Boyhood

Dustin: 3 of 5 stars Nick: 4.5 of 5 stars Average: 3.75 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: Boyhood was filmed over 12 years and follows a boy from a broken home as he grows from elementary school until he goes off to college.

What did you think of Boyfood, Nick?

Nick: Boyhood was certainly ambitious. There were so many events that felt true to life, so much so, to the point that whenever a person was introduced there was already a suspicion that this certain relationship would not last. Whether because of alcoholic fathers or female companions.

Dustin: I liked the concept of filming scenes over 12 years instead of using a younger actor to play the little kid parts and an older actor for the high school parts. I’ve actually wondered before why no one has done this (other than the logistical difficulties). Other than the gimmick though, I cared very little for this film. I liked the parents, and their character arcs, but otherwise, it was too long and rather pointless.

Nick: It never felt long for me, and the last talk between Ethan Hawke (father) and Ellar Coltrane (main character) is about how pointless life truly is, but you should still do what makes you happy. Since the film is trying to depict, as realistically as possible, a family growing together (and apart) over the course of 12 years then I’d say it did one incredible job.

Dustin: I disagree. If they wanted to make a movie about a lame white family and boring real life, they could have made a documentary about me. This movie just kept going and going. After the two hour mark, I was getting quite bored, especially when it stopped following the parents and instead followed the boy as he took boring pictures of old fire hydrants and what not. After each scene ended, I was gearing up to leave the theater, then another pointless scene would begin. I kept waiting for something, anything to happen. There was a scene where he talks to his father on the phone and his father tells him to be careful driving, then while they’re driving, his girlfriend shows him a picture on the Facebook, and I thought they would crash or something would happen. Nope. Just another pointless scene. Then when it finally ended, it didn’t seem to end on a particularly poignant note. They could have just ended it anywhere for the same effect.

Nick: That would be pretty melodramatic and a bit off point if the kids were in a car crash. I love that there is no coy set-up in the film to where you are able to guess what’s going to happen next. It sounds like you enjoy the simpler things in life, sir.

There were two parts of the film that should have been altered dramatically (though I could now see them being your favorite scenes) and they both involved alcoholic step-fathers.

The first step-father is set up correctly, but the events involving him could have been more subtle. Like seeing their mom have a random black eye or limping and saying she fell down the stairs. But the father went from three to 10 in about 15 minutes of film time. Least favorite scene of the film is when he takes his kids for a joyride. Not because it depicted something unrealistic, but the scene altogether felt disjointed.

The second step-father is also an “alcoholic.” The first guy chugged a bottle of tequila, hit his wife and used fear tactics against his children. The second guy seemed to have four or five lite beers, supported his wife (never hit his family that we know of), and tried to discipline his rebellious children (never with a fist). Yet we get no explanation for why she left the second husband beyond the film jumping another year and simply saying now that I have no alcoholic husbands in my life… The first father has a lot of screen time. The second father has barely any screen time. By the end they are equated by the mother as the same. I suppose we are to assume that he became like the first husband, but I never got the sense that that would happen.

Dustin: I actually hated those scenes too for the same reason you said. The first step-father was so comically evil when he was drinking that I was actually laughing. I enjoyed the scenes, actually, but definitely not for the reason the filmmakers intended. It was like something out of Strangers with Candy. There was quite a bit of laughably bad dialogue. I was the only person in the theater laughing, which was awkward. Just couldn’t take the pretentious BS seriously.

The movie was too reductive to form a story, which is my main complaint about a lot of movies that try to cram too long a time frame into too short a running time (even at 2 hours 45 minutes). I knew where it was going as soon as we saw the second step-father drinking the beer on the porch and then chewing out his step-son (rightfully so) for being selfish and inconsiderate to his mother. Then he’s gone and we never know why. His character just isn’t there anymore (probably working on another movie and didn’t go back, so they wrote him out).

Would you have liked this movie as much if it were the same story, but not with the gimmick of filming it over 12 years?

Nick: If it was a different director then I might be OK with calling it a gimmick. The word has so much negativity to it. Richard Linklater likes to make films that are slightly different than the ones we see too often. Look at his catalogue: Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise trilogy, Waking Life, and A Scanner Darkly. These films, whether I liked them or not, are firmly planted in my brain because they were either magnificent, eccentric or something that I have never seen before. Boyhood is not the first film to do this “gimmick.” My favorite documentary is a series by Michael Apted called 7 Up. Started in 1964 and still going today. Francois Truffaut made his Antoine Doinel character with a series of 5 films somewhere in like a 20-year period. To answer your question, the first trailer I saw said nothing about the film being shot in 12 years, and I thought it looked incredible. I guess it doesn’t matter though because the film was made over 12 years and nothing can change that, but it’s not something I thought of too much to where it bothered me. There is nothing in me that will make me think Richard Linklater is either “gimmicky” nor pretentious. Linklater has passion and loves to tell coming-of-age stories, though he always finds a different artistic way to bring them to life.

Dustin: I just didn’t think this was a story anyone would care about. I liked the parts with his parents and their relationship. If that had been the focus of the movie, and about 45 minutes or more were cut to make it a leaner story about his parents, especially his father, growing over 12 years, I would have thought this was quite good. But once he’s a teenager and they follow him through his emo phase until he finally becomes a lame hipster going to college to learn a skill anyone can teach themselves (photography), I was pretty much fed up. I thought it was a wasted opportunity to work so hard for 12 years to tell this story.

Nick: If it makes you feel any better, everyone I know, from film buff to average movie goer loved this movie. I also had to try four times in order to see the movie because it was surprisingly sold out at the first three showings I attempted. Even at the larger theaters! The film also has an impressive 99 percent on RottenTomatoes with 181 out of 183 critics at least liking it, but not only that, as I look now, it also has the highest average rating I have ever seen at 9.4 out of 10. So, although I get your point and the father is a much more interesting character, the film seems to have a story that most people would enjoy. To be honest, I’m sorry you didn’t like it, since I “made” you see it. Though I also saw the Turtles and it was worse!

Dustin: Saying something must be good because a lot of people liked it is a logical fallacy known as “Appeal to Popularity.” Hindsight often proves them wrong. But I’d agree this movie wasn’t as damaging to the idea of “boyhood” as the new TMNT movie.

Nick: Is it a logical fallacy to state that I stated that anyone called it good? I said “enjoyed,” which a lot of people did which is just a fact. And the fact was pointing to your statement that you couldn’t imagine this story being anything that anyone would care about, which a lot of people seemed to care… And I don’t think I have a problem with appealing to popularity… I didn’t like Captain Phillips which was hugely popular with critics, moviegoers and you!

Dustin: I realize the movie is popular, I just don’t understand why (for the reasons I already explained). There wasn’t a plot, and what did happen wasn’t particularly interesting. I gave it 3 of 5 stars because I liked the concept and seeing the same people age on screen in one movie. I definitely wouldn’t have given it three stars if it was filmed over a couple months with different actors playing the younger roles.

Nick: I get that and I was genuinely saying that I’m sorry it didn’t tug at your heart strings or anything… and you are not wrong, I am not saying that. It’s our opinion and its a logical one to why one might not enjoy it as much, but normally when I go into a film hyped-up because I’ve really been wanting to see it I often leave disappointed, but I left this film with so much gratification. Maybe its because I have such a hard-on for Linklater. I love passionate people doing what they love.

Dustin: Of course neither of us was likely to change each other’s mind. This argument is for readers to get different perspectives on the movie and look at it through someone else’s filter.

Nick: You have made me change my rating before. I take your opinion and consider it seriously. I actually think that we both have the exact same idea of Boyhood, but while I thoroughly enjoyed you didn’t. Boyhood is more about feeling than a plot line. The plot is a boy growing up and there is no other plot. We’ve had a discussion recently about this kind of film that is character-based instead of following a plot. Character-based films often get to me more and once again that has proven itself again!

Guardians of the Galaxy

Dustin: 3.5 of 5 stars Nick: 4 of 5 stars Average: 3.75 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: Guardians of the Galaxy is the latest Marvel comics movie about a team of heroes out to save the galaxy (after The Avengers and X-Men). An earthling abducted by aliens as a boy and becomes an interstellar thief calling himself “Star-Lord” teams up with a bioengineered Racoon, a talking tree, a sexy green humanoid and a macho alien whose species takes everything literally to save the universe from a villain who has a MacGuffin that can wipe out all life form.

So what did you think of Guardians of the Galaxy, Nick?

Nick: The movie was enjoyable enough to the point that it didn’t bother me that almost every scene was determined by a MacGuffin. Sigh… very Transformers-esque. Almost every scene is about the Orb! There are even three different villains we see and how they also want the Orb. That’s a lot of villains who ultimately are useless towards anything that happens within the film. It felt as if the filmmakers were trying too hard to tie this film to other films in the Marvel Universe.

Dustin: I agree the plot itself wasn’t too strong. Too much focus on the MacGuffin, and I kinda zoned out during much of it, as well as the action scenes. I had trouble keeping the bad guys and their motivations straight in my head because I couldn’t really get invested in the story.

For me, the movie was strongest in the quieter moments. The five heroes were very enjoyable. I loved the dynamic between them, the entire “assembling of the team” sequence and their character arcs. The comic banter in the quieter scenes following the action set-pieces were my favorite parts. I would have liked this movie better if it was more of a comedy with some action than an action movie with some comedy.

Nick: It was basically a comedy with action! The sequence of four of the characters meeting for the first time was superb. They kept escaping each others’ traps and the camera did a good job of framing from each character’s point-of-view during that battle sequence. James Gunn was a good choice as director. Gunn loves infusing comedy into… um… let’s say serious situations with his films, such as Slither (which I love) and Super and then this awesome web series PG-Porn.

Dustin: I liked the set-pieces that weren’t related to the main plot. My favorite part of the movie was the prisonbreak sequence. Those were more clever and exciting than fighting Emperor Palpatine for the Orb. I took advantage of the latter moments to go to the bathroom.

The movie did have some great fantasy elements. There was the head of the giant “celestial being” that was being mined for elements I found fascinating. That was some fantastic world building. I liked the characters and the world of the movie so much I would gladly go back for the inevitable sequel.

Nick: The movie was so expletive fun! Though I found it strange that the cities best defense was for them to use thousands of soldiers in planes that combine and create a shield. They lost a shit ton of soldiers that day.

Dustin: The movie also had emotional variety along with variety in scenery. A movie that can make you laugh and cry without feeling manipulative or mushy is a minor triumph in itself.

Nick: When did you cry?

Dustin: I didn’t literally cry, but there were emotional scenes like Star-Lord’s mother dying and Groot’s line toward the end that slightly melted my icy heart.

My favorite of the characters was Drax (played by pro-wrestler Dave Bautista), the alien who takes everything literally, which leads to a lot of comedic moments. While being totally straight, Bautista delivers laughs with impeccable comedic timing.

Nick: It’s also nice to see Vin Diesel back to doing voicework. First he made me cry as the voice of the Iron Giant and, like you said, he came that close doing the voice for Groot. Amusing how they both don’t say too much.

Dustin: Anything else to add?

Nick: Oh, and it was fun!

Lucy

Dustin: 1 of 5 stars Nick: 3 of 5 stars Average: 2 of 5 stars (Canary on life support)

Dustin: Lucy is the second steaming turd Universal Studios has taken in our theaters in the past year (the other being 47 Ronin). The film features characters the audience doesn’t care about in a ridiculous premise based on a false idea (humans only use 10 percent of their brains) and that by accessing more of our “cerebral capacity” we’ll somehow be able to break the laws of physics.

Nick: When watching Lucy my mind kept comparing it to another science-fiction movie from this year: Transcendence. I understood immediately why I was enjoying Lucy while feeling forced to watch Transcendence. Lucy is molded with schlock. I never took it as wanting to be serious. This made me forgive all the factual errors. It helped even more that early on Morgan Freeman says it’s all hypothesis, not truth. Transcendence, on the other hand, was too serious while just using computer lingo as dialogue. Both movies had Morgan Freeman in common, probably to try and add validity to an idiotic idea.

Dustin: This wasn’t really a science fiction film. It was wannabe sci-fi. Transcendence had a cautionary tale about when science advances faster than humanity’s capacity to deal with it. This movie took a widely believed falsehood and had Morgan Freeman presenting his theories in an academic setting with serious people asking him questions. There was no science, only stupidity.

Nick: I find it amusing so many people can’t look beyond the stupid idea of a premise that is portrayed as true, when false, but can let giant alien robots fight each other on a distant planet while Mark Wahlberg is an inventor living in Texas (born and raised), but having a Boston accent. That you can look past, but this idea (just because some think it’s true) ruins this movie for you and many others.

Dustin: I have to disagree. I didn’t like Transformers either, but it didn’t pretend its premise was true. This movie continues to perpetuate a stupid idea that has long been disproven. The human brain consumes more calories than any other part of the body, we wouldn’t have evolved massive brains if we were only going to use 10 percent of them.

Clearly using more than 10 percent. (source: The Skeptics Guide to the Universe)

But, I don’t think that’s entirely why I couldn’t stand this movie. It occurred to me The Manchurian Candidate is another movie based on a false idea about the brain (humans can be programmed), but why is it that movie is a classic and still immensely enjoyable even knowing the premise is false, while this movie fails?

Nick: I don’t think this movie is saying that it is true. The film doesn't take itself seriously. It might just be asking what if that were the case. It’s an action sci-fi film, not a drama. There was no part in Lucy I took seriously. I also just found an article where Luc Besson is asked about all the people who are complaining about the science behind the premise and if Besson thinks its true that people only use 10 percent of their brains. His response is that it is absolutely not true.

Dustin: Knowing that sort of makes it worse. He’s not really asking, “What if?” Science already has the answer. I just couldn’t accept the movie on any level without agreeing to the premise. The answer to “What if humans used 100 percent of their brains?” Would be, “Normal-ass humans.”

Nick: What if what humans think is using a 100 percent of their brains is actually only looking at the limited potential, but in actuality the brain can be reprogrammed to increase its capacity of knowledge. What if?… Not saying it’s possible but what if?… that is kind of the first thought behind all sci-fi films.

Dustin: I think we have to agree to disagree. I wasn’t willing to ask “What if?” in this instance due to the stupid premise. So I couldn’t participate in the film at all.

But that wasn’t the only issue. What character are we supposed to identify with and root for? It can’t be Lucy. She starts out as a ditz, and then pretty much acts like a robot after she starts using her brain. We don’t have any characters we can identify with. So that also added to my boredom.

Nick: Do you always need a character to identify with? I can only think of one Luc Besson movie where I did and that was The Professional, but that was the only movie that had an real drama. I’ve enjoyed almost every film he has directed. The films are just mindless, fun entertainment with well-worked action scenes. Movies like District B13 and Lucy work for me because the films are less than 90 minutes and don’t try to be anything more than they happen to be.

Dustin: I think absent a believable plot, yes, you need characters you can identify with. You need Luke Skywalker and Michael Corleone. Even Taken had Liam Neeson’s character. While I can’t identify with a CIA officer with a thick English accent, I can identify with a father wanting to protect his daughter. That’s something. There wasn't a believable character in this movie.

Nick:  You use two characters from two of the greatest movies ever to make to make a point against an subpar film.

Dustin: OK. Remember that Antonio Banderas movie The 13th Warrior? Of course not, unless you were one of the 13 people (coincidence) who saw it. He was from Baghdad, but we could relate to him in his journey with the Norsemen because he was learned and more civilized. He was the “everyman” through whom we can experience the unfamiliar setting.

Anyone remember this?

Nick: So you are saying if Lucy were an every(wo)man you could relate?

Dustin: If Lucy acted like a normal person for at least a few minutes I could relate. I had nothing to latch on to here. Not even a sympathetic secondary character.

Nick: One of my favorite movies of the year, Under the Skin, which also stars Scarlett Johansson, is such an amazing experience, yet I wouldn’t say I connected to nor had any feelings for any character in the film. For me, having a character to latch onto, depending on the film, can make a movie better, but if the film lacks that I don’t think its necessarily think less of it. Some films don’t have to have a connection. Having said this, I think Lucy would have been better if we could have had more time with 10-percent Lucy rather than 20-to-100-percent Lucy. But if you can’t get past the premise then I don’t blame you for disliking Lucy.

Dustin:  If Luc Besson came out and said, “This movie took place entirely in Lucy’s mind while she was tripping on the experimental drug sewn into her belly,” I would rewatch it with a different frame of mind and might accept it then.

Also, what was at stake here? Yeah, she could die if she didn’t get her fix, but since I didn’t care about the character, that didn’t mean much to me. She is basically invincible by the time she confronts her enemies, so that took away any tension the scenes could have had. What if her genius was only temporary like the movie Charly? Or she lost her power like Edge of Tomorrow, which would have raised the stakes?

Anyway, after being a wet blanket throughout this review, I will say there was one detail in this movie I really liked. There was the scene where they dragged out a human guinea pig to test the drug on. He had somehow fallen captive to the gangsters. This idea was genuinely scary, and in line with Luc Besson’s better ideas from his other films where he shows a part of society decent folk don’t want to know about.

Nick: Although his character wasn’t fleshed out enough, it was nice to see Choi Min-Sik who played Oh Dae-Su in the original Oldboy. I loved what he did with the character he had to work with. He was legitimately scary until the protagonist is able to use 25 percent of her brain.

You are definitely not wrong in your complaints. Far from it. All the problems and questions you have I always ask when watching a movie with any sincerity, but since I could get beyond the premise and understand the tone, then I was able to shut off this old “10 percent” brain and enjoy this mediocre film.

The Purge: Anarchy

Dustin: 2 of 5 stars Nick: 3 of 5 stars Average: 2.5 of 5 stars (Woozy canary)

Nick: After reading Canary Movie Reviews’s review of The Purge the filmmakers listened and gave us something closer to what the premise had promised. It’s the same idea: One night a year crime becomes legal and blah blah blah. The difference is this time around we are out on the streets following, of course, two sets of people who didn’t want to be out there and one guy with a vendetta.

Dustin: This movie is an improvement on the first in that it actually delivers what the trailers promised. The first one had an interesting concept, but didn’t live up to the potential. It was a home-invasion suspense film treated like a paranormal horror film. I went into this one with lowered expectations, admittedly, but I think the feel of the movie and delivering on showing the Purge out on the streets was more in line with what these movies should be.

Nick: A premise like ALL CRIME IS LEGAL FOR ONE NIGHT A YEAR deserves to be out on the streets! In the first one we are forced inside a home of the rich shuckster who sold every one of his neighbors faulty home security. And then they let a black guy inside and the whole white family is scared shitless of him besides the innocence of the kid. This film gets a worse cast and a better storyline, which is exactly what it needed. A B-movie plot needs a B-movie cast. Though the film could have been more in the B movie range.

Dustin: This movie definitely had more of the world building the first one lacked. We both complained about that in the review of the first. I sort of think they should have done this one first and gave the second a more narrow, but sequels always need to be bigger than the first, which is often a shame.

This movie had some nice details in the world building part. For example, they are in the financial district, and our hero mentions, “It’ll be quiet down here tonight. The banks move all the money.” That answered our unasked question of why most people just don’t rob the banks.

Nick: The dialogue between the characters was abysmal! One would say something in the way of, “Did they see us?” How the fuck would the other person who is just as scared and inexperienced as you know any more about tactical questions than you? There are a lot of these moments, and only one that worked.

Dustin: There were definitely a few unintentional laughs with the bad dialogue. In one scene, a man has just been shot and his girlfriend is holding him as his life is slipping away, saying, “It’s going to be OK.” Uhm… no it’s not! Look, he’s already dead! We couldn’t help but laugh at that. But then again, you don’t go into a movie called “The Purge: Anarchy” expecting to hear Shakespearian dialogue.

Nick: For sure. But when I first heard the dialogue I thought it was going along with its B-movie premise, but as the film continued on its journey, it felt more as if the creators were actually taking it seriously. The film sets up so many potential bad guys, and hardly a thing is done with them. The first movie had the better bad guy. His grin is still locked in my memory. Creepy guy.

Dustin: The bad guy in the first was unrelenting, here our focus is divided between baddies, so none of them quite live up to the first. That’s pretty common with sequels when the first had a great villain, the sequels make up for the lack of a charismatic villain by throwing in several villains. The first Tim Burton Batman movie had the Joker--that’s all it needed. By the time Joel Schumacher took his second cinematic turd in the series, they had Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane, and no one gave a shit.

Nick: You could have just stated the second Tim Burton film had Penguin, Catwoman and Christopher Walken.

The character could still be made as menacing if they are used more and more violently (if we are going B-movie). The only B-movie bad guy was the General, who sits in the back of a semi with some pretty heavy artillery. His accent, look and overall demeanor is classic B-movie, but sadly he was hardly in the film.

Dustin: True. There were also plants in this movie that never paid off. At the beginning we see a sniper on a rooftop. We never see him again. I kept him in the back of my mind, figuring if they show a gun in the first act, it’ll be used in the third. Nope. The female lead’s bitch boss keeps her servers to the last second on Purge night and wouldn’t give our protagonist a raise while knowing she needs money to pay for her father’s meds. I figured she would be purged. But she doesn’t figure in the story after that segment.

Nick:  If you are shown a sniper, then we should at least see one character, whether major or minor, sniped. Even the main character tells his crew to stay up against the wall because of snipers. If he is that prepared for snipers then why were there no snipers. The film was stuck between two ideas: making a serious movie or a B-movie. This could probably work under either standard, but since it tries both it’s ultimately convincing to people who wanted one or the either.

Dustin: I’m convinced this should have been a B-movie. The first one was disappointing because it should have been more serious. This one tried to have some social commentary about class warfare that felt more comical than thought-provoking.

Nick: I will say that I enjoyed Frank Grillo’s character. He does a good job with what he has to work with. He made me think of the Punisher, and I realized later on it could have worked as a Punisher movie. I thought a Marvel credit was going to pop-out and be like, “Got Ya! It’s a superhero film!”

If all crime was legal for one night, you’d figure most people would leave the city and/or country depending on the money you had. This does only take place in America, right? Land of Opportunity, right? Land of the Free, right?

Dustin: I thought the same thing. That could have tied into the world-building segment. Maybe airfare to leave ‘Murica triples for that night. I certainly wouldn’t wait around my house waiting for the producers of all the movies I’ve given a bad review to to come and torture me to death. And why only focus on violent crime? If ALL crime is legal, wouldn’t that mean white collar crime is as well? If you wanted to embezzle money from your employer, that would be the night to do it.

What crime would you commit if you had one night to do it without repercussion?

Nick: Jaywalk while smoking crack.

Dustin: I’d tear the tag off a pillow.