Category Archives: Oscar Contenders

Films that should earn buzz during awards season.

‘Unbroken’ Is A Good Movie About An Amazing Story

Unbroken_posterAnother Oscar Season, another Hollywood biopic.

“Unbroken” tells the true tale of Louis Zamperini, a USA Olympic athlete who is taken prisoner by the Japanese in World War II after his plane goes down over the Pacific Ocean. Jack O’Connell stars as Zamperini and Japanese singer Miyavi plays the POW camp’s leader. Angelina Jolie directs as the Coen Brothers worked on the script.

The film takes place in essentially two locations: the ocean and the Japanese prison camp. Zamperini’s plane crashes over the ocean and he and two fellow soldiers (Domhnall Gleeson and Finn Wittrock) are adrift for 47 days. These scenes were my favorite of the whole film as they show the true perseverance of Zamperini, as well as feature some intense moments including several run-ins with sharks and enemy fighter planes. The score and cinematography really excel here as well.

When the group is “rescued” by the Japanese the film slows down, and never fully recovers. Zamperini is continuously beaten and tested by the camp’s leader, called “The Bird” by fellow prisoners, and these scenes become numbing after a while. I’m not saying the film should have overlooked or sugar-coated this part of Zamperini’s imprisonment, however after a while it seemed Jolie was just beating us over the head with the fact that torture happened in prison camps.

Zamperini is depicted as a womanizer and troubled child, and in real life this was true. While on the raft, Zamperini talks about how he may not believe in God, and then in a storm he promises to dedicate his life to God if He saves his life. While this is all in-line with the true story, the idea of God doesn’t play a part in the rest of the film until text comes up before the credits. The film’s poster brands the story to be about redemption, yet Jolie abandons this notion and replaces it with a man who can take a severe beating and show no bruises in the next scene. Instead of Louis’ spiritual redemption we just see him as a superhero that is capable of taking extreme physical punishment, and I didn’t feel this worked.

The climax itself is a catch-22. Because it is the final confrontation between Louis and The Bird, the scene should be empowering and moving, as well as have tension because if Louis fails, he is ordered to be shot. The acting in the scene is superb, with Zamperini showing his strength and The Bird trying his hardest to break him. Both actors say more with their eyes than their words, and the duo add something extra to the scene.

The problem is that the scene has no sense of time, and you are unsure if the incident has lasted five minutes or several hours. Characters are standing around watching the event unfold, and any tension you should be feeling is instead replaced with confusion.

“Unbroken” isn’t as moving as it could have been, but it is a well-intentioned biopic that features solid performances and some intense scenes. Had Jolie known how to properly manage the narrative and hadn’t felt the need to show the torture simply for the sake of showing torture, then perhaps it could have been something great. Instead it is a good movie about a great man who had an amazing story.

Critics Rating: 7/10

Carell, Tatum Highlight Slow-Burning ‘Foxcatcher’

Leave a reply

Foxcatcher_First_Teaser_PosterWhat do Michael Scott, the Incredible Hulk and Jenko from 21 Jump Street have in common? They all give some of the best dramatic performances of 2014 in “Foxcatcher”.

Directed by Bennett Miller, who also helmed “Capote” and “Moneyball”, “Foxcatcher” is a  thriller based on the true story of millionaire John du Pont (Steve Carell) who become the sponsor of USA wrestlers Mark and Dave Schultz (Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo).

A huge fan of Steve Carell and excited to see what he could do in a dramatic role, I personally have been looking forward to this film for a long time. Originally due out in December 2013, it was delayed a full year to complete editing, so I have been counting down the days until its release since Oscar Season kicked off two months ago. And much to my pleasure, “Foxcatcher” does not disappoint.

What drives the film are the performances; Tatum, Carell and Ruffalo all shine in their own way. Tatum, coming off the comedy hit “22 Jump Street”, and Carell, from “Anchorman” and “The Office” fame, aren’t exactly who you think of when you hear “Oscar-worthy performance”, but both give just that.

Playing a meathead athlete may not seem too much of a stretch for Tatum considering his physique and persona, but Tatum’s Mark Schultz requires so much more. Stuck in his brother’s shadow despite himself winning Olympic gold, Mark takes up du Pont’s offer to come and train at his estate, seeing it as a chance to separate himself from his brother. While attempting this separation, Mark’s mental state becomes more strained, and Tatum is near perfect showing the emotional toll, as well as physical repercussions, of this.

Carell is almost unrecognizable as John du Pont, a man with an almost homoerotic obsession with the sport of wrestling, a desperate desire to impress his mother, and, as he says, a want to “see America soar again”. Comedians often have dark sides, it’s what made Michael Keaton perfect as Batman and why Robin Williams could flip a switch and give a serious performance. Carell has several scenes where he gives a chuckle-inducing line, like wanting to be called “Golden Eagle”, but nearly every time du Pont walks into a room, especially in the final 30 minutes, you feel uneasy and on edge, because you just have a feeling that this guy could just snap.

Ruffalo has his moments to stand out as well, especially in the second half of the film when he comforts a quickly deteriorating Mark.

What may turn some people off from “Foxcatcher” is the fact that it is a candle burning film, meaning it is a lot of build-up. At times the film may feel like it has no true aim, or even seem uneventful, but it is all building to a fantastically executed climax by Miller. The acting, the score and the direction all come to a perfect head, resulting in a final scene that is still etched in my brain and gets better as more time passes.

“Foxcatcher” is a fantastically acted, wonderfully directed thriller that takes a while to build but is well worth the wait. Tatum, Carell and Ruffalo all have scenes in which they are brilliant, and whether you know how this story ends or not, the final half hour of this film will have you leaning forward in your seat and your heartbeat slowly increasing.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Simmons and Editing Stand Out in ‘Whiplash’

Whiplash_poster               I’m telling ya, man, editors don’t get enough respect.

“Whiplash” stars Miles Teller as a young drummer who enrolls in the number one music school in the country. Upon arrival he is met by a cutthroat teacher (J.K Simmons) who goes to extremes to try and get the best out of his students. Damien Chazelle writes and directs.

“Whiplash” has three things about it that really make it work: the editing, Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons. Without these three components it may have just been another small-time movie that is quickly forgotten. However with these two actors and an amazing editing job by Tom Cross, “Whiplash” is elevated to one of the best films of 2014.

It’s impossible not to love Miles Teller. Even in meh films such as “Two Night Stand” or “21 and Over” he shines, and his charisma and likability improve the film itself. In “Whiplash”, he gives arguably his best performance to date, as he keeps the same quick wit and amusing one-liners, but also delves into dramatic, almost depressing territory. His character is so torn and determined to be the best drummer possible that he shuns out everyone around him and practices to the point that his fingers bleed (literally).

As good as Teller is, however, the real stand out is J.K. Simmons. His character goes from calm and inspiring one second to screaming and verbally abusing the next. Like we’re talking “Wolf of Wall Street”-string-five-swear-words-into-one-sentence verbal abuse. Simmons is like Sergeant Hartman from “Full Metal Jacket” and Simmons’ J. Jonah Jameson had a love child; he has his funny moments and his rants can be entertaining to the audience, but at the same time you are thankful he is not the man in your life who is in charge of giving you orders.

The editing in the film is what really deserves praise, however. The whole movie is cut like a jazz performance, with quick jumps from one character’s face to another, from one instrument to the next. The film’s finale wears on a tad bit too long, however it is so smoothly put together that is does not drag; if anything, it will leave you leaning in your seat for more reason than one.

Writer/director Damien Chazelle first made “Whiplash” as a short film in 2013, and his script landed on the Black List, the best unproduced screenplays in Hollywood. He does a great job transferring his short onto the big screen, and his screenplay features a little bit of everything. You want humor? Simmons’ monologues and Teller’s charm will have you chuckling. You want thrills? When Teller goes up on stage you are just as nervous as he is because you know if he screws up Simmons will tear him apart. You want romance? Teller awkwardly asks a girl out who is then seen in only one more scene, but hey, it’s in there!

“Whiplash” is a film that is career-defining for young guns Teller and Chazelle, as well as veteran character actor Simmons. They all bring something different and special to the table, and when combined together the end product is engaging and intense, especially when you throw in some amazing editing. Sorry to continue and bring that up but seriously. It’s that good.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Keaton and Norton are Perfect in ‘Birdman’

Birdman_posterSometimes a film has a large scope and just isn’t able to fill it. Whether it is the visual ambitions or just from a technical standpoint, a director’s goals just sometimes don’t pan out on screen. “Birdman” is absolutely not one of those films.

“Birdman” stars Michael Keaton as a washed up actor who is known for formally portraying a superhero in movies (kind of ironic). To try and remain relevant and prove he is capable of being a true actor, he mounts a Broadway play while at the same time battling his family, his costars and himself. Edward Norton and Emma Stone costar and Alejandro González Iñárritu writes and directs.

“Birdman” does something I’ve never seen before: it shoots the entire film as if it is one continuous take, with each scene seemingly transitioning to the next with no edits. While obviously the entire movie was not shot in 120 straight minutes, each scene seems to be one take. This is not only is impressive from a filmmaking standpoint, but also becomes mind-blowing when you think of the pressure that put on the actors to not screw up; and is even more amazing when you see the results.

Michael Keaton and Edward Norton give two of 2014’s best performances, if not two of the better acting jobs in recent years. Keaton plays a man trying to remain relevant well past his prime, but “mocks Twitter and won’t even get a Facebook page” as his daughter (Stone) says. He has moments of dark humor, the entire film does, but it is the scenes that show him fighting his inner demon (in the form of the voice of a man in a bird costume) that are the best.

Norton may be even better playing a Broadway actor who thinks his he is God’s gift to the stage, and when someone does something to ruin his techniques, he voices his distaste, even if it’s in the middle of a live performance. There is one scene between Norton and Stone (who is fantastic in her own right) that is just insanely fun and pretty damn well-executed, and if Norton gets the Oscar nomination that he deserves then that scene will likely be used as his submission tape.

As near-perfect as the acting in “Birdman” is, the messages it sends are just as good. One is all about the differences between actors and celebrities, and how many actors have traded in genuine craft for capes, and judge their career on weekend box office totals. Another underlying message is that critics are just those who failed at the craft themselves; like they say, those who can’t do, teach (ouch).

The score of the film is also amazing, and it seemed that on numerous occasions it was the transition between scenes with its drums and symbols.

“Birdman” is nearly perfectly executed on near all fronts. The acting and score are phenomenal, Alejandro González Iñárritu’s direction and screenplay are infectious, and the continuous shot gimmick is anything but (next movie I see the edits and different angles are going to be painfully glaring). The third’s final act gets a little out there, and the ending in particular is a bit ambiguous, but these don’t ruin the film. Much like Keaton hearing the voice of Birdman, I can’t get Norton and Keaton out of my head, and I’m sure this won’t be the last that I, or you, hear about their performances for a long time.

Critics Rating: 9/10

Gyllenhaal Steals the Show in ‘Nightcrawler’

Leave a reply

Nightcrawlerfilm            Jake Gyllenhaal once patrolled the streets of Los Angeles as a cop in “End of Watch”; now he drives around them at night filming crime and accidents.

“Nightcrawler” is all about the people who independently film accidents and then sell them to news stations (“if it bleeds, it leads” the film makes sure to tell us a half dozen times). When Lou (Gyllenhaal) steps into this world, he begins to blur the line between observer and participant. Rene Russo and Bill Paxton costar as Dan Gilroy writes and has his directorial debut.

“Nightcrawler” is a nice looking, tense thriller that is almost completely driven by its characters. Every actor has a scene or two in which they own, but in the end this movie would be nothing without Jake Gyllenhaal.

Gyllenhaal is so creepy, unsettling and unrecognizable as Lou that it is impossible to take your eyes off of him. As the film progresses, we become more and more uneasy with every passing scene, as we know it is only a matter of time before Lou snaps; we just don’t know at what—or who—it is going to be at. Lou speaks almost completely in cliché business and motivational lingo (his motto is, “if you want to win the lottery, you have to earn the money to buy a ticket”) and it is not obvious if he is a brilliant negotiator or simply just insane.

Riz Ahmed plays Rick, a homeless young man who is hired as Lou’s assistant. Rick is too desperate for cash to turn away from Lou, or even realize what he is getting himself into, and by the time he begins to realize Lou may be a psychopath he is in too deep.

The rest of the supporting cast does a fine job as well. Russo plays a TV news director who buys Lou’s initial tape, and is equally repulsed and fascinated by him. Bill Paxton has a few fun lines as Lou’s rival, a fellow “nightcrawler”, and Kevin Rahm plays a TV executive, who serves as the voice of reason for the audience, questioning Lou’s methods and whether running certain clips is ethical, or even legal.

The film is edited and paced brilliantly, offering quick-cuts and perfectly timed scenes to keep the flow going, while never sacrificing content. The climax of the film is as tense and thrilling as anything I have seen at the movies this year, and even though while watching we have a feeling we know what is going to transpire, we just hope we are wrong.

Now there are a few points in “Nightcrawler” that feel like they were added simply to showcase Los Angeles, or try and make sure we are aware how “dedicated” Lou is to his job, and this makes the film’s narrative stray a bit and at times make the plot seem a bit aimless, but it is never anything Gyllenhaal can’t get back on track.

“Nightcrawler” is a solid thriller with a brilliant lead performance, shot in one of the most vibrant and neon-soaked cities in the world. The film is worth seeing simply because of Gyllenhaal, but the supporting characters, dark humor and exhilarating climax are a nice treat, too.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Interstellar’ Reaches for the Stars, Scratches Greatness

interstellar            In his first directorial effort since completing his Dark Knight trilogy, Christopher Nolan returns to the visually striking and mind-bending side of films with “Interstellar”.

Set in the future on a dying planet Earth, several astronauts (Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway) set out into a wormhole near Saturn to try and find a new planet suitable for human life. Nolan favorite Michael Caine plays the intellectual head of the project and Jessica Chastain also stars.

Say what you will about Christopher Nolan films, but one thing that is undeniable is that every one of his movies has large scopes and ambitions. The problem most of his films not named “Inception” and “The Dark Knight” have are that the scope is often too big to fill. “Interstellar” sets the bar incredibly high (that bar being an entirely different galaxy) and for most of the film it appears like it will reach that bar and be something great; before the wheels come off in the final act.

The acting in the film is great across the board. McConaughey, fresh off his first Oscar for the superb “Dallas Buyers Club”, shows that his 2013 was no fluke. He plays a father who is conflicted with possibly saving the human race, but while leaving his children behind for years in the process. He still has his signature droll and charm, but this is a side of McConaughey we’ve never seen. My future wife Anne Hathaway is equally as solid as McConaughey’s fellow astronaut, a woman torn between morals and emotion.

The visuals in the film are striking and much like last year’s “Gravity” there are shots that show the pure magnitude of space that will leave you breathless. On numerous occasions the camera pulls up to show the small ship riding among the sea of stars in complete silence, and for a split second it puts everything in perspective.

Everything was going great with “Interstellar”, and for a moment I thought maybe this could be the next space classic a la “2001”, but then the final act happens. I obviously can’t say much of anything without spoiling it, but it is one of those moments that while you watch it transpire you just think, “Oh. Well. Um…ok. Sure, I guess.” I really think the studio gave Nolan complete control of this project, and that may have been a slip-up on their end.

There are also the classic (at this point cliché) “Nolan-isms”, such as underdeveloped side characters, plot holes and the aforementioned unfillable scope, but they aren’t as prevalent or glaring here as with his other projects.

“Interstellar” has no right being nearly three hours long, but there was not a second during it that I was bored. The performances are great, the visuals are outstanding and there are several very well-directed moments of tension, one of which had the entire audience gasp at the same time. “Interstellar” reaches for the stars and they just barely evade its grasp, but just because it is not a stellar movie (*snickers*) does not mean it is a trip you can afford not to take.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Bill Murray Shines as ‘St. Vincent’

Leave a reply

St_Vincent_posterWelcome back, funny Bill Murray. After several years of making cameos and starring in indie dramas, Murray returns to his roots of comedy in “St. Vincent”, where he plays a cranky old drunk who is saddled with babysitting the son of his new neighbor, played by Melissa McCarthy. Hollywood rookie Theodore Melfi writes and directs.

It is a testament to a film when it can overcome all of its genre clichés and narrative familiarities and still be generally entertaining. “St. Vincent” is pretty standard, as we’ve seen the “grumpy guy bonds with the nerdy young kid and the two go on crazy adventures together” formula numerous times before (“Bad Santa” or “Bad Words”, for example). But in spite of all this, Murray shines in an honest, emotional and at times very funny performance.

Without Murray, chances are this movie would not work, and would have been stuck in the “schmaltzy and overdone” category. However Murray elevates the film with his dry wit, and it is a blast seeing him teach the young boy (played by Jaeden Lieberher) how to gamble on horses, mow dirt patches and stand up to bullies.

Melissa McCarthy, toning down her performance here, gives one of her best performances because she isn’t playing the swearing slob. She portrays a single mother who is simply trying to make a better life for her son, and in that he gets a few chuckles, but for the most part just displays true emotion and relatability.

The strongest points of the film are its opening act and its climax, for two very different reasons. The first scenes when we first meet Murray are genuinely funny and harken back to the golden days of his career. The final minutes of this scene are masterfully acted by the entire cast, especially Murray, who for much of the final scene speaks only with his facial expressions. The scene is very well done and will hit you right in the feels (seriously, I had a lump in my throat).

There is a point about halfway through “St. Vincent”, though, where the film seems to be aware that it is being too goofy and sentimental, and thinks it needs to fix this by adding extreme drama. This would have been fine, except the tone switch comes completely out of left field, and just doesn’t seem natural. Suddenly the movie becomes a dark, almost depressing drama, and it really just felt out of place. This likely falls on the shoulders of rookie director Melfi, but other than this one segment he does a great job mixing emotion and laughs, both with his direction and the script.

“St. Vincent” won’t win any awards for originality, but I really hope it wins something for Murray. He is the reason this film is as good and enjoyable as it is, and he alone is the reason to see this movie. It is an entertaining, multi-layered performance, and every scene he is not in, as few as there are, you notice his absence.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Fury’ Is Powerful, Gritty and One of Year’s Best

Leave a reply

Fury_2014_posterBrad Pitt and World War II. So far, it has proven to be a potent combonation. First Pitt was hunting Nazis in “Inglorious Basterds”, now he is commanding a tank in Germany.

“Fury”, written and directed by “End of Watch’s” David Ayer, tells the tale of five American soldiers who get stuck in their tank behind enemy lines. Outnumbered and outgunned, they must fight their way through and defeat the surrounding Nazi forces. Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman, Shia LaBeouf, Michael Peña and Jon Bernthal portray the members of the tank.

There’s really no point of sugar coating it or beating around the bush: “Fury” is one of the year’s best movies and one of the better, and most realistic, war films of all-time. From the haunting depictions of battle, to the heart-wrenching performances, to the high production value everything about this film is as beautiful as it is chilling.

The performances across the board are nothing short of fantastic, with the standouts being Pitt and Lerman. Pitt plays a man who has clearly let the evils of war shatter any morals and sensitivity he ever had, and this is demonstrated when on the first day of the job for the tank’s new recruit (Lerman), Pitt orders him to execute an unarmed German solider.

I have never been a Logan Lerman fan, I believe he plays a pretentious, spoiled boy in every role he takes (“Noah” and “3:10 to Yuma”, just to name two), but the man shut me up with his performance here. He is a soldier who was pulled away from his desk and put on the front lines, and it seems like he will never get used to the idea of taking a human life. But throughout the film we see him begin to change and become more desensitized to the notion of war, but he never loses the innocence that we empathize with.

The rest of the cast are all cookie-cutter roles (minority member, jerky sociopath and Bible-thumper), but the actors all have their moments to shine.

Ayer has proven that he is more than capable of shooting an engaging action scene, but never while sacrificing drama or content. Even when the bullets are flying and shells are being rocketed off, we see the characters’ weaknesses and at times hesitation in their actions. Even at the end of the film, in the midst of an extended battle, the action never feels derivative or redundant, because we are getting heavy doses of human drama, accompanied by a fantastic score from composer Steven Price.

What holds “Fury” back from the greatness it so clearly was striving for is a scene in the middle of the film. After taking a town, Pitt and Lerman come across two German women, who proceed to make lunch. The scene drags on for 22 minutes (I remember looking at my phone twice), and in the end the entire interaction took place simply for a plot point down the road.

If that one scene had been shorter, which it should have been, then “Fury” may have been able to be mentioned in the same breath as “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Hurt Locker” for greatest war movie of all-time. That being said, “Fury” is still a fantastically shot, grittily depicted and powerfully acted war story, which features a climax that had my theater silent when the credits began to roll.

Critics Rating: 9/10

‘Gone Girl’ Powerfully Acted, Capably Executed Thriller

Leave a reply

Gone_Girl_Poster                Do you smell that? It’s the smell of Oscar Season returning to grace us with its presence, and it is brought upon by director David Fincher’s newest film, “Gone Girl”.

On the morning of his fifth wedding anniversary, Nick (Ben Affleck) arrives home to find his house in shambles and his wife (Rosamund Pike) missing. When the media begins to put the spotlight on him, the police and American public start to wonder if Nick is an innocent victim, or a killer? Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry also star.

It is hard to say why “Gone Girl” is a good film without spoiling anything. In fact it is hard to really talk at all about this film without giving away one of its many twists. But it’s my job, so here we go.

The always reliable David Fincher, who directed films ranging cult classics “Fight Club” and “Se7en” to the fantastic “Social Network” and American version of “Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”, directs “Gone Girl” in such a stepped-back, impartial way that at times you forget you are watching a movie. It is almost like you are simply watching events unfold, and you do not know who to trust.

Gillian Flynn, who wrote the novel on which the film is based, as well as penned the screenplay for the movie, has such a way with words that she is able to work in moments of dark humor that just feel natural. Sometimes in movies characters are deadly serious all the time and it almost takes you out of the film, but never with “Gone Girl”. It makes sure to have a little strategically placed bits of humor or lightheartedness just when a moment may be getting too serious or stale.

If you hear anything about the film, it will likely be one of two things: Rosamund Pike’s performance, or the twists. This film has more twists than a pastry from Cinnabon. At first they are small things, like the police finding a clue, but as the film goes on, they get more and more elaborate and hit harder and harder, until the ultimate punch to the stomach in the film’s final moments.

As for Pike, there is so much that could be said but I’ll keep it brief. As she narrates the film via her diary passages and flashbacks, we see at first the fairytale marriage that she and Affleck have, but then how they begin to become more and more distant, until finally she begins to fear her own husband. It is a multi-layered performance that is sure to earn her award talk.

Now as much as the film wants to front itself as a brilliant Oscar contender, there are some glaring flaws. The first act of the film, when police are collecting initial clues and samples and Affleck is doing interviews, can drag a little, as we aren’t really learning anything new or earth shattering, but still are sitting through it all. It is a little like watching a behind-the-scenes, paperwork-only edition of “Law and Order”, just with more awkward pacing. The film may also leave some viewers, including myself, craving a better delivery of the climax.

“Gone Girl” is a perfectly cast, capably directed film that just suffers from some narrative and pacing issues, as well as a possible weak finale. That being said, it is an engrossing, dark and intelligent, and may leave your brain hurting when the credits start to roll. Is “Gone Girl” as entertaining or memorable as it wants to be? No. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t come close.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Boyhood’ Is Honest, Moving and Nostalgic

Leave a reply

Boyhood_filmTrue story: when I was 10 and watching “Racing Stripes”, a thought came to me: what if a director filmed flashback scenes with children, and then finished the movie with the same kids when they got older? The idea never returned to my mind until I heard about the movie “Boyhood”, a movie filmed over 12 years using the same actors.

Directed and written by Richard Linklater, “Boyhood” follows one boy, Mason, from the ages of six to 18. Ellar Coletrane, who was seven when cast, portrays Mason, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette play his parents and Linklater’s real-life daughter, Lorelei, plays Mason’s sister.

Just the production story behind this film is enough to make someone interested to see it. The crew got together for 12 days a year for 12 years beginning in 2002, so we get to see the young actors grow and the adults age before our eyes. There is so much that could have gone wrong, yet somehow it all went right.

I personally have some additional ties to the film. Since I was 8 years old in 2002, many of the songs and pop culture references in the film played large parts in my own childhood. Nostalgic things such as the Oregon Trail computer game, or waiting in line for the midnight release of a Harry Potter book were enough to bring a lump to my throat. There’s a part where Mason says “the best movies of 2008” were Tropic Thunder, Dark Knight and Pineapple Express, which is absolutely true and instantly brought me back to that wonderful summer.

It is almost as if Linklater knew how to timestamp his film, using things that are relevant, but never doing it to be lazy or contrived, like some films do when trying too hard to convince you a scene takes place during a certain point in time.

The acting in the film is superb, save for maybe the first years of the children’s lives (you know, because kid actors). Ethan Hawke gives perhaps the best performance of his career as Mason’s dad. He is a man who is at first somewhat distant from his kids, and is trying to connect with them but just doesn’t know how. Over time he begins to form bonds with them, and we see how tough parenting, especially when single, really is.

Linklater just has such a delicate touch with the emotional scenes, and has written an honest script, looking at everything we all experience growing up, from awkward talks with our parents to peer pressure. We all know Linklater is a talented director (the guy has gotten two Golden Globe nominations out of Jack Black), and he cements his place among the Hollywood greats with this film.

There are a few scenes that could have been cut, however I understand why Linklater kept them in; cutting them would mean an entire year of filming, and an entire year of Mason’s life, would have been not seen and all for naught. The movie does have a running time of two hours, 45 minutes but it never gets boring and rarely lags.

You can believe the hype: “Boyhood” is as creatively impressive and emotionally moving as they say. But while the scope of the film is massive and ambitious, it truly is the little, intimate moments that make “Boyhood” so good. Everyone, parent, preteen or especially 20-something, should see this film and will have something to connect with. I enjoyed the movie, even when it was uncomfortably honest, and I almost feel like I should be thanking Richard Linklater for allowing me to relive my childhood over one last time.

Critics Rating: 8/10