Boyhood

Posted on July 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm

A-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language including sexual references, and for teen drug and alcohol use
Profanity:	Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Teen and adult drinking, teen drug use
Violence/ Scariness:	Domestic abuse, guns
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	July 18, 2014
Date Released to DVD:	January 5, 2015
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00MEQUNZ0

“A boy’s will is the wind’s will/And the thoughts of youth are long, long thoughts.” (Longfellow)

We first see Mason (Ellar Coltrane) lying on the ground, looking up at the sky, and it is clear that his thoughts are very long indeed. We will stay with Mason and — in an unprecedented longitudinal form of filmmaking from writer/director Richard Linklater — portrayed by Coltrane for twelve years, until he leaves for college at age 18. This film deservedly appears on most of the year’s top ten lists and has been selected by several critics groups as the best film of the year.

Linklater has followed characters over the years before. We have seen the romantic relationship of Celine and Jesse in three 24-hour episodes (all involving walking through European cities) in the “Before” films, plus an intriguing segment of the animated “Waking Life.” That series is an extraordinary, and I hope, continuing undertaking, with stars Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke working with Linklater to create the storyline and script.

Hawke is in this film, too, as Mason’s father, Mason senior. Patricia Arquette plays his mother and Linklater’s daughter Lorelei plays his older sister, Samantha. All are superb. Linklater says that he knew what the last shot would be from the beginning. For the rest, he trusted his stars and the developments of the dozen years ahead of them. As the children got older, they joined Linklater, Hawke, and Arquette in helping to fill in the details.

And it is the details that are the story here, giving it a unhurried yet mesmerizingly enthralling feel and an unexpected power. At first, it seems like time-lapse footage of a flower blooming. Then it feels like watching someone’s home movies. By the end, we are so invested in Mason’s life we feel we are watching our own.

Linklater and his cast met for just a few weeks each year to film a little more. Unlike a conventional narrative, where, as Chekov put it, economy of storytelling means that a gun over the fireplace in act one has to go off by act three, this story is not linear. But non-linear does not mean random. The incidents chosen are not necessarily the high points of Mason’s years, but they are indicators that create a mosaic of the fuller picture. Mason sees his mother, who has gone back to graduate school, talking to one of her professors. But it is unlikely that he understands the meaning of the look they exchange. We are not surprised to find them married in a subsequent scene. And we do not need a slow build-up or full character arc to understand the import of the succeeding conflicts between the stepfather and stepson.

Meanwhile, Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater do something no one has ever done quite this way before on screen. They grow up. And Richard Linklater trusts the audience enough to let that in and of itself be the dramatic arc of the story. There were laughs and hoots in the audience over the antiquated look of the computers at Mason’s school. There are references to the first Obama Presidential campaign and the release of a new Harry Potter book. But these are all organic, as much as his first heart-break, his second stepfather, and new stepmother, and tough words from his teacher. There is no micro-managed re-creation of the past; this is the past, our past as well as Mason’s. It feels real, it feels lived in, and, as he leaves for college, it feels bittersweet but filled with promise.

Parents should know that this film includes domestic abuse, tense family confrontations, guns, very strong language, sexual references (some crude), and teen drug and alcohol use.

Family discussion: Do you agree with Mason’s photography teacher about what he should do? Mason had many different role models for masculinity — which do you think he will follow?

If you like this, try: Richard Linklater’s other films, including “Before Sunrise,” “Before Sunset,” and “Before Midnight” and “Waking Life”

Planes: Fire & Rescue

Posted on July 17, 2014 at 5:59 pm

The visuals are stunning, the details are witty, the 3D effects are splendid, the songs are lively, the voice actors are top-notch, but the storyline feels like an episode of “Thomas the Tank Engine.” That’s when it was still analog and old-school and before it went to animation, but still — especially as the gender politics of this film are uncomfortably old-school as well.

Last year’s Planes added another mode of transportation to the charmingly retro world of Cars. A plucky crop-duster named Dusty (Dane Cook) learned to race and became a champion. As this movie begins, he is an international superstar. But his vintage gearbox has been worn down by the races, and no replacement is available. Dusty is going to have to find something that is as meaningful to him as racing.

When he accidentally starts a fire at Piston Peak National Park, Dusty sees that old Mayday (Hal Holbrook), the fire and rescue truck is not quite up to the task. More important, he is not up to code. The stern Transportation Management Safety Team inspector informs them that they need more capacity if they are going to stay in business. That means some upgrades for Mayday and it also means a second firefighter. Dusty feels responsible. And if he cannot race, he has to find something new to do, to help make up for his mistake. So he agrees to take the training to become a certified fire fighter.

Dusty is welcomed by the team, including the flirtatious Lil Dipper (“Modern Family’s” Julie Bowen), the heavy-lift helicopter Windlifter (Wes Studi), ex-military transport Cabbie (Captain Dale Dye) and The Smokejumpers, a brave collection of all-terrain vehicles who leap out of the planes and parachute down to the fire. But he stern Blade Ranger (Ed Harris), who is in charge of the training facility, is not at all sure Dusty is up to the task.

The action sequences are very well staged and the effects, especially the water and sky images, are truly astonishing. The usual pun-studded, meta humor for the series shows up throughout, from the show business trade news magazine titled “Cariety” to a female vehicle dismissing a lame come-on with a cool, “Pick-up trucks!” The choicest surprise is a videotape with a car-ified version of a classic television series, with that very recognizable series star contributing a character voice. Of course the television show appeared in the late 70’s-early 80’s, so it is likely to be over the heads of today’s children and their parents, too.

The real villain here is the fire, of course, but there is also a comic villain, a pompous administrator voiced by John Michael Higgins. But the movie never works up much interest in him or his schemes, and the post-credits stinger barely stings.

More troubling is the poor treatment of the female characters, despite being called out for that same problem in the first one. At least in the original, the female characters were capable and independent. Poor Bowen is relegated here to a role that recalls the man-chasing stereotypes of television in the 1960’s, often played by Rose Marie or Ann B. Davis. She is constantly trying to tell Dusty that they are on a date and, when he politely says they will be going as a group, dementedly agrees that it is a good thing for her to meet his friends until he reminds her that the firefighting team members are her friends. And a major plot twist occurs when the previously ultra-capable mechanic voiced by Teri Hatcher is casually outdone by a male character. It’s completely unnecessary, it subverts the primary premise of the storyline, and it demeans the female mechanic for no reason. It isn’t Dusty who’s got filings in his gearbox. It’s the script.

Parents should know that this film includes peril, including fire, collapsing bridge, rapids, engine failure, action and some violence (no one irreparably hurt, but a reference to a sad death), and some bathroom humor.

Family discussion: Who in this movie has to decide how to handle it when their plans do not work out? How do you think about your own back-up plans? What does “better than new” mean?

If you like this, try: “Cars” and “Planes”

Related Tags:

3D Animation Fantasy Series/Sequel

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Posted on July 10, 2014 at 6:00 pm

All hail Caesar!

The intelligence-enhanced ape from Rise of the Planet of the Apes takes center stage in this sequel, which begins ten years after the last film. The virus we saw infecting the human population has now wiped out almost all human life. The assorted apes, led by Caesar, have asserted their primacy over other animals. In the opening scene, we see them hunting with spears they have crafted, killing a bear, and riding on horses. They live in homes they have constructed from logs, communicate — mostly via sign language — teach their children the alphabet in school, and have an organized society, with Caesar as their leader. They demonstrate loyalty and tenderness. They adorn themselves; Caesar’s mate wears a small crown.

Ceasar is played by the brilliant motion-capture actor/artist Andy Serkis and the CGI work of the geniuses at Weta Digital. The seamless integration of the CGI characters and the human characters and the subtlety of the apes’ eyes and facial expressions brings us straight into the story, underscored by the immersive 3D. It is dramatic, not stuntish, with the possible exception of some spear-throwing toward the screen.

The film recalls old-school cowboys-and-Indians westerns, with the apes riding into battle on horses and the humans and their armory holed up in the ruins of San Francisco like it is Fort Apache. Then the apes get the guns, and everything escalates fast. The film wisely gives both groups of primates a range of characters, some wise and trustworthy, some bigoted and angry. Both species have to learn that respect has to be based on character and actions, not on genetics. The division is not between man and ape but between those who can envision a future with cooperation and trust and those who cannot.

There are some thoughtful details. The destroyed city tells the story of a decade of unthinkable loss and also of great courage. A dropped sketchbook conveys information that in a world without mass communications is revelatory. A long-unheard CD plays The Band and we see the humans react, thinking of where they were the last time they heard it and what access to electricity could mean for them now. The humans have the advantage of knowing how to create and use power; they also have the disadvantage of needing it.

In the midst of the battle, there is a quiet moment when a small mixed group hides out together in a location with a lot of resonance from the previous film. It lends a solemnity to the story, even a majesty, that gives it weight. Even those who seem from our perspective to be making decisions that are disastrously wrong do so for reasons we can understand. The action is compelling but it is the ideas behind them that hold us.

Parents should know that this film includes constant peril and violence, post-apocalyptic themes and images, many characters injured and killed, guns, fire, drinking, smoking, and some strong language.

Family discussion: Why were there so many different opinions within both the ape and the human communities? How did they choose their governing structure? Why didn’t Carver want to listen to Ellie’s explanation of the source of the virus?

If you like this, try: the original “Apes” movies to compare not just the stories but the technology used by the filmmakers

Life Itself

Posted on July 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for brief sexual images/nudity and language
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	References to drinking and alcohol abuse
Violence/ Scariness:	Scenes of illness, sad death
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	July 4, 2014

Roger Ebert, the most influential film critic of all time, gets the film he deserves directed by one of the many filmmakers he championed, Steve James (“Hoop Dreams,” “The Interrupters”). It is co-produced by Martin Scorsese, whose emotional appearance in the film to talk about the impact of the support—and criticism—he received from Ebert is one of the highlights.

But this is not the story of a movie critic. It is the story of a life, a big, grand, messy, vital, generous life. It was a life with every bit as much drama, comedy, tension, romance, insight, compassion, and, as Ebert would say, civilizing influence and empathy creation as any of the films included in Roger’s pantheon of Great Movies.

The film shows us Ebert as a child in the university town of Urbana, Illinois, as a college student there, as a young newsman who, still in his 20’s, became the movie critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, and later a pioneering presence on television and online. He drank too much until he admitted that he was an alcoholic. He and Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel created a television show that began on the local PBS channel, WTTW, and then went into national syndication and moved to commercial television. While some print critics complained that it was stunt-ish, the show elevated serious engagement with movies to a nationwide conversation. A highlight of the film is the testy outtakes from the show, making it clear that the competitiveness and tinge of animosity that made their on-screen interactions so fascinating were toned down from the real strains between them. And it turns out Siskel hung out with Hugh Hefner at the Playboy Mansion during the wild era of the 60’s. “Roger may have written ‘Beyond the Valley of the Dolls,’ but Gene lived it,” Siskel’s widow says with a smile.

The intensity of the competition between the two critics is very funny. So are the outrageously awful clothes and haircuts (there are some things even the ’70s does not excuse) and the amateurishness of the early episodes. But the very real respect and, ultimately, admiration, between them makes it clear that this was one of the most significant relationships of Roger’s life. It was his devastation over Siskel’s decision not to tell anyone about his own illness that made Roger resolve to be very open and honest about his own.

Ebert had great hungers, which led to excesses, not just in alcohol and food but in work, producing more reviews and books than any other critic and dabbling as a screenwriter in the legendarily awful “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.” Once he stopped drinking, he developed the courage to pursue his greatest hunger, the hunger for love and intimacy. The man who called movies “an empathy machine” was ready, at age 50, to begin to feel those feelings outside of the screening room. It is deeply moving to witness Ebert’s transformation through his finding a deep romantic love and a large extended family at age 50 with Chaz. And then he got cancer, and we see the impact his illness had on his writing. He lost a great deal, but, James shows us, he found more.

Roger loved movies deeply, personally, viscerally. With this documentary, the movies return that love.

Parents should know that this movie includes scenes of illness and a sad death, some strong languages, discussions of alcohol abuse and alcoholism, smoking, and some sexual references and images from movies with adult material.

Family discussion: What were the most important turning points in Ebert’s life? Do you agree that film is an “empathy machine?”

If you like this, try: Roger Ebert’s books and his mesmerizing shot-by-shot commentary on Citizen Kane

Related Tags:

Critics Documentary Movies -- format

Snowpiercer

Posted on July 1, 2014 at 6:00 pm

A French graphic novel by Jacques Lob about a post-apocalyptic train containing all that is left of humanity is now the first English-language film from Korean director Joon-ho Bong (“Mother,” “The Host”), with an international cast that includes Chris Evans, Jamie Bell, Ed Harris, and Tilda Swinton. It is a visually stunning and intellectually ambitious allegory with all of its action and sci-fi imagination in service of provocative commentary.

In an effort to mitigate the damage from climate change, people all over the world shot a chemical into the air that precipitated an overcorrection so extreme that the entire world is covered with snow and ice and is not longer habitable for humans. Seventeen years earlier, the few remaining people were allowed to board a train designed by Mr. Wilford, who still lives in the train’s first car and keeps its engine running. He is considered something like a king or even a god by the train’s passengers, some of whom are 17 or younger and have never known any life off the train.

The train circles the globe once a year, and measures the passage of time by the landmarks it passes. After a brief prologue with snippets of news reports informing us of the environmental catastrophe, we meet the poor, filthy, brutally abused inhabitants of the train’s last car, including Curtis (Chris Evans, almost unrecognizable in a black knit cap and with a haunted expression) and his best friend Edgar (Jamie Bell). They are kept barely alive through doling out of icky looking “protein bars.” And they are kept in control by masked, brutal guards armed with assault weapons. There have been brief attempts at rebellion or escape but all have failed.

Occasionally they are visited by someone from one of the forward cars. Mason (Tilda Swinton, brilliant as a demented apparatchik) has the most terrifying smile of chipper malice since Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge. And there is another woman who appears from time to time to measure the children in the last car and take some of them away with no explanation. They are never seen again. Curtis reveres Gilliam (John Hurt), a disabled old man who encourages Curtis and Edgar to start a real revolution. But one lesson they have learned from the failed attempts is that it cannot work unless they get all the way to the front car and gain control of the engine. That means they will need to break out of the train’s prison the only man who can unlock the doors between the train cars.

The rebels move forward, at devastating cost, surging through a series of train cars, each with stunning revelations about what has become of human society. But nothing can prepare them for the shocks of the final confrontation in the engine car.

If Jonathan Swift was a filmmaker, this would be the movie he’d make — sharp, compelling, challenging. As Curtis crosses doorway after doorway, each opens into another remarkable tableau, a beauty salon, a fish farm, a classroom, a disco. This is a story that is richly imagined and powerfully presented.

Parents should know that this film has apocalyptic themes and images, constant peril and violence with a variety of weapons, disturbing images, many characters injured and killed, constant very strong language, smoking, and drugs and drug addiction.

Family discussion: What elements of the society on the train are similar to cultures in the world today? Does Wilford make good points about what it takes to sustain a community? How does this story explore the way that myths and traditions are developed? What do you think will happen next?

If you like this, try: “Brazil” and “In Time”