Ambitious Generation, Painfully Universal Story, Boyhood Still Succeeds!

The Good: Decent performances, Interesting characters, Good sense of realism
The Bad: No time stamps, Generally plotless
The Basics: Mason’s childhood in Texas is incredibly familiar for anyone who has a modern, turbulent family life and while the generation of the film is exceptional, the story is not.


With this year’s crop of Best Picture Oscar nominees coming largely, from films that were released late in the year or were just pretty unremarkable, I found myself woefully unprepared to update my Best Picture Project (check it out here!). So, I’ve issued myself a new challenge, which is to watch all eight nominees for Best Picture before the awards ceremony. Today, I’m finally catching Boyhood, which might not have the visual scope of Interstellar (reviewed here!), but it was created with a similar sense of ambition to it. Made famous for the way it took more than a decade to complete, Boyhood is a family drama that feels almost like a documentary.

Unlike most of the other Best Picture Nominees that were released in 2014, Boyhood was not released during the traditional Oscar Pandering Season, though like most of the nominees was released more to art house theaters than the year’s traditional studio releases and blockbusters. Of the nominated films, though, Boyhood so far is the one to get my vote, despite the issues I have with the film.

At age five, Mason is growing up with his mother (Olivia) and sister (Samantha), when his mom decides to move in order to continue her education. They move closer to their grandmother and Mason has a lot of trouble focusing. One day, his father pops back up and takes the kids out. Samantha and Mason compete with one another for their father’s attention and he works not to badmouth his ex-partner too much. By bringing the kids home, Mason’s father messes up his ex-‘s plans and Mason once again watches his parents fight. Mason’s mother marries her college professor, Bill, and Mason and Samantha become part of a blended family with Bill’s children.

Bill is a jerk (and an alcoholic) who exerts more influence over Mason’s life than the boy is comfortable with. While Olivia focuses on her schoolwork, Bill deals with the children day to day (like getting Mason a haircut that is far shorter than the boy wants). When Bill gets drunk and he starts acting more overtly abusive. Olivia stands up and leaves Bill, much to the consternation of Mason and Samantha (who wonder why their step-siblings can’t come with them). Over the years, Mason sees his father occasionally, and while his father slowly gets his life together, Mason heads down a number of the same roads as his father.

Boyhood is one of those rare films where the purpose of the film is simple and it achieves all of its goals, but it does not make for an exceptional movie. Boyhood is not a statement film; it is a cinematic experience. The film documents thirteen years of Mason’s life, but the life of the child is hardly remarkable and, as one who is deliberately child-free, is hardly interesting. Richard Linklater set out to make a film that illustrated change and growth over the years and he accomplishes that. And perhaps in the 1950s, this would have been an audacious film. But now – and Boyhood is set in contemporary times (one of the earliest snippets has a Britney Spears reference) – the number of people who grow up in blended families and who have step parents who assume the parenting duties while the biological parents have lesser influence is hardly an uncommon experience.

For a film that tries to create a continuum of the childhood experience, Boyhood can be problematic to watch, especially for those not clued into the pop culture references throughout. Boyhood does not contain time stamps, which I found irksome. Time changes occur through strong visual cues, like Mason’s hair abruptly growing back the scene after it was sheered off. Boyhood would have worked better on the clarity level to show the breaks.

Linklater is good at doing what he is trying to do; the viewer watches Mason age on screen. The acting in Boyhood is wonderful. Ethan Hawke plays Mason’s father well, the apparent slacker who is politically-active, but not grounded. Hawke does well with the role of a man who was clearly not ready or tuned in to being a father. Patricia Arquette, similarly, plays Olivia well. Unfortunately for a lot of viewers, the character she plays is fundamentally unlikable. While Olivia seems, on the surface, to be admirable, she betters herself to the neglect of her children, putting Mason and Samantha in some lousy situations as she ignores them to serve her own wants.

Mason is interesting-enough, though his arc is hardly surprising or uncommon. He is well-played by Ellar Coltrane. Coltrane is (mostly) responsible for doing what he was doing anyway; growing up. Mason is hardly a distinct or original character and that is the strength of Boyhood. Boyhood tells a universal story well; that makes for an interesting document, but a film that is hardly exceptional.

For other works with Ethan Hawke, please check out my reviews of:
Predestination
Total Recall
Daybreakers
Fast Food Nation

7/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Bernie Is A Good Almost-Documentary That Prioritizes Substance Over Sparkle.

The Good: Interesting story, Good characters, Jack Black’s performance
The Bad: Tone/pacing
The Basics: Bernie is, ultimately, a glorified newsmagazine special of a murder case that takes far, far, too long to become anything.


Lately, when my wife and I finish watching a film, she turns to me and asks, “What are you going to give it?” because she knows I will review anything and everything that comes before me. When Bernie was done, we had a rare discussion about the film. Her family had left a copy for us to watch on their last visit and we finally watched it, pretty late at night. Bernie was engaging enough that I stayed awake an hour and a half after my usual bedtime to watch it and it was presented in a way that continued to develop such that I could not fall asleep during it (not that that was my first instinct).

But the more and more my wife and I talked about Bernie - and I did like it – the more I was forced to admit that, more than anything, I simply did not care how the film turned out. My wife analogized Bernie to a 48 Hours television special, without the ominous tone (I used the phrase “sensationalism”) and she was right. Bernie is very much like a profile on a television newsmagazine, usually the type where the trajectory of a killer is traced with voiceovers that make the person seem terrible and their crimes almost inevitable (or, conversely, utterly shocking). Bernie is very much like that, but without the tone or sensationalism and, for a significant part of the movie, a crime. In fact, it is remarkably late in the movie that the film evolves from somewhat boring character profile to an abrupt murder, cover up and inevitable trial. The erratic nature of Bernie left me feeling the film was far more average than exceptional, though I did enjoy it.

Bernie Tiede is a Texan in his late thirties, who is a mortician’s assistant in Carthage, Texas. Beloved by all the locals for the way he has a kind word for everyone and goes out of his way for the bereaved, Bernie finds success and happiness in the small community. Marjorie Nugent, on the other hand, is reviled my most of the town for the way she is mean to everyone and delights in rejecting loans in her position at the local bank after her husband dies. But, when her husband dies, she and Bernie strike up an unlikely friendship. Against all odds, Marjorie allows Bernie to console her and soon they are seen everywhere traveling together and spending time in one another’s company.

That relationship, however, takes a turn for the unhealthy when Marjorie starts controlling Bernie’s time and keeps him under the thumb. Frustrated one day at her berating him, Bernie picks up the armadillo shooting rifle and shoots her in the back four times. After that, Bernie continually comes up with excuses for why people cannot visit Marjorie, while at the same time using her considerable assets to benefit everyone in the community. But Marjorie’s stockbroker and the local district attorney slowly come to believe something is amiss and when they find her body, Bernie is taken into custody.

Bernie is based upon a true story, so all my comments – it should be noted – pertain only to the film Bernie. Bernie takes its time to adequately illustrate just what a nice guy Bernie Tiede is, and it does that exceptionally effectively. But the film plods along without any purpose for quite some time as Bernie just keeps doing nice things in Texas and by the time something actually happens (i.e. he shoots Marjorie), I had almost completely lost interest. In fact, it almost seems like writer and director Richard Linklater got bored as well because he forgot almost all of the rising action leading up to the murder. Bernie’s defense at his trial has to do with how controlling Marjorie was, but that is not exceptionally well-illustrated in Bernie; the scene before, Bernie is off flying the plane Marjorie seems to have bought for him. In other words, Bernie fails to show the man oppressed in a serious or crippling way.

This is to the detriment of the film because as soon as the accountant goes snooping and Marjorie’s body is found, Bernie focuses quite a bit on D.A. Danny Buck, a thoroughly unlikable character. So, despite loathing Buck and his methods, Linklater’s Bernie is only so persuasive because the first half of the film convinces the viewer that Bernie and his perspective can be trusted.

Shirley MacLaine plays Marjorie and she has vastly fewer lines than most of the townspeople (who are played by themselves, actual peers of the real Bernie Tiede) and her role is basically a supporting one that is comparatively minor. Similarly, Matthew McConaughey’s Daniel Buck only comes into his own in the last third of the film and he quietly develops the character in reaction shots more than he defines him through anger or bluster. Buck’s fate is not mentioned in the closing credits and that is unfortunate, so McConaughey effectively generated enough interest to make the viewer care whether the D.A. got re-elected or not.

Most of the movie rests on the performance of Jack Black, as Bernie Tiede. Black gives a performance that instantly reminded me of Zach Galifianakis in The Campaign (reviewed here!), but to be fair, Black beat him to the mannerisms. Regardless, this is a role unlike any I’ve seen Jack Black in and he carries it effectively, showcasing his musical range along the way.

Ultimately, Bernie is a simple movie, well worth watching once, but unless it is leading up to a retrial or pardon (one supposes the Governor of Texas could watch Bernie and be moved or Obama could use a Presidential pardon on the guy) it is hard to muster up the enthusiasm to rewatch the film.

For other works with Shirley MacLaine, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Around The World In 80 Days
The Apartment
Terms Of Endearment
In Her Shoes
Rumor Has It . . .
Valentine’s Day

5.5/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the film reviews are organized from best film to worst!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

I Suppose It Might Effect Those Still Eating In The Fast Food Nation.

The Good: Generally informative, Decent acting
The Bad: None of the characters pop, Message becomes overbearing, Overreaches itself
The Basics: Fast Food Nation fails to balance well between a documentary's informativeness and a sense of entertainment, resulting in an underwhelming viewing experience.


I cannot recall the last film I sat and watched where my reaction to it was that it was too ambitious, though I occasionally run into a movie where the writer and/or director attempts to take on a bit too much for the time frame. Bobby might have been the last movie where there was just one too many plot/character threads. Far too often, my problem is not that a movie is too ambitious, but rather that it does not try hard enough. It's a rare thing when a movie can manage to be both too full with plots or characters and also predictable (which is almost always one of the chief difficulties with a film that's not ambitious enough), yet Fast Food Nation manages to do that. Fast Food Nation is a broad work that explores the cattle processing plants and fast food industry in a Colorado city with a storytelling angle, as opposed to a documentary style.

Raul, his wife and her sister are Mexicans who cross into the United States illegally. Raul soon gets a job working at the local meat processing plant cleaning up the kill floor. His sister in law works in the same factory, mostly getting high and having sex with a supervisor there. Meanwhile, Amber, one of the workers at the local fast food establishment which is home to the Big One, becomes disenchanted with her job and falls in with a group of college students who are working to fight the powers of the fast food industry.

Enter Don Anderson, head of marketing for that company who is sent out to Colorado when his company faces a marketing nightmare: some college students tested some of the frozen burgers and found they were high in . . . . feces. Mmmm, yum. Don is sent to find out what the problem is and he essentially discovers that the problems are systemic and the viewer is treated to a series of lessons on where exactly the meat in fast food patties comes from and why they are so inexpensive for his company.

The problem with Fast Food Nation as an entertainment piece is that it is far too erratic and preachy to be genuinely entertaining. Sure, there's the cameo from Avril Lavigne as the disenchanted college student (which is pretty much her public persona anyway) and there's the surprise appearance of Bruce Willis midway through the picture, but outside moments like that, the film suffers because it is trying to tell far too many stories and the result is none of them get told very well.

Take, for example, the saga of Don. Don begins to learn the realities of the meat-packing industry, from the use of illegal immigrants in the factories to the presence of fecal matter in the meat. When he is disturbed by the revelations made to him, his contacts within the company simply respond that "they are fine if you cook them!" He is outraged, as writer/director Richard Linklater no doubt intends the audience to be. Don leaves the film about halfway through with a sense of indignation and the plan to risk his life, wellbeing and career to stand up for what is right. As the closing credits begin rolling, his story is simply resolved with a scene that completely lacks any real sense of resolution because it robs the viewer of his character struggle and process between where he left the movie and where he pops back up.

Similarly, while the movie starts with a strong presence of Raul and his journey, he and his family exit the movie for most of the beginning and middle so that Don can have his story. By the time we revisit Raul, we do not genuinely care about his struggle. And watching him and his family devolve into drug addicts and the miseries of whoredom becomes something of a pointless exercise. Why? Because by the point in the movie when Raul's story becomes front and center again, it is pretty much to be predicted what will happen with him and his wife.

Part of the problem is certainly structural. In the first half of the film, Don is given a great deal of information. Don is told about the various evils of the meat packing industry and all of the terrible things that he is not being shown until he cannot even eat his company's product. The viewer gets it. There's a lot of exposition, there are a lot of people telling Don (and the audience) just what the stakes of the game are. We get it. The latter half of the film, with Raul, simply shows virtually everything that the viewer has already been told.

So the movie has a sense of being more multiple personalities than a rich tapestry. Amber's story seems almost redundant and pointless for the brief time she is focused on. The problem here is that Fast Food Nation makes the argument that there are systemic problems in the food supply, but illustrates no genuine hope for changing it. In fact, it does just the opposite. Amber and her friends are completely ineffectual.

As a result, most of the character quickly begin to feel like "types" as opposed to individuals. Don is a pretty generic cog in the machine suit who learns the evils of the world he works in and is faced with a decision about what to do about that. Raul is the immigrant everyman whose life is turned upside down b moving to the United States where every argument for a better life is gutted as he becomes a drug addict and his wife decides she will do anything to make money for their family. It's a pretty predictable storyline and in the absence of real characters, the film suffers and begins to take on the feel of a lecture.

Indeed, on DVD, Fast Food Nation is a virtual baseball bat to beat the viewer over the head with information. The bonus features are almost exclusively reiterations of the arguments contained in the film. One of them, "The Backwards Burger" animated short, traces the process of making fast food meat patties back from the burger to the cow and basically acts as an educational substitute for the two hour film. It's about as entertaining as Fast Food Nation ultimately is.

What the movie does have going for it, in place of entertainment, is the presence of actors who are acting well. Greg Kinnear does well as Don, taking his enthusiastic smile and slowly working it away as his character takes in the information being thrown at him. Wilmer Valderrama is completely convincing as Raul and he holds the viewer's attention quite well in all of his scenes.

But ultimately, the enlightenment that one receives from Fast Food Nation might be better gotten from a documentary, like Super Size Me (reviewed here!) and the entertainment value is not on par with similar movies, like Thank You For Smoking (reviewed here!). Instead, there is so much going on that none of it is well developed and despite seeing actors in very different roles, none of the roles here are particularly great. The result is a thoroughly average film.

For other works with Luis Guzman, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Old Dogs
He’s Just Not That Into You
Yes Man
Waiting . . .
Magnolia

5/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |