself
Rotten Tomatoes - Life Itself (97%)
Amazon.ca - Life Itself

REVIEW: Big Hero 6

7/10 - Way to go Disney, you didn't totally mess this one up!

Disney's Big Hero 6

After ripping apart Frozen for the past year I was hesitant to even approach Big Hero 6 fearing it would be the far stupider step child of an already dumb family. What a terrible metaphor. I digress, Disney animation has cranked out some pretty poor family films in the last few years, with movies that have lots of shelf appeal and no substance. Big Hero 6 looked to be about the same. And after hearing Doug Loves Movies refer to the infamous "YEAAAAHHHH SCIENCE" line ad nauseum I was expecting something along the lines of Wreck It Ralph. A movie painfully paint-by-numbers.

So, when I put on Big Hero 6 it was because I was looking for something wafer thin, and as light and fluffy as a cloud. To my surprise, it's actually not a bad story.

Hero, a robotics-loving/prodigy kid. His older brother, Tadashi is working on a robot project of his own at his university, a personal healthcare robot named Baymax. Some spoilerish stuff happens and the group of friends band together with their robotics know-how to save San Fransokyo.

First of all, San Fransokyo. That's where they live. A semi-futuristic version of San Francisco meets Tokyo. That also means many of the main characters are Asian inspired white people. There's something about white washing the characters that doesn't sit well with me. It would have been nice to see some racial diversity in a Disney movie, aside from aliens and talking animals. It doesn't really help that all the friend characters are themselves MASSIVE cliches.

Main Cast from Disney's Big Hero 6

The robotic lead, Baymax is like someone made a robot out of a Wii U. It's got none of the
functionality you actually want in a robot, and it's "non threatening hug-able" appearance is accompanied by soft lights and synthetic tones. It's an inflatable Wii Fit game.

Once you get past that, the fantastic performance by Scott Adsit makes Baymax a great character. His actions are a reflection of the person who did the programming and that's a delightfully fresh approach to robots on film.

I really enjoyed the overall story arc and the approach to themes in this film. It's a collision of violent vengeance with compassion and healing. Although there are some annoying cliches that come with an "origin story" the superhero aspect is somewhat of a b-plot. It's an excellent adventure movie along the lines of How to Train Your Dragon. It's charming with a lot of humanity.

Big Hero 6 also won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature this year so congratulations! You beat The Lego Movie because it wasn't nominated.

• IMDb - Big Hero 6 (8.0)
• Wikipedia - Big Hero 6
• Rotten Tomatoes - Big Hero 6 (90%)
• Amazon.ca - Big Hero 6

REVIEW: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Best Picture Nominee

Best Original Screenplay Nominee

3/10 - I don't like this movie. 

I literally don't know how to review a movie so polarizing, when I'm on the hate side. Actually it's not even polarizing. It's pretty much unanimously acclaimed. I just straight up don't get it. 

I've enjoyed a few Wes Anderson movies, like The Life Aquatic and Fantastic Mr. Fox. They were ok. I get the two two dimensional stylization. I understand that some people love it and think it's the bee's knee's. I'm on the side of loathing one word defined characters and paper thin plot lines. 

The Grand Budapest Hotel is about some random stuff that I didn't care to follow. I swear to god, I watched this movie twice and that's the best I can come up with. A bunch of white guys run around, some of them have guns. I don't know what to say. It was like watching a foreign film without subtitles. 

For me, I simply cannot connect to an endless stream of identical characters who all look and behave the same. Compound that with my utter lack of interest in following the story of these people and I'm done for.

I've watched a lot of movies. I've seen a lot of weird stuff. I usually try to get the weird stuff, and understand the point of view, even if I don't like it. This movie... The Grand Budapest Hotel is a brick wall. This is going to a concert to see a band and getting a puppet show. 

This is not the movie for me. I hope it loses everything. Sorry not sorry. 

IMDb - The Grand Budapest Hotel (8.1)

Wikipedia - The Grand Budapest Hotel

Rotten Tomatoes - The Grand Budapest Hotel (92%)

Amazon.ca - The Grand Budapest Hotel

REVIEW: Whiplash

Best Picture Nominee
Best Adapted Screenplay

9/10 - At least half the audience left thinking they were jazz music experts.

Whiplash was the surprise sleeper hit of 2014 for sure. I'm pretty sure if you asked people on the street they would be like "uhhh I think it's a movie?" For a film nominated for Best Picture it's certainly not making waves the way best picture films have in the past. But you know what? None of the nominee's this year have been big movies. So maybe it was just a weird year all around.

Damien Chazelle wrote and directed this semi-autobiogrpahical film, which frankly makes me a little terrified of him. It's a film about an aspiring drummer named Andrew (Miles Teller) who's ambition while attending a prestigious music college lands him in front of the most intimidating man to ever hold one of those tiny conductor batons. J.K. Simmons plays Fletcher, the conductor, teacher, mentor, and living nightmare who demands greatness from his students through insane threats of violence.

It really it a compelling story. The journey that these musicians take really is comparable to the rigors of athletics, as the film so graciously points out. It's an examination of dedication and what it means to have personal stakes in something you're so driven and passionate about. We've all seen the sports movies about sacrifice but the music industry doesn't usually get depicted in such a way. Typically on film, musicians are just gifted natural born talents. I think Whiplash sort of throws that in the face of the audience. Everyone has something to prove, but are you going to do the work to get to the place where you actually can prove it?

What really strikes me about this kind of film is how perfectly the tone enhances the storytelling. For a minimalist movie about two characters, there are some vivid images and scenes of tension that I just can't shake. The concept of jazz music being the source of so much conflict seemed like an oxymoron before I saw the film, but the sharp and surprising musicality fits wonderfully into a story that does the same.

Don't even get me started on JK Simmons. What a perfect role. Whiplash is one of those great movies where you actually forget it's a movie because those characters are so real, with such an honest and genuine performance. Fletcher is a truly unpredictable character. I can't think of the last movie I saw that featured anything close to that.

I do hope Whiplash wins a few trophies on Oscar night. As a film, it's perfectly succinct and brilliant. It's a real modern drama, without needing to be a historical period piece, or human tragedy. Whiplash is dark and thrilling, with a story every bit as worthwhile as those other typical drama winners.

IMDb - Whiplash (8.6)
Wikipedia - Whiplash
Rotten Tomatoes - Whiplash (95%)
Amazon.ca - Whiplash

REVIEW: Burt's Buzz

6/10 - A story of an old man and bee's wax.

Burt Shavitz.

As you can predict from the image on your lip balm, Burt is a dirty hippy through and through. Now approaching 80, he lives a reclusive life on a farm in Maine. As his company became a massive corporation, his lifestyle never changed. He hangs out with his dog and wood stove. Oh and his name is associated with a billion dollar corporation, but whatever.

To be fair, this is a documentary about Burt. Burt just happens to be associated with Burt's Bee's. This is not a docu about lip balm company in any way. I suppose it is in a little way, but there isn't really a sufficient story about Burt's Bees to call that the focus of the movie.

Burt has done a lot of fascinating things in his life. He was a successful photojournalist, an activist, he was a bee keeper (duh) and reluctant business man, now he's the face and spokesperson for a company he has no stock or investment in. What's even more interesting is how reclusive his life is. It felt a bit like the documentary crew had a difficult time finding people to talk to about Burt. He is very isolated, and is quite content to live that way even after spending stretches in 5 star hotels.

That being said, Burt is also the kind of person you can size up immediately. What you see is what you get. I found this film to be a bit aimless, as they tried to unveil facets of his character that were quite clear from the beginning. Without any revolutionary or unbelievable scenes, this movie ends up a bit boring. While the concept and the person might be memorable, the movie itself isn't.

IMDb - Burt's Buzz (6.5)
Rotten Tomatoes - Burt's Buzz (73%)
Amazon.ca - Burt's Buzz

REVIEW: St. Vincent

8/10 - What are you waiting for a paper invitation? 

This is one of my favorite movies of 2014. It's also probably my favorite Bill Murray role of the last 10 years. It's also probably going to get reviews saying it's mediocre and predictable. Even so, I don't care, St. Vincent just hits me in the right way.

The rundown is this: Bill Murray plays Vincent, a misanthropic asshole who smokes and drinks, hangs out with prostitutes and has lost all him money gambling. His new neighbor Maggie movies in with her kid Oliver. Vincent ends up hanging out with Oliver, watching him after school while Maggie works long hours trying to support her family as a newly single parent.

I'm just going to say this now. If you are the least bit cynical or go in expecting beginning to end belly laughs, you'll be disappointed. Fortunately I'm a big softy deep down, so coming of age combo-love your family drama is right up my ally.

What I found refreshing about St. Vincent is that the characters are not trapped inside the vacuum of the protagonists journey. All the characters in this film come from different backgrounds, and have different conflicts in their lives, different with points of view, and all grow and change by the end. No one is a villain for the sake of being bad, or good for the sake of innocence. It's almost the opposite of Chef, where there were clear character roles and good things happened making the audience feel good. In this case, the character roles fluctuate and major obstacles come up in an unexpected way. But it still makes the audience feel good. 

Like I said, Bill Murray is fantastic. It's nice to see actors out of their comfort zones, and Bill Murray has fallen into this trap of playing characters almost exactly like himself. While his charm does a huge favor in this role to make an unlikable character more palatable, Vincent is something out of the ordinary for him. Melissa McCarthy too. I can't remember McCarthy ever playing a straight role. She's a mom, a nurse, she's struggling, she's real. For someone who normally play's characters so over the top they are basically cartoons, this is a fresh revelation. When I read the script I was in total disbelief that Naomi Watts would work in her role, and she definitely changed my mind. It's a great cast who really surprises. I think it's a real credit to writer/director Theodore Melfi who got the best out of this pool of talented actors. 

I'm a big fan of St. Vincent. It might be a bit paint by numbers, a bit cliche, and a bit saccharine but I like a movie that doesn't shy away from those elements. It's easy to be critical of a movie that relies on sentimentality but that doesn't take away from the quality of the story. At the end of the day I was rooting for the kid, laughing at the jokes and enraptured by the ending. Isn't that what we watch movies for?

IMDb - St. Vincent (7.3)
Wikipedia - St. Vincent
Rotten Tomatoes - St. Vincent (77%)
Amazon.ca - St. Vincent

REVIEW: The Interview

6/10 - Yeah yeah, Sony Hack, terrorist threat, controversy, blah blah. Don't care.

You know what's weird? The thing that stood out to me the most about The Interview is the production value. Really outstanding sets, costumes, graphics. Great editing on quick montages. Good music, lighting, cinematography, everything. Scenes that could have been bland were spruced up with a healthy budget to create great visuals.

I don't care much for the actors, jokes, or story though.

I will confess, this is another movie where I read the script before seeing the film. Perhaps that deflated some of the story and comedic elements? You can judge.

I feel like this is The Hobbit of comedy. All the elements are there, to make a funny film. On paper it should work. But with too big of a budget and too much confidence it's lost the whole reason people wanted this movie to begin with. They thought they were making another Jump Street or This is The End but instead they ended up with something messy and boring.

The Interview is a perfectly mediocre film about regular schmucks getting thrown into international espionage. James Franco plays an exaggerated Ryan Seacrest type entertainment reporter, and Seth Rogan plays himself? Is Seth Rogan best buds with Ryan Seacrest? I'm not sure. I think in this film Seth was supposed to be a producer or something, but he really just played himself. It opens with some really hilarious scenes showing Franco interviewing celebs and uncovering the best juicy gossip. I'd watch a whole movie of just that. Then they get thrown down a rabbit hold of interviewing the dictator of North Korea and being fuck ups about it.

I'm not sure what exactly turned me off from this movie but I think it's somewhere in the combo of unmemorable jokes and a weak plot. At the end of the day this concept lends itself to some serious political satire. I'm not sure if making fun of Kim Jong-Un in a pre-school way is really sufficient. I also found in the script, there was greater emphasis on the fact that as the dictator of North Korea the population was suffering inhumane atrocities, and they were heavily manipulating their image for the these two media representatives. The final cutting of the film doesn't go near the oppressed people aspect, perhaps because it's a mood killer, but then it's harder justify Kim Jong-Un as the ultimate enemy.

I also found myself frustrated that The Interview is self aware enough to comment on the use of women solely for male seduction, and yet every woman in the movie is only there to seduce a man. What can you do?

I think the best things to take away from The Interview are Randall Park and Diana Bang. Both actors were great in their roles and were quite funny. Something that isn't easy when this film is a vehicle for Franco and Rogan to be funny.

So The Interview gets a big pass. If you saw the trailer you probably saw about as much memorable material as their is in the whole film. It's not an offensively bad comedy like We're the Millers, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there enjoyed this film. It's just not my cup of tea.

Wikipedia - The Interview
IMDb - The Interview (7.1)
Rotten Tomatoes - The Interview (51%)
Amazon.ca - The Interview

REVIEW: Boyhood

Best Picture Nominee

Original Screenplay Nominee

8/10 - You can film yourself aging while you watch this movie, too!

Boyhood is what I'm calling the clear front runner for this year's Best Picture race. For cinematic innovation it's deserving. Considering how the last decade has gone for movies (badly) it really is a triumph of filmmaking. You will notice however, it's not getting a perfect score because if I'm being honest it's kind of boring and I'll never watch it again.

For those few people unawares, Boyhood is Richard Linklater's latest film. It's a literal coming-of-age drama that follows a young boy, Mason and his family over the years until he departs for college. This is fresh on the heel's of Linklater's successful third installment of his Before series, Before Midnight. The Before series brought audiences into brief moments that were decades apart. Boyhood assembled a film crew for a few scenes every year for 12 years, culminating in a three hour movie concentrate of what childhood looks like. It's almost a polished version of what some of the mumble-core (Ugh I hate that word) movies have tried to accomplish. Drop the viewer into the mundane reality of life, not the elevated fantasy that most films portray.

That leaves my paradox. Watching the cast, namely Ellar Coltrane, literally go through boyhood is the hook. If you were to describe this movie, as I did, you would only talk about that part. But the time between filming is not the point of the movie. There is a real plot. Which isn't about Ellar growing up. Except it sort of is, it's about Mason Jr. growing up. The family goes through a lot of changes. It's about his parents separation, their new relationships, the step children, the ups and downs of puberty. It really is a pseudo documentary that seems to only observe the life of a boy in relevant periods of time, culminating in great personal growth for all the characters and illustrating the struggles and hope in every day life.

I can't quite decide where I land on Boyhood. To some critics, this film is a revelation. And as someone who watches a lot of movies I totally get that. Boyhood breaks the standard movie mold, really pulling on the heartstrings of certain generations (Like those with kids Mason's age or those kids who are Mason's age.) I think many people will leave feeling satisfied with the nostalgic quality of this film. On the other hand there really isn't much of a tangible story to follow and the extremely long three hour time frame is going to turn off many movie goers. This is a film so raw in concept, very humble and endearing, and yet it's inaccessible to so many people. The sentiment I've heard about this movie is "Yeah, I've heard about it. No I'm not going to see it." Which is sort of a shame that this is where we've landed. I'm not going to lie, the lack of "story" is a big turn off for me, too.

Regardless of whether it's an underrated masterpiece, or an overwrought eyeroll, I wish we had more movies like Boyhood. The last few years have made me quite frustrated with the movie scene. There are award dramas that come out at Christmas, Summer action movies, early Spring comedies, and very little innovation. It's all become quite safe. Audiences are being told to anticipate their movie purchases years in advance regardless of whether the film will be any good, and lower budget movies are being swept under the rug. I'm glad that movies like Boyhood and Birdman are doing so well this season. Nothing against Selma or The Imitation Game but they are literally only funded because of the award season cash in. It's nice to see a passion project come to life every once in a while. This is a good passion filled movie. Let it recharge you.

IMDb - Boyhood (8.3)
Wikipedia - Boyhood
Rotten Tomatoes - Boyhood (98%)
Amazon.ca - Boyhood