Boyhood (2014) - Reviewed

The biggest film gimmick of the 21st century - but it worked. Boyhood walks through the youth and adolescent years of Mason Evans Jr. (Ellar Coltrane) from age six to eighteen. He goes through what every child has to while growing up - schoolwork and friends, problems with parents, moving and meeting unfamiliar people, relationships and breakups - just think about your adolescence. But he also experiences more hardship than the average kid, which adds some spice to the storyline. Through Mason's 12 years of both good and bad times, we enter a time capsule that allows us to reminisce on our own childhood.

When I had heard of this movie, what stuck in my head was, 'it was made over 12 years'. Surely I'm not the only one who was impressed by this fact. Not only is the length of time itself a surprise, but the risks of this journey are incalculable. Let's say any of the actors chose to walk out on the movie - that's the entire project from start again. However, they managed to get through it without noticeable difficulties. And not only is that praiseworthy - the actors in the movie did something for which they will be remembered for a long time. Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke star as the parents of Mason, and they do a tremendous job at it. For that period of time, staying in character is not easy - but to evolve as the character goes through its experiences is a task on another level.

I actually did not go to watch this in theaters when it came out, even though I had heard that "it's really good!" and was intrigued by the lengthy time of its making. To be honest, the reason I didn't go was the length of its making. I assumed that some people watched this movie with the 12-years-gimmick hype and overrated it, when in fact it is mediocre. I did not want to go through another Gravity: [Digression] I was excited to watch Gravity because everyone was telling me how amazing it was. They said that the special effects feel so real that no child will ever want to become an astronaut after watching it. Then I went to watch it - I was so bored I fell asleep during one of the supposedly-intense space scenes. Anyways, what I realized is that some people had overrated it simply due to the special effects, which I admit were good. 

Back to Boyhood - months after it came out on theaters, I watched it on my computer and realized that this was not the same case as Gravity. The movie was "really good!" and didn't feel boring for the entire three-hour runtime. And the more I thought about it, the more shocking this fact was - let me tell you why. The way they filmed this movie was by shooting a few scenes a year and later combining it as a whole. Through a period of 12 years, a movie can begin to lose its focus, and editing that much footage can be daunting. However, the fact that they managed to produce an end-product that not only flows coherently but also completely absorbs the viewer is incredible.

As of now, some time has passed since my viewing of Boyhood, and the effect of the gimmick has worn off. I've come to realize something important. Imagine if, instead of 12 years, this movie took one year to make, with the child actors in each scene being different people. I highly doubt it would have gotten as much attention. The script itself is extremely ordinary - the characters are, more or less, quite common; the storyline is very basic. The only character I found unique was college-student Mason as he develops his own worldview. Considering this, it's surprising that I wasn't bored throughout the movie - but I think I know the reason. As I was watching, I knew that all the characters were played by the same actors throughout the entire movie. This got me curious as to how the cute children will grow up to become young adults. It's not necessarily the characters that left me intrigued. It's more the actors themselves - how their looks will change as they age. So the reason I wasn't bored cannot be attributed to the movie itself.

Finally, Boyhood is enjoyable to watch - once. When I was done watching, I felt the satisfaction I receive when a good movie is over, but I can say that I will never feel the desire to watch it again. This says something, because when I really like a movie, I want to watch it again and again until I get tired of it - and then watch it once more. It's like when you're listening to music and a song gets stuck in your head. You just have to listen to it until its out of your system. The day I watched Boyhood I also watched Whiplash and their difference is that the latter is stuck in my thoughts and will be for a long time. If you can enjoy Boyhood more than once, that's great - I admire you. But I can't.

8.5/10 - If you haven't seen it yet, you should.

The Oscars 2015: Predicts and Wishes

The Oscars 2015 are on Sunday, February 22 - or for my case, on Monday due to the time difference. Needless to say I'm curious about the results but even more excited to finally be watching the award ceremony live for the first time - do they even air it on TV in Korea? I should probably check that out.

Since the nominees have been released, there has been much talk about the Academy's choices, critics have given their professional predictions, and the public has been raging over what is apparently the biggest snub of the year: The Lego Movie not being listed on the Best Animated Feature Film. As I've been observing these phenomena, it would be impossible for me not to have my own thoughts on the whole deal.

For each category, there is a 'Predict' and a 'Wish'. If you haven't figured it out, the 'Predict' is the one I think the Academy will pick, the 'Wish' is the one I hope will be announced as winner. Now, I haven't seen all the movies in every category. That's why I won't talk about each one. But if I have seen two or more in a category I will choose one. And for others like Makeup and Hair-styling, I won't go into them for the obvious reason. So here we are -

THE OSCARS 2015: PREDICTS AND WISHES

• Best Picture [Seen all except Selma]

The Grand Budapest Hotel I had seen months ago but I still vividly remember being very impressed with. Wes Anderson strikes with his genius again: he unites with an all-star cast to create a beautiful story that feels like a roller coaster ride, but this movie also has a depth to it that is inexplicable. 

Boyhood, the indie film of the year, is so brave that you can't leave it out of any award ceremony. A 12-year-long journey to Mason's adulthood will have you reflect on your own past and wonder how well all the actors in the movie stayed in character. 

Birdman was yet another artistic film, but in a different way. It enlightens the viewer about the numerous issues in intra-/interpersonal relationships, the world of art, and just society in general and does it almost flawlessly. 

Whiplash's story was the most 'ordinary'. But by no means was it dull. Watching the relationship between Andrew and his teacher was so thrilling that by the time it was over I wished it continue for another hour. 

American Sniper tells the story of Chris Kyle and accurately depicts both the nerve-wracking situation at the war front and the its consequences of PTSD at home. It could have offered more, delving deeper on the psychological effects of war, but remained superficial. 

The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything were both great movies, but I'm not sure why they made it to this list. The Imitation Game felt rushed and convenient at the end and it had more potential. The Theory of Everything was not noteworthy compared to the other movies on this list.

PREDICT: Birdman - the Academy loves these kind of movies.

WISH: Whiplash - it was very close between this and Birdman, but in the end I chose Whiplash because I enjoyed it more.

•  Best Actor in a Leading Role [Seen all except Steve Carell]

Bradley Cooper's Chris Kyle was excellent at war. The intensity and pressure felt real as he was sniping terrorists, but he could have done better at home. I only felt the serious consequences of PTSD during the garden party scene and up until then. 

Benedict Cumberbatch's Alan Turing was real at first, but somewhere during the movie, he became a lot more sociable and likable, without much transition. 

Michael Keaton's performance made me believe that the character was so real that I felt like he actually exists and that I wasn't watching him through a screen. 

Eddie Redmayne also amazed me as Steven Hawking and his deteriorating conditions felt very real, but ultimately, I saw an actor playing Hawking, not Hawking himself.

PREDICT: Michael Keaton

WISH: Michael Keaton - flawless.

• Best Actress in a Leading Role [Seen Rosamund Pike and Felicity Jones]

Felicity Jones was good but not noteworthy in The Theory of Everything. Rosamund Pike, on the other hand, made me shiver more than a horror movie would. Her performance made me search her immediately after watching Gone Girl to see her filmography.

PREDICT: I feel that I cannot predict since I have only seen two, but there is much talk about Julianne Moore and she's won it before, so chances are she'll do it again.

WISH: Rosamund Pike - as I've said, her role as a psychopathic wife had me at the edge of my seat throughout the entire movie.

•  Best Actor in a Supporting Role [Seen Ethan Hawke, Edward Norton, and J.K. Simmons]

The fact that Ethan Hawke managed to stay in character that well for 12 years still amazes me. But when thinking about the specific role, it was actually a pretty common character without much depth. 

For the supporting actor in Birdman, I couldn't see Edward Norton even though I had seen him in many movies in the past. He was completely fresh and so genuine, giving one of the best performance of his career. 

J.K. Simmons. His role as an extremely-passionate-but-just-as-cold teacher was outstanding. Your opinion of this character constantly changes - from cool to admirable, and back and forth from actually decent to a complete asshole - his character still makes sense and feels so alive.

PREDICT: J.K. Simmons

WISH: J.K. Simmons - Sorry, Edward Norton. Simmons was too good.

•  Best Actress in a Supporting Role [Seen Patricia Arquette, Keira Knightly, and Emma Stone]

Again, all nominees in every category were nominated because they were at least good. But some are just not much more than that - just good. That's how I view Keira Knightly and Emma Stone. Emma Stone was better than Keira Knightly, but both of them were in this middle zone. 

However, Patricia Arquette, as I've mentioned, amazes me for being able to keep that character for such a long period of time. An unlike Ethan Hawke, she was central to the story and her character had much more depth, making it that much harder to stay in character and build onto it as the story progressed for 12 years.

PREDICT: Patricia Arquette

WISH: Patricia Arquette

• Best Animated Feature Film [Seen Big Hero 6 and How to Train Your Dragon 2] 

Having seen only two movies, I cannot say much again. But in this case, it's especially more so because neither of the two that I have seen were anything close to noteworthy. Big Hero 6 was enjoyable only for the first 10 minutes. Baymax was unique and hilarious, and the setting was interesting. But for the rest of the time, it felt like many other animated movies in the past. The other characters were not unique at all and nor were their powers - in fact, Hero and Baymax felt like Hiccup and Toothless only replace Toothless with Ironman. The plot was mediocre. How to Train Your Dragon 2 was better in general, but the plot nor the twist was not very interesting.

PREDICT: I don't know. And the Academy's choices have been confusing in the past, like with Brave instead of Wreck-It Ralph in 2012. For all I know, Boxtrolls will win.

WISH: I just wish it's not Big Hero 6, because I was very disappointed with that movie. But it probably will be.

• Best Directing [Seen all except Foxcatcher]

Richard Linklater deserves to be here just because it took him 12 years to make Boyhood and it ended up being a great movie. Birdman's Alejandro G. Inarritu definitely needs a seat as well, since a script like that could not have worked without a masterful director. For Birdman, however, much of the unique feeling to this movie is credited to the cinematographer, so I'm not sure whether it should win in that category, this one, or both. One thing to add though, is that I sometimes, maybe once or twice tuned out of the movie for a short time. 

The Grand Budapest Hotel is another movie that could not have worked with a great director - but not just any director, but Wes Anderson. His style is usually not for anyone, but in this movie, he makes it enjoyable for nearly everyone while maintaining his style. 

The Imitation Game's direction was not very memorable for me and as stated above, the end felt rushed.

PREDICT: Richard Linklater - largely due to length its making

WISH: Wes Anderson - This was incredibly tough between the first three movies, but I chose it because of the complexity of the story and how perfectly it was directed in every scene.

•  Best Writing - Adapted Screenplay [Seen all except Inherent Vice]

American Sniper had more potential. There could have been more detail - especially the scenes at home, it might have been better to focus on some different parts of his life. 

The Imitation Game wasn't noteworthy and neither was The Theory of Everything. The script for The Imitation Game could have used more nuances in the story with this character, the progress through which they build the machine, and even afterwards. 

Whiplash is brilliant with its characters as individuals, the relationship between them, and just the story itself.

PREDICT: Whiplash (Damien Chazelle) - although I have a tiny fear that something else like The Imitation Game will win

WISH: Whiplash (Damien Chazelle)

• Best Writing - Original Screenplay [Seen all except Foxcatcher]

By this time, I think I've said enough (mostly praise) about Birdman, Boyhood, and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Of the three, I would say Boyhood was the least 'original' - the story of coming-of-age has had its precedents. 

Nightcrawler is a movie that I expected would be in more categories and not necessarily this one. Nightcrawler's story was very unique and realistic. The main character was intriguing but the viewer had to feel ambivalent about him. It was amazing to see him slowly transform to become what he finally turn out. My one problem with this script is the convenience in the middle, where things go very well for him, and one scene where it's just too good to happen. Other than that, it was a praiseworthy movie. 

PREDICT: Birdman (Alejandro G. Inarritu & etc.) - the Academy seems to like movies with more artistic value than purely entertaining (but brilliant) movies. Thus Birdman beat The Grand Budapest Hotel

WISH: The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson) - this one was extremely difficult as well, especially since the two are so different as to be incomparable. But in the end, it was 'which script did I find more ingenious?' and my answer was The Grand Budapest Hotel.

- - -

And that concludes the Predicts and Wishes of this year. We'll see how many I guessed correctly in just a few days. But to finish it here would be a cake without icing... as we have some Oscar snubs.

1. The Lego Movie: People everywhere are raging over why The Lego Movie isn't one of the five nominees. I enjoyed The Lego Movie much more than I did the other two animation movies, but I wasn't that surprised when it did not get nominated. Maybe it's due to many scars from previous years in the Best Animated Film category. I have two possible reasons why they didn't nominate The Lego Movie. First, the Academy seems to like more traditional stories in this category (vastly unlike Best Picture category, especially this year's nominees) but I have no idea why. The second possibility is that The Lego Movie's content and humor is aligned to younger audiences. Sure, adults enjoyed it as well, but when you think about the fact that the Academy is mainly old, white men, it's understandable that they didn't enjoy it as much as we did. In conclusion, my advice to you is - don't expect much in the category in the future.

2. Gone Girl: As a fan of thrillers and David Fincher, it is no doubt that I enjoyed Gone Girl. And it was the most astonishing and infuriating snub for me. When I learned it received just one nomination, I could not contain my emotions. Where was it in Best Adapted Screenplay? A question to ponder for life. Gone Girl is ingeniously written - there is not one flaw to it. A nearly three-hour film that had me nervous and curious what the heck will happen next throughout the entire run-time. I had hopes for Best Director, even though this year's contenders were very strong. (I mean, if The Theory of Everything's Morten Tyldum was nominated, shouldn't Fincher be as well?) I even had hopes for Best Picture, but I knew that wasn't happening because the Academy dislikes thrillers. Big disappointment overall.

3. Jake Gyllenhaal: Those who have seen Nightcrawler were probably sure Gyllenhaal's name will be announced under Best Actor's nominees. I mean, his performance in Nightcrawler was mesmerizing. In fact, it's probably his best performance. You could not see Jake Gyllenhaal - all you could see was a creepy cameraman become more and more deranged. Having Cumberbatch on the list but not Gyllenhaal was incomprehensible.

Final note: There is much talk about the nominees lacking in diversity this year. This might be an actual, significant problem with the Academy this year (and in past years) - I don't know too well about this. But my strong belief is that the lack of diversity should not be the main issue in these award ceremonies. Awards should be solely based on the quality of the film and not swayed by external factors. I will use Selma as an example because this movie is one of the biggest controversies and since I have not seen this. Selma was directed by Ava DeVernay, a black female director, and many are criticizing the Academy by saying 'they lack in diversity and they missed the chance to nominate a black female director for the first time'. This claim seems absurd to me since this award should go to the best director, not the director who is most racially and sexually unique. I really wonder if the people who got mad would get mad if a white, male director directed Selma. My point is, the award title should reflect upon the title and nothing else.

I hope you enjoyed my thoughts on this year's Oscar nominees. If you have similar/different thoughts, please leave a comment.