Boyhood and Interstellar: The Moment Seizes You

Boyhood is one of the most talked about films of 2014 and for good reason. Director/writer Richard Linklater, being the incredibly talented and creative filmmaker that he is did something unheard of up to this point in cinematic history. He had a budget of $200,000 for each year over a period of 12 years to film the fictionalized life of a boy, Mason (Ellar Coltrane), from age 6 to 18. He used all of the same actors (including Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke as the separated parents and his own daughter as Mason's sister) during each stage of shooting and made most of the script up as he went along. He encouraged the actors to choose their own outfits, haircuts, etc, to most accurately represent natural change in the actors' own lives to lend more authenticity to the film; this included the actors' real life interests such as Coltrane's interest in art and photography portrayed on screen in Mason's own interests. The effect is a 2 hour and 46 minute film that chronicles what real memories of childhood and growing up are like. We tend to remember bits and pieces. Some random happenings for no particular reason, and some for obvious reasons like moving to new cities, divorce, first girlfirends/boyfriends, etc. As a result, Boyhood has no natural arch of rising action and climax. It's a simple, unadorned representation of a very normal life, but it is anything but boring to watch unfold on screen.

IFC Films

Watching Boyhood is a very personal experience. Even though the actions on screen evoke compassion and care for the characters, the sympathy derives itself from our own experiences and we turn to introspection. We remember the frustration of moving, losing friends, dealing with grown up issues at a young age via our parents' struggles, high school relationships and break ups, and the excitement and intimidation of growing up and moving away from the protection of home. As one would expect, the changing person of Mason reflects the challenges we see him face in life and we think about how we have changed and what caused those changes. This one fictionalized example of a very short but important part of life exemplifies the subjective nature of experience. It seems a silly thing to define since it seems obvious, but it is worth reiterating that our experiences are ours and ours alone. All the elements of Boyhood are common, but the people experiencing them are not. 

IFC Films

Although I think Linklater managed to keep many personal opinions out of the script, I don't think he could resist adding one, major thought at the end. The final scene of the film sees Mason in his first day at college with his new roommate and two girls from the same dorm on a hike in the beautiful, Texan countryside at Big Bend. In typical freshman fashion, the group has ingested pot brownies, a sort of ironic wink from Linklater for the dialogue to follow. Mason and one of the girls (who we suspect are immediately attracted to each other) sit and watch the sunset and in their high, philosophical state do some musing. The girl, Nicole, says "You know how everyone's always saying seize the moment? I don't know, I'm kind of thinking it's the other way around, you know, like the moment seizes us." And on this incredible, drug-induced insight the film ends, and it becomes clear. As much as we may try to rebel, especially in the formative, beginning years of our life, much of what happens to us is out of our hands. Our parents make the majority of decisions for us while growing up, and we see the result of this in Boyhood with the string of divorces, moves, and changes Mason experiences because of his parents. Otherwise, our decisions are the result of an endless string of cause and effect from interactions with others and our surroundings.

Now this may sound depressing and nihilistic like there's no point to trying to be a unique individual. It's just a fact of life. However, Boyhood presents it in such a beautiful, optimistic way. Instead of fretting over what may happen tomorrow or into the future, Boyhood encourages us to look into the past and how we have become who we are today, and that may make us want to change or appreciate who we are or a mixture of both. Either way, it's a wonderful reminder, for better or for worse, that who we are today is not who we'll be for ever. Everything is not up to us. The moment seizes us.

Paramount Pictures

But now, let's look to the stars. Literally. Let's compare this to the vastness of Christopher Nolan's epic, space-time odyssey Interstellar (how's that for a transition?). Nolan's latest venture into sci-fi represents everything that is fantastic about the possibility of film. It takes you, visually and audibly, to places you've never been before. The enormity and possibility of space portrayed on screen combined with Hans Zimmer's ethereal soundtrack is probably the best visceral experience you're going to find at the movies for a long time. The film tells how Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) is recruited by NASA to lead a four-man mission through a black hole and to another galaxy to find a habitable planet for humanity since the earth is close to a state where life will be impossible. However, the reality of this black hole and the physics involved means that not only is Cooper's return to his two children doubtful, but that he will be at the mercy of the relativity of time due to gravity. For example, the few hours he spends on one planet near the black hole ends up being 24 years on earth. The result is one of the most heart breaking scenes in cinema this year as Cooper watches with tears streaming down his face video messages from earth of his children becoming adults before his eyes and his daughter, Murphy, (Jessica Chastain) turning the same age he was when he left earth. But the effects of time relativity do not stop there, the film has much more in store than that.

Paramount Pictures

When all is said and done, Interstellar does the opposite of what a lot of films do. Instead of causing the audience to turn towards introspection and ponder their own being, Insterstellar makes you look outside yourselves in awe and terror at what is outside of your control as exemplified in the boundless reaches of space. But most importantly, Nolan emphasizes the relativity of time. It is because of gravity that we experience time the way we do as a flat line. Without going too deep into the film's plot and my inability to accurately describe the physics involved, Nolan plays with the idea of controlling gravity and thus controlling time. So at one point in the film, the past, present, and future are all occurring at once. Harnessing the constant force of gravity allows Cooper to reach across all these dimensions. It's a mind boggling and ridiculous idea, but it highlights the age old struggle of our mortality and being caught in the middle of a beginning and end. This idea connects to Nolan's other major theme in the film: love and human bonding.

During the time when Cooper experiences this folding of time, Nolan introduces the idea that, like gravity, love may be a force that reaches across time and is not constricted by gravity like everything else. It is, I'll admit, a rather cheesy idea, but it works within the context of the film where Cooper and Murphy's close relationship is what drives most of Cooper's heroic feats to save humanity but also return to his family. So even though 60+ years and light years of space separate Cooper and Murphy, their connection still motivates the two of them. And thus, Interstellar does what a lot of movies do but in a different way. Nolan depicts the passing of time using different actors and makeup to "fake" aging and make us believe we're seeing that much time pass on screen. But at the same time, what is 60+ years for Murphy is only a few for Cooper, and yet the two still share a strong bond of love and dedication. In this way, Interstellar is not only an ode to adventure, discovery and the unknown, but to the veracity of the human spirit in the face of overwhelming odds the greatest of which being time.

IFC Films

Now you may see the connection that a space odyssey shares with a boy growing up in Texas. We literally see Mason grow up before our eyes and it causes us to appreciate that period of our lives and reflect on how it made us who we are today and who we might be in the future. On the other hand, we see how Cooper and Murphy are at the mercy of time and the realities of physics and the result is incredibly frustrating and sad to witness. And yet, the love the two share for each other is the constant that defies the science. In the same way, Mason realizes at the end of Boyhood that they've been shaped more by uncontrollable events than by their own efforts. So it seems that, though in very different ways, Boyhood and Interstellar celebrate the resilience and adaptability of the human spirit while acknowledging limitations. Cooper knows the limits of physics but that doesn't stop his thirst for adventure and discovery. Likewise, Mason feels the effects of his parents decisions, but in the end he is not fully like his mother or father, and each parent encourages him to find something that is uniquely his and go for it. As the entirety of Boyhood proves, life is a series of moments and those moments are now. Boyhood may focus on the past but the most important part is the ending which is literally now. Interstellar may focus on the immense struggle against time and separation, but Cooper and Murphy's love is always now.

Paramount Pictures

Both films find their grounding in the importance of present, real things but the future begs the question of how you're going to keep those things going. I could discuss the similarities and themes all day in these films and many others, but I think it is amazing how these two films can share so much in common yet exist on opposite ends of the genre spectrum. Two very different projects with very different minds behind them end up being closer than you would ever expect. Often times the people who emphasize a "seize the moment!" attitude would like to think life and its outcomes is largely within our control, but I think that will most likely lead to disappointment and despair. Nolan and Linklater recognize the big, hostile world out there, ahead of us, but they focus on what we can do to get through. Hold onto the things and people that have got us this far but also learn when to let go to what will only hold us back, When the moment seizes us, don't fight it, but don't just stand by and take it either.

Review: Calvary

Fox Searchlight Pictures

Father James Lavelle (Brendan Gleeson) presides as the local priest at a small Catholic church in a small, picturesque Irish city by the sea. With high, green rolling hills and narrow, cobble stone roads leading down to the water and through the town, it looks like something out of a poem or travel guide for visiting the green isle. The idea of Lavelle's character and role in the town sounds like something even more poetic, but the reality of his mission and life is far less romantic and much more tiresome than one would think. For he is surrounded by a motley crew of parishioners and citizens, none of whom seem to show any actual interest in the church or faith. In fact, there seems to be a general feeling of resentment towards the Catholic church even though Lavelle insists time and again that he does not pretend to speak for or represent the entire church.

Review: The Rover

A24

It's nearly impossible to classify The Rover into any genre. I've been telling my friends it's a dark, morbid, Australian, dystopian, neo-Western. Or that it's a cross between The Road, Mad Max, and The Proposition with hints of Once Upon a Time in the West thrown in there with that barren, silent countryside that is the Australian Outback. I think director/writer David Michod is well aware of all these influences but he refuses to let any of them define his own bleak tale of a future, lawless humanity. After all, Michod spent the early part of his career in film as the editor of Inside Film magazine, stretching his experience beyond filmmaking and into journalistic and academic writing. I'm assuming the knowledge he gained from this has made him acutely aware of genre tropes; especially considering his first film Animal Kingdom in 2010 which tackled the Godfather-esque story of a young man introduced into his criminal family run by his grandmother. In that film as well there are hints of multiple genres and references to Coppola just as there are moments of The Rover that feel very much like Peckinpah. 

2013 Academy Award Predictions

This year is going to be extremely hard to call to say the least. There's 4 or 5 films that easily deserve to win many of the big categories so I don't think it's going to come down to a matter of splitting up the awards. That's what happened with last year's weak turnout of films which resulted in a sort of "everyone's a winner!" ceremony which was extremely frustrating. All the results from the many different guild awards and such point to 12 Years a Slave and Gravity vying for Best Director and Picture, but the rest of the categories remain fairly uncertain with awards spread throughout the nominees leading up to the Oscars. This year is especially hard to call because I enjoyed a number of the films so much and would be pleased to see either win the big awards, but sadly, as is somehow my duty as a film critique, I must make precise predictions. So here we go, and as in previous years I shall differentiate between what I think should win and what will win. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they are not (and when they're different it's more of a way for me to cheat and be able to make two guesses instead one). I shall skip the "Short" nominations because no normal person like myself could ever see those and/or really care that much.

My Best of 2013

There, that video should get you in the mood for my rather late contribution to the "best ofs" lists of 2013. Unlike most film critics who's lists came out sometime back in December, I do not get paid to see movies and write about them, so I am only coming out with the list now because I feel adequately prepared. I did my best to see the most important and talked about movies of 2013. The one major hole in my viewing is Nebraska which has found its place on many top lists of the year, but I just didn't get around to it. So hopefully I don't see it after a few weeks and decide its the greatest, but somehow I doubt that will happen. I also did not see Blue is the Warmest Color (or as some call it "blue is the longest movie"), but somehow I doubt I would like it that much?

Anyway, 2013 was a pretty darn great year for movies. Things weren't looking so hot (pun!) during the Summer with all the boring blockbusters coming out (Iron Man 3 and World War Z, I'm looking at you). Needless to say, I felt very glad for the friend I had working at the local Regal who made it so I didn't have to pay for nearly all of those films. But then the Fall and Winter season of films and award contenders came out and wow, I was getting flashbacks to 2007 which in my opinion is one of the greatest years for film in my lifetime so far (There Will be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Into the Wild, just to name a few). This year's Academy Awards is going to be a tough one to call in almost every category. Films from genres of all kinds and with all sorts of interesting stories and themes could win big awards this year and it's been a blast getting to watch them all. And with that, I'll get to my list which was very hard to make. So much so that I decided to go with a top 15 instead of the normal 10.

Review: The Wolf of Wall Street

Paramount Pictures

Remember Goodfellas? Remember how that movie transported you into the mafia world of ritzy homes, cars, restaurants, clothes, along with the betrayal, murder, violence? And who could forget that shocking opening scene where Joe Pesci stabs a badly beaten man in the trunk of a car repeatedly with a giant kitchen knife. That movie knew how to shock and entertain unlike any other with brilliant pacing, characters, and multiple unforgettable scenes. Before Goodfellas arrived in 1990, The Godfather stilled ruled the cinema of mafia movies, but Goodfellas put a new twisted edge on things that one might even call comical. Sort of a twisted sense of humor behind Pesci's shocking violence and Ray Liotta's manic paranoia.

And that is all thanks to the legendary talents of Martin Scorsese. Scorsese has been making movies since the early 70s and amazingly enough has only won best director once with The Departed in 2006. There's a sleekness and pacing to Scorsese's films that is undeniable but oft imitated (most recently with American Hustle). However, he's been on a sort of experimental road recently with Shutter Island and Hugo, both quite unusual films for him but both quite good. Still, they weren't like the Scorsese films of old. It seemed that once he finally won an Oscar he decided to let loose for a little while and try something different.

Review: Inside Llewyn Davis

CBS Films

For the Coen Brothers, there's generally three levels for their films: weird, weirder, and super weird. On the weird side you've got films like A Serious Man that aren't overly bizarre but still have a host of very quirky, awkward characters and some ridiculous scenarios, and on the other end of the spectrum you've got films like Barton Fink that almost make no sense at all but are still somehow genius. It's always a treat whenever a Coen Bros. movie comes out because you're never quite sure what you're going to get, but the result is always something unlike anything else that year and often times unlike anything you've ever seen.

There's no doubt that the Coens are some of the best directors working in America today and they've proved it over and over again by tackling a whole host of different genres including thriller, western, film noir, comedy (of course you could say this about every one of their movies), and arguably musical (with O Brother, Where Art Thou?). And that last one marks a significant facet of the Coens' movies I always appreciate: the soundtracks. Composer Carter Burwell generally pairs with the Coens to compose original soundtracks or else the legendary T-Bone Burnett produces amazing folksy, blue-grass tunes. Sometimes there's no soundtrack at all as with the chilling No Country for Old Men. This time around, Burnett teams up with the brothers once again to tell the tale of down-and-out folk singer Llewyn Davis trying to make it in the music scene of 1960's Greenwich Village. 

Review: Her

Warner Bros.

Her takes place in L.A. in a somewhat distant future where not only does everyone dress like hipsters (for some reason, or maybe that's accurate to reality?) but they all wear these little ear pieces seen above. It's a sort of blue-tooth that connects them to an operating system that is voice-automated which allows everyone to walk around essentially talking to themselves as they check their email, make phone calls, etc. Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) is just like everyone else in this respect, but he's even more of a lonely and quiet guy when we meet him because he just went through a breakup with his wife, Catherine (Rooney Mara). So it makes sense that he would opt to purchase a new operating system that has intuition and basically functions like a human being except with the capacity to consume information rapidly like a computer. Theodore's "personalized" OS system names herself Samantha (Scarlett Johansson). As Theodore uses the OS system more and more, he begins to fall in love with Samantha and she with him.

These aren't any spoilers because the trailers tell you the same thing. At first glance it seems like a cheesy, pretentious, trite story written to make some point about our consumption and overuse of technology which isn't like director Spike Jonze at all. And since his return to acting, Phoenix seems determined to do only the most unusual and challenging roles. So, everything about the content of Her seems contradictory to the talented team and cast (including Amy Adams, Olivia Wilde, and Chris Pratt) involved in the film.

Review: Saving Mr. Banks

Walt Disney Pictures

Every year in cinema needs a Saving Mr. Banks. Coincidentally, the director of this film also directed The Blind Side which I would call the Saving Mr. Banks of 2009. Each year there's a film like this one starring a famous actor or two that is unabashedly sentimental if not overly melodramatic. The message is clear, the turns in the plot foreseeable, and the kleenex flows freely in theaters across the nation.

Still, I maintain that every year needs a Saving Mr. Banks. As good and challenging as movies like 12 Years a Slave and others can be to our senses, psychology, and understanding of different sides of human nature, reality, etc., you still need a break from them now and then. And when you're in the thick of awards season and an onslaught of such challenging films, Saving Mr. Banks is exactly what you need to enjoy some old fashioned sentimentality and film-making.

Review: American Hustle

Sony Pictures Releasing

American Hustle essentially unites director/writer David O. Russell's last two films, The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook. The combined cast includes Amy Adams and Christian Bale from Fighter and Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence from Silver Linings. Not to mention new-comers to Russell's casting, Jeremy Renner and Louis C.K. among others. In this way, you could say both films were a build up to the overwhelmingly acclaimed American Hustle.

But beyond the casting, we see Russell perform at his finest and witness a fantastic development of the kind of characters and storytelling we've seen him working towards these past few years. Both Fighter and Silver Linings feature characters at once at odds with those around them and uncertain about themselves and what they are trying to achieve. In the same way, Hustle features a cast of random characters on a mission that is more about proving something to themselves rather than any monetary or physical gain.

Review: Anchorman 2

Paramount Pictures

It's been 9 years, and through all those years we've been constantly teased by the possibility of a sequel to the highly successful and hilarious Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. The move premiered at what was arguably the height of Will Farrell's career and made the likes of Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd even more popular with a wider audience. It's ridiculous slap-stick, crude, absurd, random humor followed closely on the heels of Elf and Zoolander and then was followed up by the likes of Dodgeball, Talladega Nights, and many others. But somehow, Anchorman always remained one of the most beloved among this style of comedy.

Suffice to say, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues had a lot to live up to. Its mega-marketing campaign (including Farrell appearing on a local news station in North Dakota as Ron Burgundy and appearing in a random photo holding a 40 oz beer and a box of donuts) drove the excitement and expectation to a dizzying degree and made it next to impossible for the film to not make a bazillion dollars no matter what critics said. What's more, a whole host of celebrities were slotted to appear in the film (or rumored to), many of whom are former SNL stars like Farrell and Rudd. So, how does the legendary Ron Burgundy and his band of misfit anchormen fair in 1980's New York trying to make it on the first 24-hour news station?

Review: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Warner Bros

As it so happened, the first Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, came out before I decided to start writing reviews on my blog again. Thus, I missed my chance to lend my two cents in the form of a longer review, but since The Desolation of Smaug is the sequel to the said movie, I thought it would be best to give a very brief review of the first so as to set the stage for some comparison between the two films. For after all, a sequel is only as good in how it continues, expands, and enriches what the first began.

Over all, I thought the first film was quite charming, exciting, and endearing to those of us who have grown up reading The Hobbit or for those who have not. The visuals (especially in IMAX 3D and with the 48 ffps) were astounding and the lands, details, etc, were as rich as ever. It was fun to see bits and pieces of memorable moments from the books sprinkled throughout (for instance, the dwarves singing the wonderfully composed misty mountains song at Bag End, and Bilbo and Gollum's "riddle in the dark"), and even those that were ridiculously exaggerated but fun all the same (the stone giants come to mind). Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Richard Armitage as Thorin were very well cast, especially Freeman. Many fans seemed to have a problem with all the extra bits added to the story-line (Radagast, the giant, pale Orc with bad makeup, etc), and while it does make the movie feel a bit bogged down and distracted from the main point of the dragon, I for one don't mind them adding the extra content. Of course, they're doing so in order to stretch the book into 3 movies so they can make more money, but still, a movie is vastly different than a book and requires a lot more, obvious plot devices, problems, and development that is just common sense when you're reading. Because, after all, a book is made up of words, not images, sounds, music, dialogue, etc. My idea is that as long as the main point and plot points are communicated and enacted, I don't mind much what is added to or taken out of a movie adaptation of a book.

Review: Out of the Furnace

Relativity Media

The first trailers for Out of the Furnace had me really excited. A small-town American story of vengeance and family starring Christian Bale, Casey Affleck, Woody Harrelson, Sam Shepard, Forrest Whitaker, Zoe Saldana, and Willem Dafoe? Count me in! The settings and characters in the trailers looked like an awesome combination of the action and grittiness of Justified mixed with the sentimental, realistic portrayal of an old-fashioned, American life-style hearkening back to The Deer Hunter and following on the tale of a similar setting in Mud.

What's more, Out of the Furnace is director/writer Scott Cooper's follow up to his 2009 debut, Crazy Heart, which Cooper wrote, directed, and produced and starred Jeff Bridges and won Bridges the best actor Oscar. Out of the Furnace seemed to be heading in the same direction as Crazy Heart with intense characters, but this time around with more violence and a lot more at stake. The all-star cast also suggested hopes for Oscar season attention.

Review: Philomena

Twentieth Century Fox/The Weinstein Company

Going into Philomena, I thought I knew what to expect. A movie starring Judi Dench about a little, old Irish woman looking for the son who was taken away from her at the age of 16 and hasn't seen since sounded like a very melodramatic, touching piece of filmmaking that my Mom would love. So, of course I decided to see it with my Mom instead of Out of the Furnace (a review of that to come shortly!) because it looked too intense/dark for her. Besides, Steve Coogan co-stars as the reluctant journalist, Martin Sixsmith, who decides to help Philomena (Dench) search for her son in order to rebuild his recently shattered career, and I find Coogan generally very funny, entertaining, and a decent actor to boot. So why not?

I guess I should have remembered that Stephen Frears directed this one too. He's a veteran when it comes to drama, and not unused to grit and grim either as evidenced by Dirty Pretty Things and Dangerous Liaisons. But he's also accustomed to effectively portraying grief and subtle bewilderment as seen in The Queen, and Frears brings all of his talents together to deliver a very unexpected, more complex story with Philomena. 

Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Lionsgate Pictures

Well, finally getting around to writing a review of this one. I saw it the Monday after it came out in theaters, and I must admit that I don't have much at stake in this trilogy or the story hence my neglecting to write a review. Sure, the first film was quite good, and I was impressed with the performances and direction most of all. Jennifer Lawrence is always good and Lionsgate is quite lucky to have roped her into all three films (although she did increase her salary drastically after the first film's overwhelming success). I haven't read the books either, so knowing nothing about the series aside from the fact that it's a mish-mash of other stories (specifically Battle Royal) I was excited to find that I could enjoy the first film without already being a fan.

But of course, with a enormously successful start to a film series, the most pressure generally falls on the sequel. Early news had original director Gary Ross decline the offer to direct Catching Fire as well as a couple new writers taking the place of the old ones. Thankfully, Ross and the original team successfully established a specific look and feel to everything in Pan-Am (or however you spell it), so the new guys had a lot to work with the second time around. And of course, the whole original cast returned along with some more big names including Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeffrey Wright. So as always, we wonder if the sequel will maintain and ideally improve on what the first began.

Review: Dallas Buyers Club

Focus Features

Much of this year and reaching back into 2012, film audiences have been stunned by the overhaul that is Matthew McConaughey. The pretty boy actor formerly known for taking his shirt off in every movie he was in and only producing chick flicks and romcoms took a couple years off from acting and came back with the proclamation that he was only going to take roles that "scared him." Many actors have said similar things, but none have had the turn-around we've seen from McConaughey. With Magic Mike, Killer Joe, and Mud, McConaughey has proven that he can handle roles outside of being shirtless including comedic ones but also dark, ruthless killers. With Martin Scorses' star-studded Wolf of Wall Street still to be released this Christmas, McConaughey seems to be putting everything he's got into winning an Oscar this year.

But first, we must consider Dallas Buyers Club, the movie many critics are saying could potentially win McConaughey the Oscar. The film received early attention due to behind-the-scenes shots of a shockingly emaciated McConaughey who underwent extreme weight loss to portray real-life AIDS victim Ron Woodroof. Like Robert De Niro, Christian Bale, and others before him, McConaughey seemed to be going the route of extreme body-makeover to draw even more attention to his new dedication to serious acting. Along with the overwhelmingly positive reviews, I eagerly awaited Dallas Buyers Club to be released in a city near me. I didn't expect too much from the movie as a whole, but I figured it'd be worth seeing for McConaughey's undoubtedly great performance. Because as many Oscar hopefuls have demonstrated in the past, often times a film doesn't have much more to offer other than an impacting protagonist.

Review: 12 Years a Slave

Fox Searchlight Pictures

The picture above is a still frame from a shot in 12 Years a Slave that lasts at least a full minute. The camera remains fixed on Solomon Northup's (Chiwetel Ejiofor) face as he simply stares. This shot occurs late in the film so the audience has already witnessed a host of atrocities committed against Solomon. You half expect the camera to cut away to reveal some horrendous sight or the beginning to a new scene, but it does not. Such a long, lingering shot of his downcast face forces the audience to try and imagine what he is feeling. Solomon was kidnapped from freedom with his family in New York and forced into slavery to suffer at the hands of several, very cruel slave owners. What could he possibly be thinking and feeling, nearly 12 years later?

In the end, we really cannot know. I think director Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame) had this intention all along. He's mentioned in interviews how he wanted to make a realistic depiction of slavery and felt that Hollywood had not done a sufficient job up to this point. He came across the true story of Solomon, written by the man himself, and figured he'd finally found a story that would do justice to years and years of injustices against an entire race. It was a very ambitious plan, but McQueen's previous films more than demonstrate that he is an expert when it comes to directing highly emotional and intense content.

Review: Captain Phillips

Columbia Pictures

I was hesitant about Captain Phillips at first for a number of reasons. For one, I find many, recent "based on a true story" films unnecessary. Part of the reason being a clear attempt by Hollywood at jumping on the bandwagon of any recent, big news story. They rightly estimate that enough people will be curious enough to pay to see a cinematic rendition of something they saw plastered all over CNN and Fox News for weeks. And they do so out of sheer curiosity or the idea that they'll somehow learn something new from an often largely fictitious reenactment. Or, what I'll never understand, is that so many people actually go to see many movies solely based off of the "based on a true story" tagline because that makes a movie somehow "better" or more "worthwhile." I don't believe a movie, or story for that matter, loses any of its meaning or impact just because it happened once upon a time or it didn't. I don't know about you, but the movies and stories that have impacted me the most have been fiction. After all, most "true" stories aren't that at all. So, obviously, I had my reservations about Captain Phillips' largest claim to fame besides the presence of one of every American's favorite actor, Tom Hanks.

Secondly, I am not the biggest fan of Paul Greengrass' directing style. The Bourne Supremacy was Greengrass' first big hit as a director followed closely by United 93 and The Bourne Ultimatum. Greengrass' shaky-cam, quicking cutting (the average shot in The Bourne Supremacy is something like 1.5 seconds or 2 seconds long, I don't remember exactly but it's crazy short) style thrilled Bourne fans and is an effective, albeit easy, way of creating high tension and forcing the audience to focus as hard as they can on what the hell is going on. In the case of the Bourne films it was usually a matter of keeping track of who was still holding the knife in a very intense, hand-to-hand fight in a dirty hotel room in Berlin or something like that. Suffice to say, Greengrass' style, while definitely effective, is generally uncomfortable to watch. I much prefer smoother, more graceful styles of cinematography and editing. So, Captain Phillips also sounded like a rather unpleasant viewing experience that I'd rather not inflict upon myself.

Before Midnight and Living Life in a Straight Line

Sony Pictures Classics

Almost 20 years ago, we first met Celine (Julie Delpy) and Jesse (Ethan Hawke) in Before Sunrise in Vienna when Jesse runs into Celine on a train. The two begin to talk, there are obvious sparks, and they proceed to spend the whole evening and night together, but part ways in the morning. 10 years later, we see them again in Before Sunset when Jesse (now a successful author) is on a book tour stop in Paris and Celine comes to meet him again. Once again, they talk for the entire duration of the film and the film ends at Celine's apartment as the sun goes down. The ending is a bit ambiguous, but we can guess that the two finally decide to come together as a couple. 

And now, almost 20 years later, Before Midnight confirms where they left off. Jesse and Celine are together, they have twin girls, and Jesse's 14 year old son lives in Chicago with his ex-wife while he lives in Paris. The entire film follows Jesse and Celine as they begin vacation on the beautiful Peloponnese coast in Greece (some seriously beautiful scenery here) with some friends and take the first evening to walk to a hotel in the town nearby where they plan to spend a romantic evening. In true director Richard Linklater fashion and like the other films, Before Midnight consists of nothing but all the characters conversing, but there is never a dry moment. Every conversation is highly interesting, and yet feels very natural and real for all the characters and not just fashioned for the audience's enjoyment. Linklater is in top form in the masterfully handled long shots and directing of Hawke and Delpy who deliver fantastic performances. Linklater is definitely inspired by Woody Allen's unique ability to capture the awkwardness and complexity of human interaction, and he takes it one step further in the meaningful content that can be found in each one of the conversations we witness.

Review: Gravity

Warner Bros.

Ever since 2006's Children of Men, I've been on board with anything director Alfonso Cuaron does. Coupled with Emmanuel Lubezki's (a childhood friend of Cuaron's) amazing cinematography (using some jaw-dropping long-takes and handheld camera), Cuaron proved himself a master of directing suspenseful action but able to keep a hold of the humanity and depth of the characters. The only problem was that was back in 2006. Cuaron didn't make any feature film again till rumor of a project related to space or sci-fi of some sort surfaced back in 2011, and of course, now in 2013 we finally get Cuaron's next film, Gravity.

Early reports said that some serious special effects and 3D work were going to be involved in this project. And then it became known that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney were going to be the only stars of the film as astronauts involved in a space shuttle catastrophe who are launched, adrift, into space (basically a living nightmare for a lot of people right up there with drowning). A couple of things become apparent immediately. One, only two actors means more pressure on the actors and the script to keep the audience emotionally invested in the characters beyond just the action. Two, a whole host of potential factual inaccuracies as far as space stuff goes. Three, will the 3D work?