Review: Left Behind

 

by William Hill
★

I have returned from the wastes of the cinema, friends, and I have no idea how I made it back after seeing "Left Behind."

The latest in a long string of faith-oriented films, "Left Behind" is...well, allow me to retract that previous statement. "Left Behind" is a movie, but I won't actually attach the Bible to it. Regardless of whether you believe in God or any other god that may or may not exist, no one should be so malicious as to attach "Left Behind" to a faith of any kind. It's bad enough that Nicholas Cage put his name on this thing...though Chad Michael Murray kind of deserves this, considering he's a well known tool.

I'm really not getting to the point am I? Let's try this again.

This is the worst remake of "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" that I've ever seen.

Seriously.  It's "Die Hard 2" minus everything that people like about "Die Hard 2." It replaced John McClane with one of the many interpretations of the Biblical apocalypse, in this case, the Rapture, where Jesus Christ takes his followers to Heaven prior to the rise of the Antichrist. Not that you'll see evil show its face at any point in this flick; that might make an interesting movie. I'd be much more interested in watching Nic Cage go into full on Cage Rage, shouting at the Antichrist, and I'm pretty sure that this movie might have gone into much wider release.

Instead, Nicholas Cage plays Rayford Steele - and I assure you that he, nor anyone in his family are porn stars - an airline pilot who is cheating on his wife for his birthday. His daughter, Chloe (Cassi Thomson, who I've never heard of) shows up at the airport, and is disappointed that he won't be home to celebrate. She's an atheist who likes to pick fights with Christians, like her mom, Irene, played by a misplaced Lea Thompson. The first half of the movie takes place in airport lounge, and is so heavily front-ended with mountains of forceful "Religion Is Right" dialogue that it's hard to care about who is talking. Also, Chad Michael Murray shows up as a journalist named Buck, adding to the awkwardly funny names. Honestly, this is not how you name characters. If you are a well-versed moviegoer, you might relate him to a certain five second joke from "Kill Bill," especially when paired with a whole family of Steele's. If you are finding that I'm barely talking about the movie, it's because I'm trying to fill space where the movie didn't take the time.

Eventually, the Rapture comes, and viewers are treated to an awkwardly hilarious sequence of "rioting" and "chaos". Yeah, those quotations aren't an accident. Unlike the fact that every crashing car, airplane, bus, and drive-by looter is after Chloe Steel while she looks for her brother. Mind you, her brother was taken in the Rapture, so her quest is less than fulfilling. We'll get to that later. Let's get back to a car almost hitting her, followed by a single engine Cessna slamming into the back of her car, and a bus nearly tumbling over on top of her. All I could think about the Cessna is that it was a perfect metaphor for her parent's broken marriage.

That was the deepest thought I had throughout the entire movie.

Back on the plane, the worst collection of atheistic stereotypes gather and panic about the disappearance of many of the passengers. Among them are a cocaine addict, a paranoid mother who thinks her husband paid everyone on the plane to ignore him taking her daughter (Jordin Sparks, everyone; let's hope that this is the end of her acting AND music careers), and...and...just everyone was a joke. There was even a vertically challenged gentleman who was racist against a Muslim. There is also a conspiracy theorist played by a dude named Han Soto. I wonder if he's going to give up that name now that he's ashamed to have played in this movie, because I would take it.

And that's about it until we get a scene ripped off from the end of "Die Hard 2," where Chloe blows up a car to light up a place for the plane to land. I even sang Let It Snow to complete the vibe. Seriously, that's all that happened in this movie; stereotyped atheists, picture perfect Christians, and the "Die Hard 2" scenario sans terrorists.

I've read "Left Behind," the often preachy first novel in the long series of Christian novels about a group of post-Rapture Born Agains fighting against the rise of the Antichrist. I haven't read past the first one. It was an entertaining book, in its way, I guess. I haven't felt the need to return to it because, well, frankly, I've got better books to read. I've even read better Christian fiction, like the Narnia books and the Space trilogy, both by C.S. Lewis. I only state that this for the record, because I can tell you from experience that "Left Behind" the movie has so little to do with "Left Behind" the book that I don't know why they even bothered to use the character names. Everything that this movie spends two hours doing was done in about sixty pages in the book.

And the editing doesn't help. Every scene awkwardly cuts away without bothering to finish the sentence it started. The opening scene in the airport lounge just dragged out for way too long, and was basically shot-reverse-shot for twenty minutes. Rayford Steele basically sits in the cockpit, staring at instrumentation and asking Buck to tell him what the engines look like. I can imagine him shooting the entire movie inside his green screen equipped trailer, he looks so bored. Every actor looks like they are depressed that they signed on to doing this film. I know that Nic Cage is dealing with tax issues, and I really feel bad for him after seeing him slum to this level. I know that the guy has much better chops than this. I saw "Adaptation." This was not okay!

Every problem that I've mentioned is made all the more horrible by the fact that it looks like it was shot for television, and the music is so bland that it wouldn't feel out of place in a P.S.A. I can't believe that I paid to see this movie in a theater, and it wasn't presented as a result of the local church group buying a DVD and paying to screen it there. It's an abysmal production. I have a hard time believing that this thing exists at all. I'm depressed for Nicholas Cage. And why was Lea Thompson in this thing? The rest of the cast is a miracle of reverse stunt casting. Why would anyone cast Jordin Sparks? Who are these other people behind Nicholas Cage?

Don't see this movie. It's offensive to me as a Christian. It's offensive to me as a moviegoer. It's offensive to me as a writer. If you are an atheist, it will offend you because it will paint you out to be a cartoon stereotype. I can't think of a group of people who wouldn't be offended by this flick.

Allow me to close on this very strange note: "This Is The End" is a much better Rapture film, and it even has a clearer Christian message than "Left Behind." It's an R rated film with a bevy of toilet humor. Think about that.

Review: Gone Girl

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★½

“Gone Girl” arrives with much fanfare and anticipation. The book upon which this film is based is an international bestseller. I have no doubt that someone somewhere has said something to you along the lines of “seriously, you HAVE to read this book.” Whether you have read the book or not, this is one of those rare films that stays faithful to its source material while still feeling original and fresh.

The film follows Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) who is about to celebrate his fifth anniversary with his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike). Their marriage is falling apart, something Nick confides in with his twin sister Margo (Carrie Coon). But Nick’s problems today are just getting started. He soon discovers his wife missing. Their living room looks like some kind of struggle took place, and trace elements of blood remain visible. Detective Boney (Kim Dickens) and her partner Gilpin (Patrick Fugit) are on the case, but all the evidence points to Nick. He maintains his innocence, but it gets increasingly difficult with so much evidence pointing to him as the murderer and the national media crucifying him each night on TV.

While “Gone Girl” tells the tale of a dysfunctional marriage, there is one marriage here that is perfect. That’s the marriage of director and source material. Very rarely these days do we see a story come along and find its way to a filmmaker with such a unique and distinctive style that matches perfectly. David Fincher has made a career out of telling stories about outcasts or about people living their lives behind a façade.

Fincher is so polished in his craft, making him one of the absolute best filmmakers working today. “Gone Girl” is yet another example on how far he has come as a filmmaker. His chaotic, breakneck pace of storytelling in films such as “Seven” and “Fight Club” have given way to much more provocative films with infinitely more depth. That’s not to say “Seven” and “Fight Club” are bad films – they’re not; far from it, in fact. But he’s become much more versed in character and story that he doesn’t need the fancy visual tricks to carry his films. He was already proficient with the camera and with the dark suspenseful elements of filmmaking, but ever since “Zodiac” he’s taken his films to an entirely different level.

As a man always drawn to the dark and the mysterious, Fincher and “Gone Girl” is a perfect match. If you’re someone who hasn’t read the book, then you probably know someone who has. And that person has no doubt pressed you time and time again to read it. It’s the kind of story that shrouded in so much mystery that it keeps its readers guessing and addicted. The film is just as cryptic thanks to the fact that the novel’s author – Gillian Flynn – is also the screenwriter. Flynn already knows the story and the characters forward and backward which makes her the perfect candidate to adapt the novel. There are differences between the novel and film, but nothing too earth shattering. A few minor elements are left out or glossed over just for the sake of pacing, but this is an otherwise very faithful adaptation.

The dark and twisted elements of the book are brought to life so well thanks to Fincher’s grasp on the source material. I knew going into this film that there were some shocking and crazy parts to it, but Fincher turns it up a notch to make it one of the most compelling examinations of modern marriage this year. The book raises a lot of questions about how well we know our spouses, but the film visualizes it so flawlessly that it could leave any husband keeping a watchful and frightful eye on his wife moving forward.

And Fincher's familiar tone is on full display here. He always tends to work with the same people to give his films a similar yet distinctive feeling. Dark and dimly lit cinematography comes courtesy of his longtime director of photography Jeff Cronenweth. The multi-faced story occurring in different times and places is spliced together with such precision from long time film editor Kirk Baxter. And the bone chilling score from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who wrote one of the most inventive and original film scores in years for Fincher's "The Social Network," adds the perfect element of mystery to a film where over half the audience knows what's coming next. All these familiar elements help Fincher focus on the story and the acting rather than micromanage all other elements of his production.

But “Gone Girl” couldn’t have been made possible without the work of Fincher’s perfect casting. Affleck is great as Nick Dunne. Many people have a hard time taking him seriously as an actor after that terrible movie he made with his then-spouse over a decade ago. He’s not a bad actor, and he proves it here. This is one of the better roles he’s done. The supporting cast around him also fits into their roles perfectly including Carrie Coon as his twin sister and Kim Dickens as Detective Boney. Lighter supporting work from Tyler Perry as Affleck’s lawyer Tanner Bolt and Neil Patrick Harris as Desi Collings – a rich ex-boyfriend of Amy’s – are also solid despite limited screen time. The real star here, however, is Rosamund Pike as Amy Dunne. The adjectives I would use to describe her character could very well spoil some of the surprising elements of this film for those who aren’t familiar with the story. Let’s just say she plays the part subdued and low key – slightly different than I imagined it in the book – and plays it very well.

Anyone worried that “Gone Girl” will be another Hollywood butcher job of one of his or her favorite books can rest easy. At a time when Hollywood takes too many liberties with popular novels, this one turns out to be one of the most faithful adaptations of a book in recent years. There isn’t a better director out there to handle subject matter such as this than the masterful David Fincher. He’s taken a story that’s not just dark and turned it around to be a social examination on both marriage and the media’s guilty-until-proven-innocent stance. There’s so much to enjoy about this film. No matter if you’ve read the book or not, it’s a wild and crazy ride from beginning to end. 

Review: The Equalizer

by Trevor Kirkendall

★

“The Equalizer” is yet another example of how Hollywood producers have either lost their creative mentality or just don’t care about finding original stories anymore. They’re out there, though. Studios continue to buy original concepts from writers, many of them first-time screenwriters. But where are these movies? The indie houses crank them out all the time, but they never make it to the big theaters.

I have another theory though: Hollywood finds it easy to regurgitate the same formula over and over again because they know you’re going to see it. The think we – as an audience/consumer – are stupid. Everyone always says they’re sick and tired of sequels, remakes, and reboots and that we demand originality. But which ones do the best at the box office? “Godzilla” or “Pacific Rim?” Both are the same movie, just one has a franchise title on it. Same rules apply here with “The Equalizer.” Would anyone see this movie if it didn’t have the name of widely successful TV series from the 80s? Probably not.

But I digress. “The Equalizer” stars Denzel Washington as Robert McCall, a heavy lifter at the local Home Mart, a Home Depot/Lowes type of store. No one really knows what he did before he began his job at Home Mart. Every day, McCall comes to work, eats his healthy lunch, goes home, reads, and never sleeps. Since he can never sleep, he spends many nights drinking tea at a local diner near his home.

At the diner, he befriends a young escort named Teri (Chloë Grace Moretz). She hates her job, but knows no other life. Turns out, she’s been brought to the United States from her Russian home and forced into this life. When her handlers brutally beat her within an inch of her life for insubordination, McCall decides enough is enough and murders her Russian bosses in their office. That’s enough for the big boss in Russia to send someone to clean up the mess, a ruthless one-dimensional villain named Teddy (Marton Csokas).

This is a big screen television adaptation in name only. Other than calling the main character Robert McCall, and a little homage to the series right before the closing credits, there is nothing about this film that remotely resembles the original series. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but the story doesn’t hold up well at all. I can look the other way on the whole “adapted-from-a-television-series” thing, but a half-assed, cliché littered screenplay cannot be overlooked.

I’m sure the script in its original form was probably okay, until some Hollywood executive got his hands all over it and decided to change the main character’s name to Robert McCall and slap “The Equalizer” brand name all over it. Rather than change things around and throw an old 80s show title on the poster, they should have spent more time on the story itself because this is not good. The whole plot point the sets this story in motion is one of the most far-fetched examples of an inciting incident to come across the silver screen all year. Not to mention, it takes almost an entire half hour to reach. By that time, I assume most people will have already tuned out much of what’s already happened. But if they didn’t call it “The Equalizer” would anyone go see it? Nope.

Director Antoine Fuqua continues to prove himself as an inept storyteller. Aside from “Training Day,” which is mediocre at best, Fuqua only concerns himself with staging action sequences and concocting moments of cheap thrills. For “The Equalizer,” Fuqua delivers nothing new. In fact, he pulls out all the tricks in the book to make this film full of every crime film cliché we’ve seen since the dawn of the genre. He directs his focus to setting up brutally violent sequences rather than finding things for the audience to empathize with and gain some form of a rooting interest. Not that the script from Richard Wenk (“The Expendables 2”) had much there to begin with. Fuqua’s cast receives no favors either.

Denzel is Denzel, playing the same action hero/crime fighter he’s played in almost all his movies. I do like him as an actor for the most part, but his choice of films lately has me questioning if he really is as good as we make him out to be. But every time I start to feel this way, he ends up doing something fantastic – like “Flight” – and all is forgiven. At least, until his next atrocity. The only person worth mentioning in this film is Mortez who continues to show she is much more proficient in her ability than her age would indicate. And yet, she’s greatly misused here, taking up only a small amount of screen time despite being the catalyst for the entire story. I’m not saying she’s memorizing in this role by any stretch, but at least she does bring something new in this performance we don’t normally see from her.

For a film about brutal revenge killings, I suppose “The Equalizer” could be considered decent. But fans of the 80s television series will be supremely disappointed when they see someone masquerading around as Robert McCall not acting like the Robert McCall they all know and love. This is a cheap and blatant attempt by a Hollywood studio to capitalize on its own history again by slapping the name of a once successful series and trying to market it as something new and fresh. We shouldn’t be so easily fooled by this, but I have a feeling this film will do well and will no doubt produce some kind of sequel, or worse, a long running franchise. That’s just what we need: more vapid and uninspired garbage from studios only interested in repackaging the same exact thing you’ve seen over and over and over for the last decade or two.

Review: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★

Much like every other guy my age, I was a huge fan of the Ninja Turtles when I was a kid. Obsessed would be a better word for it. I couldn’t get enough of them. Raphael was my favorite. And that was when I was at an age where I wasn’t fully aware of the concept of fictitious characters. They seemed very real to me. Especially in their first movie in 1990, and then when we saw them live and in concert around the same time (yes, I did actually go to that – great fun as a kid but incredibly ludicrous now looking back on it). Of course, the whole fad is a little crazy from the point of view of a 31 year old, but whenever I see the Turtles, it brings a bit of nostalgia back.

Such is the purpose of the new version of these Turtles in the Michael Bay-produced and Jonathan Liebesman directed “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.” This film attempts to rewrite the origin story quite a bit, which I won’t go into here as I guess it could be considered a spoiler. There’s April O’Neil (Megan Fox), a young reporter for New York City’s Channel 6 News. She and her cameraman Vernon Fenwick (Will Arnett) are assigned to do the fun stories around town, but April wants to be taken seriously in the eyes of her boss Bernadette Thompson (Whoppi Goldberg). She’s also driven to live up to the her expectations of her late father, who died a long time ago working alongside New York’s wealthiest and most influential businessman Eric Sacks (William Fichtner).

Recently, a crime wave has taken over the city at the hands of what appears to be some kind of unstoppable terrorist organization called the Foot Clan. They’re lead by a martial arts master known as Shredder (Tohoru Masamune) and his right hand woman Karai (Minae Noji). April witnesses a Foot Clan robbery thwarted by our heroes and comes face to face with them: the four brother turtles Leonardo (Pete Ploszek, voiced by Johnny Knoxville), Donatello (Jeremy Howard), Michelangelo (Noel Fisher), and Raphael (Alan Ritchson). They also introduce her to their master, a rat named Splinter (Danny Woodburn, voiced by Tony Shalhoub). With them, she learns the true plan of the Shredder and the Foot Clan and has to help the Turtles stop them before it destroys the entire city.

At its core, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” is pretty typical of the old cartoon series in the late 80s/early 90s. Outside of the tweaked origin story, the film does have that fun feel of cartoon. What it lacks is a focused story and any kind of set up and development for those in the audience who might not have been as obsessed with the Turtles as people like me.

If you weren’t a fan of the Turtles in the late 80s/early 90s, this film isn’t for you at all. You’ll be lost because the film does nothing to set up these characters. It’s supposed to be an origin story (first movie in what will more than likely continue to be an ongoing franchise). The four turtles are mostly over inflated caricatures of their personalities from the original series, which I actually found to be very annoying (especially Donatello – poor guy). The only person here who’s given the slightest bit of character development in April, and Megan Fox (being the terrible actress that she is) throws it all out the window.

Sure, it’s a Turtles movie. I get that. It’s not supposed to be award-winning material. I never expected it to be. But what I do expect – and what all audiences should demand – is to not be strung along from one action sequence to the next with little or no story tying everything together. “Ninja Turtles” feels like it was written by numerous writers (and it was: Josh Appelbaum & Andre Nemec and Evan Daugherty) who pulled out a couple of the oldest superhero storylines from their back pockets. Then they tied everything together with ridiculous action sequences that are a little hard to follow.

The growing trend with these superhero movies is to make them less of fantasy, and more likely to occur in the real world. If these people with super powers really existed, this is how it would play out. The same idea is applied here but to little success. Here we have the Turtles fighting the Shredder, which is typical of the cartoon, but unrealistic in a real world setting. So a shady businessman has to be created to help tie the fantasy world into the real world. This gives us separate villains and separate heroes. This leads to lack of focus, which ultimately leads to mass boredom from viewers. 

The film would have been much better if it was the Turtles vs. Shredder and April O’Neil with the assist, just like the series. Instead, we are given a new origin story that attempts to make the Turtles more realistic and plausible heroes in the real world. But they’re mutated turtles who are also teenage ninjas. They don’t have to fit in a real world setting. Batman works in the real world. I can even accept Iron Man as a real world character too. But the Turtles? This is pure fantasy and that’s the way it needs to stay. Too be fair, this isn’t the worst incarnation of the Turtles I’ve seen. Michael Bay didn’t absolutely destroy these characters like we all thought he would, but he didn’t do them any justice either. Better luck next time.

Review: Wish I Was Here

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★★

We all know how great of a film “Garden State” is and how talented Zach Braff is as a writer and director. I wasn’t expecting much from “Garden State” when it first came out ten years ago (yes, it has been that long), but it became one of my favorite films of the year and of the decade. But it took ten years for Braff to follow that up with his second feature film “Wish I Was Here” and I’m not sure why. Every studio passed on this script. It wasn’t until Braff took his wishes to the crowd funding website Kickstarter that he was finally able to make the film on his own. And after seeing it, I can’t understand why studios passed on this one.

Braff has said this film was meant to be a “spiritual sequel” or sorts to “Garden State” and I can see that. Braff plays Aidan Bloom, a mid-30s actor struggling to find work. His wife Sarah (Kate Hudson) is left to provide for the whole family, which also includes their children Grace (Joey King) and Tucker (Pierce Gagnon). The kids are enrolled at a private Orthodox Jewish school, a request from Aidan’s father Gabe (Mandy Patinkin) who pays the pricey tuition.

But then Gabe reveals to Aidan that he has cancer and would like to take part in an experimental treatment, which will cost him the rest of his life savings. That means no more school tuition for the kids. So Aidan pulls them from the school and opts to try his hand at homeschooling. But when Gabe’s cancer experiment fails, Aidan is left to watch his father – a man who he’s never really seen eye-to-eye with – slowly fade away. That causes him to question some of his life choices and also how he’s seen in the eyes of his children. He also tries to bring his estranged brother Noah (Josh Gad) back into the family mix, especially for the sake of his dying father.

It sounds a lot more melodramatic that it really is. It’s mostly lighthearted and humorous in Braff’s unique brand of filmmaking. Overall, “Wish I Was Here” is very comparable in tone to “Garden State.” There are many moments that will really make you laugh out loud, moments that really warm your heart, and moments that will truly move your emotions.

Braff calling this film a spiritual sequel is reasonably accurate. It wouldn’t be a stretch to put Braff’s Andrew Largeman in the role of Aidan and Natalie Portman’s Sam in for Sarah, picking back up with them ten years or so after “Garden State” ends. Married with kids in Los Angeles, Largeman struggling to find work, his estranged father lying on his deathbed. It all works. But Braff wants to prove he’s a serious writer and director, which is why he chose to create completely different characters.

Braff’s Aidan is no Largeman and Hudson’s Sarah is no Sam. They’re vastly different from the people we knew in “Garden State.” Braff’s screenplay – which he co-wrote with his brother Adam – is just as solid as his last effort. But he’s grown up in the last ten years and no doubt experienced much more of life than he had when he did “Garden State.” “Wish I Was Here” is a more mature writing effort for Braff.

As a director, Braff understands the emotions he’s trying to convey from his screenplay. He’s able to make this film wear its emotions on its proverbial sleeves. Personally, there were things going on in my life at the time of “Garden State’s” release that affected me on a deep level when I first saw it. The same thing applies for me, personally, with “Wish I Was Here” ten years later. The ability to make that personal connection with your audience is really what separates the good directors from the great ones. And Braff is on his way to being great.

The film is full of great performances from Braff and Hudson and their young co-stars. But the performance from Patinkin could very well be a defining role of his career. Most will remember him for Inigo Montoya, but this really shows his range more than anything else I’ve ever seen him in. Movies like this only work when all those involved comes together in the most perfect of circumstances. Patinkin is what pushes this film over the edge to make it great.

Much like “Garden State” before it, Braff’s “Wish I Was Here” will probably go down as one of my favorite movies of the year, and will likely be a contender for my Best Ten at year’s end. This film has so many great elements that it’s hard to isolate the ones that work the best. Too many people have criticized Braff for not branching out further from “Garden State” with his second feature. I disagree. Sure he might have stayed close to home, but it works. It worked great in 2004 and it works well today. And there are enough differences here to separate the two films to make each stand distinctly on their own.

Review: Wish I Was Here

by. Joe Moss
★★★★

Why on Earth did all of Hollywood refuse to back such a scintillating film as Zach Braff's sophomore release? Maybe they couldn't handle the stark clarity with which he dealt with family, religion, death, and growing up; whatever the reason, their loss--his gain. "Wish I Was Here" has managed to surpass the respect I held for his freshman offering "Garden State" (which I loved dearly) by forcing me to deal with memories of my own family even as the script played before my eyes.

Aidan Bloom (Braff) is a struggling actor with a real problem--he hasn't been able to land a gig in years, the last being a dandruff commercial. His father, Gabe (Mandy Patinkin) is sick and may be dying. His brother, Noah (Josh Gad) is a genius recluse who refuses to talk to any member of his family other than Aidan. His wife, Sarah (Kate Hudson), the sole bread-winner for the family, is being sexually harassed at work and told by her bosses to "relax and be more fun;" and his children, Grace and Tucker (Joey King and Pierce Gagnon) are in danger of being thrown out of their private Jewish schooling due lack of payment by Gabe as he spends the money on his mounting medical bills. Aidan just cannot catch a break.

As this poignant look at life in suburban California plays on, the audience cannot help but be drawn into this plight of 'every man.'  We can all relate to the struggles of paying bills, and working dead-end jobs, and putting up with harassment of all types...simply because we have no choice. The American Dream is a tough reality to maintain for many of us working schmucks. The ending of the film is about as close to reality as you would expect--and I do not think it was a surprise ending...much in the reverse, it was the ending that we, as the audience, had rooted for. The most memorable line of the film to me was stated by Aidan in the few minutes, "My brother and I had always thought of ourselves as the hero, when maybe it was we who needed to be saved."

The script was so wonderfully written by Zach and his brother, Adam. I cannot help but feel the story was pulled from their own lives. There is too much raw emotion portrayed within the film to be anything but. Zach and Kate have a magnanimous chemistry that translates beautifully on screen--you truly feel they are married and struggling together...not as separate people ponderously dredging through the quicksand of life. Kate Hudson's innate ability to bring positive energy into every scene helps elevate Braff's natural, brooding sarcasm into the stratosphere. Additionally, Mandy Patinkin has Braff's father is so spot on (and they look so similarly) that I wonder if Zach didn't have moments of hallucination back to his own childhood during filming.

Sundance did not disappoint when it announced how the audience so favorably responded to this film. I am so over the moon about this film, that I cannot express enough the whys and how quickly everyone should go to see it. If you are in the mood for a heart wrenching, true-to-life drama that transcends to address many of the social issues of today...look no further.

Review: Boyhood

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★★

It’s been well established that Richard Linklater had planned on telling the story of a young boy growing up through his childhood, through adolescence, and into adulthood. He had spoke before of doing a project filming over the course of 12 years. I never realized he was actually doing it, at least not until the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year where “Boyhood” made its highly anticipated premier. Yes, after 12 years of on-again/off-again filming, Richard Linklater has finally delivered his magnum opus and there’s never been anything quite like it.

Watching “Boyhood” is like watching a time capsule being opened before your very eyes. It’s rich with soul and emotion from beginning to end. It’s indescribable watching this film unfold in front of you, knowing that all the principle players involved dedicated so much time of their lives to making this film happen and watching each of them age naturally on screen.

The story revolves around Mason, Jr. (Ellar Coltrane) who we first meet when he’s only about six years old. He lives in rural Texas with his single mother (Patricia Arquette) and his older sister Sam (Lorelei Linklater). They’re just barely making it in their current living situation. Mom decides to move to Houston where she can go to school and her mother (Libby Vallari) can help out with watching the kids.

In Houston, Mason and Sam’s dad (Ethan Hawke) reenters their lives. He wants to be the fun dad, but is still just irresponsible enough to drive mom crazy. Mom also falls in love with her professor, Dr. Welbrock (Marco Perella), and the two ultimately marry, joining their two families. But all isn’t so Brady Bunch for Mason and his mom and sister.

The film continues on following a total of 12 years in the life of Mason. We see plenty of his mother, his father, and his sister, but Mason is always the focal point of film. Think of it as 12 short films – one for each year – all strung together. That’s essentially what this is. Richard Linklater has picked out one episode from each year in the life of Mason to show us.

There are so many different elements of Mason’s life that we – as an audience – can either relate to from personal experience or from knowing someone in a similar situation. We see his mother’s marriages and divorces, relocation from one city to another, the abusive alcoholic stepfather, the fun loving but never around biological father, troubles in school, newfound hobbies, and first loves. It’s nearly impossible to watch this film and not find a familiar event from your own childhood.

It’s also utterly impossible to watch “Boyhood” and not be moved by seeing everyone naturally age throughout the film. The kids are the most noteworthy, but then there’s Hawke and Arquette. Since they’re the most recognizable names and faces, it’s easy to see how the years wear on them. It puts things into perspective just how quickly time moves when you can see a familiar actor like Hawke at the beginning of this movie realizing that he was only one year removed from filming “Training Day” when this began or that Arquette completed her entire run on “Medium” during the filming of this movie.

“Boyhood” also acts as a time portal to you own life as well, not because of the plotline, but based on the time period where action occurs. Richard Linklater never tells you what year we’re in. You can only judge the time based on the music in the soundtrack, the technology on the screen, the current events in the background, and most importantly the age of the actors. When each scene begins, you immediately try to discern where you were when this event was taking place. Some events are easy to pick out. Hawke sitting there talking about the war in Iraq or Mason and Sam placing Obama/Biden campaign signs in people’s yards. Others are trickier. Hawke at an Astros game with his kids with Roger Clemmens on the mound (a quick Google search lets you know that – based on the events mentioned in the game – it took place on April 18, 2006) or Mason listing off the biggest movies of one particular summer (2008). Or even funnier, Hawke and Coletrain discussing the feasibility of what a new “Star Wars” trilogy might look like if they ever make it (the conversation takes place in 2008, about 4 years before the new trilogy was announced).

The acting is tremendous across the board. We expect that from Arquette and Hawke (well, at least when he’s working with Richard Linklater, I mean). We are also treated to great supporting performances as well, such as Marco Perellea as an alcoholic college professor. Lorelei Linklater (Richard’s daughter) also puts on a stellar performance. The movie revolves around Mason, but as his sister she’s very much apart of his entire childhood, from tormenting him to becoming one of his best friends. But the movie belongs to Ellar Coletrain who never seems overwhelmed by the massive task at hand, especially when asked to play into some deeper emotions. And you can see him mature as an actor as the film progresses. It’s easy to tell he’s been spoon fed direction as a child, but later draws upon his own life experiences as both he and Mason grow up.

This is a film that makes you think in a much more profound way than anything I’ve ever seen before. I’m not saying it’s hard to follow, and I’m not saying it’s difficult to process. Quite the opposite. “Boyhood” is unique and certainly one-of-a-kind. I’ve never seen any movie like this before. It’s a masterpiece. I’ve referred to other films with that word before, but none of them were this exceptional and rare. I doubt very much that another film like this will ever come along again. Enjoy the uniqueness of this film. There are so many different elements to latch onto. But unlike your childhood, which is  - I’m sorry to say – gone forever, Richard Linklater leaves us Mason’s in the form of “Boyhood” to be relived forever.