Is Boyhood Really a Modern Masterpiece???

Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Yummy! Yummy!!!

It’s been nearly a month since the Oscars, and by now, regular people have already moved on with their lives, because they are well-adjusted human beings. However, because I’m the furthest possible thing from well-adjusted, I’m still beaming over Birdman winning Best Picture, even though it’s been awhile since the freaking ceremony, and the Oscars don’t mean a damn thing anyway.

As I’ve been skimming through some post-Oscars reaction stuff (In Mid-March? I repeat, what the hell is wrong with me!?!?) I’ve noticed that a lot of people (Forgive me, I couldn’t give you an exact percentage, because I don’t have THAT much free time) seem to be upset that Birdman won, the major complaint being that, while Birdman is a great movie (I wholeheartedly agree), it doesn’t hold a candle to the once-a-generation marvel that is Boyhood, the slice-of-life movie by Richard Linklater.

That, I have a little trouble believing.

See, despite all the hype surrounding it, and all the terrific reviews that the film has gotten ever since its premier at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival, I still don’t see it as much more than just a good movie that, unfortunately, doesn’t hold up that well under actual scrutiny (Not “Oh, it took twelve years to make?!?!?! PRAISE LINKLATER!!!!”)

“Linklater makes Truffaut look like an asshole!!!” -Jay Bauman

So, in the interest of putting this movie to rest, I’ve decided to go a bit beyond my actual review of it and give a few reasons why I think that, while certainly not the worst movie you’ll ever see, it doesn’t hold up. As one of the few people on Planet Earth who’s sat through the movie four times (Once for my review, once with my parents, once with my brother and once in preparation for this post).

Before really getting into it, I should point out, for the umpteenth time, that this is just my opinion. If someone was really moved by Boyhood, or thought that it really was the best movie of this century so far. If you think that, terrific. I just don’t see what the big deal is.

1. Nostalgia doesn’t make a movie good, nor does it hold up very well over time. 

This is kind of a minor point, but this movie does lean a little bit too much on getting that warm, nostalgic feeling from the audience. I’m sure I don’t need to explain this, but nostalgia does not make a movie good. Not only that, but it also serves to date the movie, so future generations may not connect to it as much as our generation apparently does. As somebody who grew up in around the same time period that the movie was set in, I don’t mind as much as I probably should, but still, the lingering shots of old Apple computers and nods to Harry Potter and the fucking Star Wars prequels aren’t going to help the movie in the years to come.

Again, not a huge complaint, but not something that sits well, either.

2. The “12-Year” gimmick: Cool technical accomplishment, not a great indicator of quality. 

According to most people, the biggest thing this movie has going for it is the fact that it was filmed over twelve years, and while I see a little bit of merit to that argument (Specifically, that Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette managed to keep their characters interesting for one week of filming once every year), I don’t know if that really makes the film that much better. This may be the first time a non-documentary film takes this approach, but we’ve still seen people grow up before our eyes on screen before. There’s actually an entire genre of television dedicated to it. You may recognize it, it’s called “sitcoms”.

I know, I’m uncultured, but it’s true, isn’t it? During, shit, I dunno, Full House, we actually saw those characters grow up before our eyes and develop as human beings.

For better or for worse.

Oh, shit, what about For Better or For Worse!!!???

So, yeah, as far as I’m concerned, while it was a clever decision, and it was mostly executed alright, it doesn’t really elevate the film all that much. Besides, I don’t really think that most of the credit for the whole “twelve years” concept should go to Richard Linklater, but whoever was in charge of editing all that goddamn footage into a coherent movie. Really, what was so impressive about Linklater’s direction? Seriously.

“Uh, did you not hear me mention it took twelve years to make?”

3. The main character isn’t very interesting. 

It’s not always necessary for movies to have particularly interesting protagonists. The science fiction, fantasy and action genres can attest to that. The reason that those genres have  so many blank slate protagonists is so the audience can insert themselves into the role. Someone with a very basic personality like Neo in the first Matrix (A very basic character) is a whole lot more fun to watch than he would be if he was given more than the most basic of motivations to do what he does, because if that were the case, the movie may still be enjoyable, but Neo would be a lot harder to step into the shoes of, if that makes any sense.

Mason Evans, Jr is this kind of protagonist, and it doesn’t particularly work in the movie. This character is not particularly interesting, and for a movie like this, he really should be.

See, Boyhood  is the very definition of a slice-of-life movie. These kinds of movies live and die off of the character being engaging to watch. Especially when the movie is nearly three hours long. His character arc is: Small child quietly observes everything, pre-teen quietly observes everything, whiny teenager who observes everything while also occasionally waxing bullshit philosophical. This does not exactly make for emotional investment. Seeing him grow up before your eyes doesn’t make up for his nondescript personality. I’ve known people for twelve years in real life, and I’m still indifferent towards them. Why the hell should I feel any different about this bland, boring character?

4. The wrong character was the protagonist. 

So, yeah, Mason isn’t that compelling of a character. However, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette’s characters were very intriguing. Besides the fact that the performances were great, these characters are genuinely excellent and likable. Ethan Hawke is trying to stay genuine even as he’s being forced into the conventional life that he didn’t want with Patricia Arquette. Do we get more of that? No! We do get more of Mason falling out with his high school girlfriend, though! How fucking riveting! Patricia Arquette’s character also has potential! She seems attracted to unstable or even dangerous partners! She’s desperately trying to get a foothold on her life! Do we see more of that? Noooope! What the fuck do we get ?! Mason hanging out with a bunch of skeeves, breaking wooden boards, obviously! Fucking ENTHRALLING!!! Clearly, this movie is the goddamn Citizen Kane of our age!!!

5. At a certain point, the writing just becomes super terrible. 

You may have noticed, but I’m kind of a stickler for good writing in any medium. And, being a teenager, I would say I’m a pretty good judge o realistic teenage dialogue. And, folks, this ain’t it.

The first third or so of Boyhood is actually pretty great, but I feel like, right when Mason hits junior high, Linklater, the same guy who wrote Dazed and Confused, mind you, completely forgets how to write dialogue for teenagers.

I defy anybody who likes this movie (Which includes me, mind you) to defend these lines as realistic an actual teenager, or, hell, an actual person, would say.

“You know how everyone’s always saying seize the moment? I don’t know, I’m kind of thinking it’s the other way around, you know, like the moment seizes us.”

What?

“Hey, welcome to the suck.”

Every time I’ve heard that line, I’ve projectile-vomited.

“You know Jim, you’re not my dad.”

There has got to be a less cliched way to convey that sentiment.

So, yeah, maybe we should think twice before elevating Richard Linklater to God status?

if those lines didn’t convince you…

“You know that goth girl that wears a lot of Hot Topic? Well, she and I used to be best friends but we aren’t anymore because she thinks I’m a preppy, but I still like her. Anyway, she cut herself, and now she’s in the hospital, so I’m going to go visit her. Have you read the Twilight books?”

Admittedly, I’m paraphrasing. Still, though what the FUCK?!?!

Movie Review: Man of Steel

When I review movies, I can’t help but be a little swayed by movie critics. Sure, everything I write, I mean or agree with, but in an era where sites like like Rotten Tomatoes can give you a quick, effective overview of whether somebody liked the movie, or whether they hated it, and if their opinion of the film was an aberration or the status quo, gone are the days when you had to watch the movie for yourself to decide, more or less independently, what are quality films.

Also, which 9% of critics and 30% of audiences should probably be separated from the general population.

But occasionally, there comes a movie where I simply cannot agree with the critical consensus. Van Wilder is one such movie (18% from critics). Another is Superhero Movie because goddammit, if it has Leslie Nielsen, it’s good enough for me.

This is about the closest Canada had to Mr. Rogers. We miss ya, Leslie.

The movie I’m reviewing today (If only because I’m feeling burnt out from my stupid baseball articles) is one that has polarized both critics and fans, unusual for superhero movies, which are usually unanimously seen as good or bad, depending on how many shitty emo dance sequences occur.

Hee hee! Look at how his cheeks wobble!

Starring the only superhero that just won’t stay dead even if some may prefer it that way…

Those have got to be the weakest wounds that anyone has died from.

…Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for…

Directed By: Zack Snyder

Genre: Superhero

Based On: Superman by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster

Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Antje Traue, Ayelet Zurer, Cristopher Meloni, Russell Crowe

Legacy: People starting to realize that producer Cristopher Nolan is probably a pretty joyless guy.

“Bitch, please.”

Quick Plot Summary:

The scene: Planet Krypton, an advanced civilization comprised of genetically engineered humanoids whose jobs are all predestined from the moment they are conceived in vitro, and flying bird things that were totally not stolen from Avatar. The time: The Kryptonian apocalypse, a result of Krypton being bled dry of its natural resources, which resulted in an unstable core. The planet’s military commander, General Zod (Michael Shannon, looking every bit the part) deposes the ruling council via vaporization, while scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe. Not singing, thank God)  and his wife Lara (Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer) launch their newborn son Kal-El, the last natural-born son on Krypton, on a spacecraft to planet Earth, after infusing him with a genetic codex of the entire Kryptonian race. What was the point of this? Fuck if I know. Zod murders Jor-El, but his coup is defeated and he is imprisoned in the Phantom Zone. However, Krypton blows up shortly afterwards, which makes going to all the trouble  of throwing somebody in jail, where he will be safe, while your own planet explodes seem pretty damn stupid, huh?

“Honestly? We were just in it for the brutality.”

Kal-El’s ship lands in what I’m going to assume is Smallville, Kansas, where he is brought up by Martha (Diane Lane) and Johnathan Kent (Kevin Costner), who christen him Clark Kent. Because Earth’s atmosphere is different from Krypton’s, or something, Clark develops superhuman abilities, including unreal strength, speed, flight, durability, heat vision and (most terrifyingly) X-Ray vision.

And the ability to make straight men’s sexuality do a complete 180.

After Johnathan reveals his extraterrestrial origins to him, he advises him not to use his powers publicly, fearing that society will reject him. This, despite humanities excellent track record with godlike beings who could crush them with a flick of the wrist.

Andre the Giant: Sent from the distant, doomed land known only as “France” to save us from ourselves.

Fast-Forward several years later, and Clark has matured into a bearded nomad (Henry Cavill) who roams the States…

Wow, you can hardly tell that both this movie and Batman Begins were written by Christopher Nolan and David Goyer, huh?

…Taking odd jobs under false names until he infiltrates a U.S. military investigation of a Kryptonian spaceship in the Arctic. Inside the ship, he discovers the preserved consciousness of Jor-El in hologram form. Holo-El reveals Kal-El’s true lineage to him and explains that he was sent to Earth in order to bring hope to mankind. After the revelation, Clark saves Daily Planet journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams) from harm when she tries to sneak in and is attacked by the ship’s security system. Upon returning to Metropolis, her story of a superhuman saviour is rejected by her editor, Perry white (Laurence Fishburne). So she then traces Clark back to Smallville, intending to write an expose on the guy that was hanging around an alien spacecraft guarded by the U.S. military. Not once did she think that this might not be the best idea.

Though if she is going to release state secrets to the public, I’m sure Julian Assange could use some company.

Meanwhile, Zod and his soldiers, who survived the destruction of Krypton have made their way to Earth and hijack the world’s communication services to demand that Kal-El surrender themselves to him, in order to use him in his sinister plan that I won’t reveal because I have the sinking feeling that this plot summary has gone too long.

Overview:

Wow, where to begin?

To begin with a negative aspect of the film, I would have to go with what feels to me like an overall lack of originality. I know that it’s a waste of breath to complain about originality in movies today, but in this film, it’s clearly obvious that Christopher Nolan “borrowed” story elements from Batman Begins. Specifically, the part where Clark goes on his journey to “find himself” or whatever, which, you will recall, is exactly what Bruce Wayne did in Batman Begins. Nolan may have also borrowed a little bit too much of the tone from his  Dark Knight series. At times, Man of Steel seems incredibly bleak. Now, I’m not one to complain about this, because I like my heroes a little bit on the conflicted side, and hey, I’m growing up in the twenty-first century. Nothing can faze me.

If I survived the Great Twinkie Drought, then I can survive anything.

One of my “Likes” is the cast. Henry Cavill, despite being a relative unknown outside of his TV show, The Tudors, did a great job, in my opinion, of interpreting Superman as he saw fit, much like Christian Bale did as Batman. Kevin Costner, Diane Lane and Antje Traue (Zod’s psychopathic right-hand woman) are all excellent while Russell Crowe  and Michael Shannon are complete bad-asses. I liked Amy Adams as Lois Lane as well, I just didn’t feel like she was likable enough.

“It’s not an “S”. It’s a symbol of hope for my people.”
…
“Well down here, it’s an “S”.”
…
“Well, fuck, I stand corrected then, you pompous bitch.”

Another gripe I have about the movie is the pacing. Throughout the movie, we are treated to flashbacks of Clark’s past life. I wouldn’t have any problem with this if it wasn’t annoying and completely unnecessary. It just seems out of place, and way to frequent to ignore.

Also, while the wanton destruction was awesome and really fun to watch, even if it got hard to follow (SPOILER ALERT!) right after Zod’s tentacle machine is destroyed (SPOILER END) It can seem overblown and it may also seem that Superman ends more lives then he saves when he and Zod smash through Metropolis. This is a valid point until you realize that a)  He’s still learning how to use his powers effectively in this movie, and b) HOLY CRAP people, do you not realize that this is more or less exactly what would happen if you got two people who are literally Gods on Earth fighting each other?

Somebody. ANYBODY. Please. Make. This. Happen.

Overall:

Despite its excess, poor pacing and clearly borrowed story elements, Man of Steel succeeds thanks to its its cast, soundtrack and action make it an extremely enjoyable viewing experience.

83%