Gone Girl

Nick: 3.5 of 5 stars  Jenius: 4 of 5 stars  Average: 3.75 of 5 stars (Live Canary)

Nick:  Gone Girl is a chilling story about the disappearance of a beautiful suburban wife (Rosamund Pike) and the media circus that pounces on the number one suspect, her off-putting husband (Ben Affleck).  The film is more of a comedy masquerading as a drama than the trailer would have you believe.

Jenius:  It’s a cold blooded movie.  It definitely made me cancel a date I had planned.  It’s not just a movie about a missing girl, it’s also a biting criticism on how the media and public opinion can change, flip and skew everything at a moment's notice.  Like many of David Fincher’s films, it’s a small peek into the mind of a sociopath.  I really dug this movie.  

N:  That’s funny considering that one of the blurbs in the trailer is “The best date movie of the decade!”.  The first half of the film had me hooked even when the “twist” happens I was still in love with the movie.  But as the story unraveled and more time was spent after the “twist” the more silly and preposterous the film became.  The movie should be seen a second time before you should fully judge as I will return to it thinking of it as more of a satire instead of a mystery.

J:  I never read the book so I thought it was going to be a mystery, then it became like it an episode of Law and Order (which they said it themselves in the movie) then after the twist, which caught me off guard, it became a satire.  Once the Nancy Grace character appeared the film became obvious in its message. Very few movies nowadays can surprise me, but I think it was because in this day and age, we view woman as the victims of their lumbering, abusive husbands.  We have been nursed by lifetime movies of the week, the media, social outcry, etc...  it’s always in our face.

N:  It takes quite a bit to surprise me these days as well.  This film did not surprise.  It might be because film noirs are my favorite films, mysteries are my favorite books and my favorite TV shows often border somewhere around adventurers, cops, or The Venture Bros.

The trailer plays up that he killed his wife so much that I believe the opposite is true when going into the film.  Needless to say I still enjoyed the moment when it revealed the “twist”.  I keep using the quotes because the surprise comes so early on that discovering it would only ruin the first 45 minutes of the film.

J: Funny thing just happened!  A story came on my Facebook news feed stating “Just saw Gone Girl with my hubby for our anniversary…not the best one to watch for the day.”   This is definitely true.  The trailers did misinterpret the movie a bit.  Batfleck de-evolves right before our eyes as they look for the girl, from a romantic charmer, to a swarthy, unfaithful brute.  All the while the diary of the woman plays as narration.  The diary had me convinced because of the husband’s infidelity.  But Fincher is always throwing curveballs at us to make us look left, so he can surprise us on the right.  

N:  Fincher might be the best at bringing tension into a situation.  The Social Network convinced me of that.  Never would I have thought a movie about Facebook could be entertaining and yet it was my favorite film of that year.  Which also had to do with the amazing score done by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (who both stuck around for this movie as well).  The score is normally my least favorite parts in films but these sounds are some of the greatest I’ve ever heard.  Reznor has an article in this weeks EW which he stated, what I have always believed to be true, the score is not the star so make it subtle but effective.

J:  The music was pretty fitting as it underlined the theme of each scene.  There were never and “DUH-DUHS” to overstate the obvious, and it was all very effective.  In fact, all the technical aspect of this movie were very effective to me.  Sometimes I do find it hard to see Trent Reznor doing the score, as i’m always excepting odd clangs and ticks while someone screams “I want to f’ you like and animal”.  I expect 90’s Nine Inch Nails playing in the background.  I’m still wrapping my head around him doing scores about movies not set in an industrial goth club in the fall of 1997, but that’s my own bias… ahhh… good times.  

N:  There is nothing bad to say about this film beyond the way the film unravels in the final third and its not so much the change of tone as the implausibility of the ending that’s been chosen and the events leading up to it.  I believe I’m very good at suspending disbelief, i.e. Lucy, but the technical aspects, plot and acting all led me to believe this is a story based in the real world and the ending is as far from reality as any film this year.  Yet I still fully enjoyed the film and can’t wait to see it again.

J:  As for the ending, I did and didn’t enjoy it because I need closure. I want to see that bitch get her comeuppance!  I want to see Batfleck’s revenge!  She has to be one of the most vile, twisted, manipulative villains this side of a horror movie.  I didn't want her to get away with what she had done.  I felt bad for Batfleck at the end.  

N:  I don’t mind her getting away with it, in fact, I really like that she does.  It’s a unique thing in American cinema for the criminal to get away with their crime such as when the British film Kind Hearts and Coronets (one of my favorites) was released in America they were forced to add an alternative ending where the killer pays for his crime. My problem was with the way she got away with the crimes after her fake kidnapping that I had a problem with.  I found that her story while on the run was very uneventful, unfulfilling, and lacked the intelligence that she had shown when framing her husband for her kidnapping/murder.  Though all this didn’t put me off the eventual ending.  It was the murder of her former lover (Neil Patrick Harris) and her story of how she was kidnapped by him and how she eventually escaped that seemed so implausible.  Wouldn’t the former lover be one of the first suspects considering he has been charged with stalking her at a prior time to where the cops would have searched through all of his assets to the point where should would have been found?  There are many more holes in her statement but I’ll shut up because the film was very enjoyable and that’s all that truly matters.

J: Let us talk about your last statement in order:  1: Nah, that bitch needed to pay.  She should not have gotten away with it.  Maybe because she was a rich and beautiful, white girl and in the media’s eyes, they can do no wrong. From a minority's perspective I can see this whole heartly (not to play the race card, but in the media’s outlook there is a nugget of truth to that).  American media loves that type of thing.  Sensationalism sells!  That’s why the cops/media are so quick to believe her story about NPH and not look deeper into it.  But your idea of implausibility was shared by the cop, played expertly by Kim Dickens.  2:  Because you're jaded is why you didn't like her ‘on her own’ story. Jaded in the sense of we love to watch movies to the point where we see the finer details within them.  I loved her story until she got NPH involved.  It was fulfilling as she got robbed, beaten and became homeless.  I loved it.  A dose of the real world is sure to knock anyone, even a manipulation she wolf, off her high horse. 3:  You are right that we can nit pick all day, but the bottom line is that this was a very enjoyable movie.  Was it “based on a true story”?

N: It was not but it was based on a novel by a former EW columnist by the name of Gillian Flynn.

J:  Man, with her being all evil and manipulative, I thought it was based on a true story about one of my exes.  I think everyone should go see it… but not with your partner or on a date.

Tusk


Nick: 3 of 5 stars  Jenius: 4 of 5 stars  Average: 3.5 of 5 stars (Live Canary)

Nick:  Tusk is the latest film by Kevin Smith, who seems to be enjoying a recent affair with the horror genre (Red State), about a self-loving podcaster (Justin Long) kidnapped by one of the odd characters he likes to interview for his show.  This odd character is Howard Howe (Michael Parks) who has many interesting stories and quite the affinity for walruses.

J:  I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.  I am a huge Kevin Smith fan even though he makes some missteps but Tusk is his best film in quite a while.  It’s not scary, but it’s billed as a horror movie though it’s more disturbing than anything.  Think of Human Centipede with walruses… walrusi(?) It’s not entirely a horror movie, but it’s not entirely a comedy.  It’s that weird in between gray area.  It starts off as a comedy, then goes for very disturbing and right when you think it’s about to take a very dark path BOOM.. Johnny Depp with a french canadian accent, then it gets funny.. then dark again, then more odd than anything.  

NK:  Although the movie was very enjoyable, one of its many poor aspects was the shifting of tone.  As you said it keeps going back between odd, funny and horror.  The scenes with Haley Joel Osment, Genesis Rodriguez and Guy Lapointe (Johnny Depp) seem out of place and by the end of the movie the characters don’t really affect anything.  These scenes ruin the tempo set by the scenes prior and make the scenes after create the tempo all over again.  That being said I did like the character Lapointe but I believe that character was wasted with what he was given to do.

J: We need an entire La Pointe movie.  He could be the Inspector Clouseau of the Great White North.  The scenes with Haley Joel Osment (I see doughnuts), the lovely Genesis and La Pointe seemed out of place, but yet it’s their quest to find Wally Walrus.  It’s an odd catalyst.  I mean I could watch Michael Parks wax philosophic all day, and the scene with him and Justin Long are wonderful, but without them  (Genesis and Osment) looking for Long, would we even care what happened to him?

NK:  Depp is actually coming out with a movie (Mortdecai) where he plays a character that seems inspired by Clouseau.  It looks horrible.  In Tusk, Long’s character never reached a depth to made me have any sympathy for him.  While my problems with the secondary characters is not that there are secondary characters but what their goal ultimately ended at.  There are quite a few scenes of Genesis, Osment and Lapointe and in every single one Lapointe tells them of what he knows about this serial killer.  By the end of the film,  they don’t affect anyone outside of the three of them which as a whole keeps them out of the overall story.  They don’t stop the bad guy nor do they affect any detail in the plot.  The characters do all this work on screen but serve to burst in, look at Long, then screech.  Which right after that, there is one more scene which serves the same purpose.  Once again, its not the characters, it’s their overall progression throughout the story which ends up being fruitless that I have a hard time dealing with.

J: They might have seemed fruitless (SPOILERS) because they lose.  The good guys failed.  The ultimate goal of Michael Parks was to make a human go full walrus, that sounds silly even when typing it.  And he achieved it.  Long’s character could never go back from full walrus.  

NK:  It’s not that.  If they put Long out of his misery then they affect the story.  They would be the ones who end his troubled existence.  I would want to be killed if I was in his position.  Yet the characters run in there with guns (after the killer is presumably dead), look at Long and they cry and shriek.  Then Lapointe runs in and pulls his gun out as if to shoot Long then the screen goes black.  At that moment I was still okay.  Then the scene that bothers me is the very last where Genesis and Osment pay a visit to Long at his “new home”.  Some friends! So what happened between the shot of Lapointe pulling his gun and the decision to keep a human alive that has been transformed into a walrus and then to keep him in a seemingly deserted zoo?  It all seems rather pointless.

J: Hahah.  You’re right.  They were shitty friends, but I think thats also the point. They were just as selfish on the inside as Long’s character was (in the beginning) on the outside.  They couldn't put him out of his misery and then sent him to the crappiest place in Canada.  That makes Long’s fate even worse.  That is what would make him suffer.  His friends showing up and giving the walrus a brief remembrance of a former life, of what is is to be human, then to walk away while leaving him stuck in his sub par Seaworld.  It’s not a happy ending.  

NK:  My favorite part of the movie which was also the thing that kept me intrigued was Michael Parks as Howard Howe.  Every scene and every line that he delivered made me both comfortable and frightened.  He had the same affect on me when he played the pimp in Kill Bill Vol. 2.  He is an actor that should be in more films.  Speaking of actors, it was nice to see Haley Joel Osment back although I believe he was miscast in the film.  His character doesn’t do enough to where I can see past the fact that its just a more robust HJO.  If his character was more fleshed out then it would not have been an issue.

J:  More fleshed out. A robust HJO.  That gave me the giggles.  I see fat people.  HJO needed more things to do than bray at Long’s jokes and sex-up his girl.   And I think we can both agree that Michael Parks is a Damn National Treasure.  

One thing that was ridiculous but later grew on me was the walrus suit.  It looked goofy and seemed weird to me, but then I thought about it later on and it became ‘endearing’.  It was like and old Godzilla movie, where this guy is in a big rubber suit and makes you believe he is a giant monster destroying Tokyo.  This movie is about a guy in a rubber suit making you believe he is a walrus monster who is having his soul and humanity destroyed.

NK:  I loved the suit right when it appeared.  Probably because it never occurred to me that they meant for it to look realistic.  While the body and tail were silly the face was frightening.  The fact that his tusks are made from his femur bones was something I couldn’t get out of my head.  Though I was still in hysterics laughing so hard every time the walrus appeared.  

One thing about the movie which I was pleasantly surprised was that the film never went for what Hostel and Human Centipede did which was to disturb someone with gore alone.  While I like a good and silly gory film, like Dead Alive, its nice to see a film that doesn’t go that far.  There are no scenes of Long’s body being cut up, vast amounts of blood being spilled, nor sounds that make one cringe.  It was a refreshing change of pace.

J:  I love gore. Especially when it’s done right and if there’s a purpose.  Though it WAS good to see it not take the same route as Hostel/HC.  Sometimes gore for gore’s sake is a waste.  That was all Kevin Smith.  he is a storyteller from the start.  He spins yarns like there is no tomorrow.  He didn't rely on the blood and violence to disturb you.  He let the story, and Michael parks do that.  Yes this movie could have EASILY became Human Walruspede, but it didn’t and became a story on what it meant to be a walrus.  

NK:  Kevin Smith can be a fantastic writer and we have been treated to some really good films that he has written but something Smith has not gotten any better at since Clerks is directing.  Framing, wardrobe, editing, lighting and knowing when to let a scene go is not his strength.  His scenes lack depth which is something most directors know how to create.  Michael Bay, for all his shittiness, is fantastic at creating depth within the frame.  Most shots within the film are straight on with a dead background and lighting that is just there so you can at least see what is happening.  There was a fantastic shot which was when Long finds out that Mr. Howe can walk.  Everything about that shot was great but to pinpoint one shot as a good shot is not necessarily a good thing.  Now a scene that should have been either scrapped or shortened is when Guy Lapointe happens on the serial killer in a flashback.  This scene was very long and long-winded.  It was two characters talking without saying anything pertinent.  This is something that is normally Kevin Smith’s bread and butter but in that one scene it made me ponder on whether or not this film would have been more fulfilling with a different director at the helm.

    

J: Such blasphemy!  This was Kevin Smith’s think baby.  It could not have had a different director.  The way it came to be, from his podcast, to being fund raised, to making it happen is an awesome thing.  As for the scene with Park and La Pointe, we will have to agree to disagree.  I thought it was funny and odd. Out of place?  Yes, but it was a good scene.  Kevin Smith is a better director than you seem to think.  There is an incredible amount of detail put in each scene and if there is nothing but a blank wall, it’s to make the focus on the character or the words they speak.  While some of his movies are not the best (i’m looking at you Cop Out),  he gives it his all and everything is there for some reason or another.  

NK:  I know he gives his all and is extremely passionate towards the things he cares about.  But sometimes you need someone there who disagrees and helps guide you in the direction that will make the film better.  Every writer’s work is their think baby but are often directed by other people.  Smith’s directing works when it is just two people conversing.  Which is why films like Clerks and Chasing Amy are never chastised about the directing because the writing is so fantastic to the point that it doesn’t truly matter how its captured.  I just felt that the scenes with Long and Parks could have been captured by another director who can create drama by just adjusting the camera a little bit.   

J: Special guest director: Quentin Tarantino!

NK:  Totes!  I was thinking Edgar Wright.

J: That would be good too.  Just not Frank Miller or Eli Roth.

NK:  What?!  You didn’t like the Spirit? (sarcasm)

Magic in the Moonlight

Dustin: 3.5 of 5 stars Nick: 2.5 of 5 stars Average: 3 of 5 stars (Woozy canary)

Dustin: Magic in the Moonlight is the latest comedy from Woody Allen. It stars Colin Firth and Emma Stone as two star-crossed lovers. Firth has long been a magician/huckster calling himself Wei Ling Soo, posing as an Oriental magician performing magic tricks that would have impressed 1930s audiences. Stone is a medium employed by a wealthy family to communicate with a dead father. Firth is tasked with outing Stone as the fraud she is. But the more he’s exposed to her, the more he believes she’s the real deal, and starts believing there’s more to life than his previous, cynical worldview allowed.

Nick: The actors carried this film. Especially Firth’s Aunt Vanessa (Eileen Atkins). She’s the only character throughout the film who made me laugh, and since the film is supposed to be a romantic comedy I took that pleasingly. Firth was in his least likable role as Stanley, aka Wei Ling Soo. His character never becomes more likable, though just a little less irritating. Although I liked his facial expressions and mannerisms while performing such a character.

Dustin: I liked his character, but for the wrong reason. I was actually able to relate to his cynicism. Whenever there’s a movie with a love-triangle like this (Stone’s character is being wooed by one of her wealthy marks), usually there’s a cynical older man and a simple, pathetic younger man who worships the girl (see My Fair Lady). I agree the actors carried this movie. But I also thought the dialogue was very well written. It was witty and dry, the actors (most of whom are Brits) delivered the lines beautifully. My main criticism of the film is that it’s thoroughly predictable. As soon as the main conflict was presented in the first act, I could have told you the rest of the story without actually seeing it. It was the acting that elevated this above the material.

Nick: You are right about the writing of the dialogue and the way the actors presented that dialogue, but the writing of the story seemed very straight-forward. Nothing was intriguing or surprising. I think maybe having the younger suitor present little more of a competition to Colin Firth’s character would have helped immensely. Stone doesn’t have much to choose from.  A wealthy magician, around 28 years her senior in real life, who might be one of the most cynical characters in cinema history or a wealthy child-adult her own age who makes up odes on the spot using his trusted ukulele. I’m pretty sure I wanted her to end up alone because that would have been best for her. Also every occurrence that drove the plot was so random and simple it always felt like a romantic cliche I’ve seen in older films. The car breaks down in the rain immediately after Firth tells Stone he knows cars, while later in the film his Aunt gets in a car crash, serves truly no purpose to the story, and during that time away from Stone he finally finds out the way she performs just because it is what the story needed at the moment for there to be a climax to lead to the resolution.

Dustin: I agree for the most part. I enjoyed this movie, despite the cliches. I think Firth’s and Stone’s characters needed to end up together since they’re both in the profession of fooling people into believing what they’re seeing is real. The difference is where people know a magic show is smoke and mirrors, some unfortunate people buy fully into long island mediums’ tricks. Firth, however, is already very cynical, while Stone seems wide-eyed and innocent. Her motive is she was poor and her talent was in being a medium.

I think the aunt’s car crash served to move the plot forward. It’s when Firth is praying for her, when previously he didn’t even believe in God, when he (and the audience) realize he’s gone too far. His character arc goes from 180 degrees to 360, and is more believable than if it had ended there.

Nick: The writing of these scenes though are very simple as well. So the somewhat-above-80-year-old aunt gets into a car crash that is so severe that it has Stanley praying. Next scene she is walking perfectly fine with a cane in hand. Scene after that you ask? She is walking around with no cane perfectly fine. I don’t think there is a large lapse of time in between any moments in the film for that to make any sense. It’s perfectly understandable for Stone and Firth to end up together, but the fact that the other suitor was such a sad, dopey character made it hard for me to believe the film could have ended anywhere else but with the two main characters falling in love.  

The movie never bothered me but it didn’t live up to Woody Allen’s recent films. So I guess I was expecting to be moved a little bit. The film was charming, but not memorable. The secondary characters were there, but really weren’t. They don’t make impressions. They might have one line or two, but they don’t say much. Blue Jasmine was the opposite where even the smallest of characters has somewhat of an impact on the trajectory of the story.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

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

Nick: The Sin City sequel brought its unique visuals, but left behind its endearing characters and hilarious dialogue. It’s been over a week since I saw the movie and I hardly remember a thing about it. That is not a good sign. Put it this way, remembering quotes from movies is not my thing. Yet, I could quote most of the original Sin City. It’s sad for me to say that everything from the dialogue to the characters feels clunky and forced. Nothing comes off right. Instead of enjoying myself and laughing with the movie, I found myself laughing at it more often than not. There are two stories I could describe in a single sentence and another that I would have no idea how to describe. Therefore it’s pointless to give a description. Shit happens in Sin City: A Dame to Kill For.

Dustin: I thought this was a fine movie for the most part. I think it suffered from having to follow the original, which was such a distinct movie. Tough act to follow. This felt sort of like a straight-to-video sequel to the first.

The movie basically had two plot lines. Eva Green plays against type as a woman named Ava, a manipulative femme fatale who uses Josh Brolin’s character to set up her husband’s death so she can inherit his fortune. The other plot line follows the various people who want to bring down a powerful and corrupt senator, including his illegitimate son (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and the lover of a cop the senator killed (Jessica Alba).

I found the plot engaging and interesting. I liked the characters, especially Mickey Rourke. But the execution was a little clumsy, and it didn’t feel as well crafted as the first.

Nick: Did you know that Josh Brolin’s character was the same character that Clive Owen played in the original? Brolin plays Dwight before he has surgery and at the end all the make-up on Brolin’s face was to make him look like Clive Owen’s Dwight but ended up looking more like Marv (Mickey Rourke). The story lines were decent, but the way they were edited together made it hopeless. The original did a great job of this interweaving. Once again, the dialogue was one of the things that made me love the first Sin City while here it sounds so defeatist and depressing instead of fun and engaging, which is one of the reasons why I think so many critics are calling the film misogynistic. The first one was as well, but it was so silly and tongue-in-cheek it would be ridiculous to call it out, but now that the film has taken on more of a somber tone and has nary a laugh it’s more obvious and more unsettling.

Dustin: I only saw the first one once, shortly after it came to home video, so I only vaguely remember it. I’ll judge this movie on its own merit.

I also felt this one was depressing. I thought the dialogue was OK. It felt like an imitation of Jim Thompson. I won’t criticize it for that. I wish more writers would imitate the man who wrote the screenplay to Paths of Glory.

My criticism of the plot isn’t so much the way it wasn’t so interwoven. I did have a problem when the “Dame to Kill For” plotline ended, but the movie went on and on with the senator plot. That wasn’t so bad. At least it didn’t continue forever in a pointless direction like another movie we reviewed recently (Boyfood). But I didn’t like how the characters, especially Mickey Rourke and Jamie Chung (Miho) seemed to be invincible at times. It takes away tension when you know they will cut down their opponents without breaking a sweat.

Nick: I think all the problems here start and end with the writing, so I’m going to continue down that path. In Sin City, the three main characters are Dwight, Marv and Detective Hartigan. Dwight was the one who was between depressing and light, but was so charismatic all the depressing events he saw had a bit of levity with his hilarious insight. Marv was all about fun. His scenes were fan favorites because he thought anything that involved sex and violence was one hell of a good time. Hartigan is who brought the heart. His story was just straight depressing. Hardly anything to crack a smile about. His story was the one that made you feel and care. It is quite simple to put these stories together in terms of when you need a different emotion going through the film put a scene where one of these very different characters can bring what they alone can bring. Now in the new film the main characters are Dwight, Johnny and Nancy. All three characters are straight depressing. Johnny (Gordon-Levitt) smiles every now and then, but he is just a fast talker, not necessarily someone who brings light to a situation. Nancy is an alcoholic now who cuts herself and wants vengeance. Dwight’s wit is replaced with anger and being brutish, he is now basically Marv without the charm. While Marv is now given the intro, which is enjoyable enough, and a side character gig in all three stories to try his best to give some glimmer of fun to an otherwise all gloom-and-doom script.

Plus, get over Boyhood!

Dustin: I thought this movie did a great job with Ava. She was a great movie villain. She went beyond femme fatale to movie monster. If there’s one thing that’ll stick with me about this movie, it’s her character.

Nick: That’s a good point. Eva Green was fantastic, and I thought most of the secondary roles in the film were very well cast. Green was certainly the highlight of the film, and like you will be the one thing that I will remember with fondness.  

I’m also curious on why Rodriguez and Miller (directors) decided not to color random objects like they did in the original. It gave the world more depth and was another thing that was interesting. There are a couple in A Dame to Kill For, but nowhere near as many as the first.

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!