The Fault In Our Stars (****)

The romantic drama has fallen into a turmoil in recent years. With Nicholas Sparks diluting the waters with saccharine story after story, it's hard to go into a movie expecting anything but heartbreak and tears. Aside from the trailers, I knew next to nothing about the story and honestly cared little for watching it. Shailene Woodley has impressed me with her acting before ('The Descendants'), so I knew she would be more than capable of carrying a film. What surprised me, then, was the intricate relationship a film like this was able to weave together.

We meet Hazel, a teenage girl who is diagnosed with depression... On top of cancer. She reads lots and does little else. Her parents convince her to join support groups. She obliges, albeit reluctantly. As though a child on her first day of school, Hazel goes inside (all the while wheeling her oxygen tank) while her mom waits patiently in the car. "Make some friends!" she enthusiastically calls out.

In one meeting in particular, she meets - no, encounters a buy named Gus. He is handsome, outspoken, passionate, and alive. She is curious about him, as he is about her. Within hours they are already on their first date. He asks her her favorite book while insisting upon her to read his favorite: a novelization of his favorite video game. Hers? A grim drama about a girl who dies and leaves many open-ended questions.

They talk, the flirt, all the time Gus choosing to look past her sickness. He himself lost a leg to cancer years ago... What more can be said? They fall in love, they travel to meet her favorite author in Amsterdam, cancer returns, and perhaps there are some tear-jerking moments in the end.

Both Woodley and Ansel Elgort (Gus) are more than capable of their respective roles, and the chemistry is obvious. What is refreshing in a film like this is that we don't always follow the traditional movie cliches. The film deals as much about their relationship as it does with Hazel's parents and their own personal struggles.

It's no wonder it was a widely-praised film with a high level of audience enthusiasm. I found it entertaining and frankly a wonderful film about growing up in ways most teenagers shouldn't have to. Definitely a film worth remembering...

(Awards potential: Best Actress (Woodley))

Boyhood (*****)

I think I know Mason. He seems familiar to me. Whether or not my childhood was filled with moments as varied as those seen in 'Boyhood,' there is still a part of this film that rings true, something that is digging a little deeper than most movies, brushing against something profound. A story 12 years in the making seems bound for endless problems and roadblocks, both technical and in regards to story, and who knows, maybe such problems were encountered by the cast and crew. Reading about the making of this film, it is clear there was a very fluid approach, with actors contributing to the script just as much as director Richard Linklater. Time has influenced these people, and I'm sure the final film is a far cry from the initial concept that was first conceived so many years ago.

Let me start my review by stating my initial reactions as I was watching the movie: I didn't like it. The plot was trodding and it seemed heavy-handed in its dealings with things like alcoholism and divorce. The acting seemed flat and almost amateur. We follow Mason with his older sister and mother as they move across Texas for a variety of reasons, and all I could think of were the technical aspects of the production. Questions floated through my mind as to "what if an actor died?," "how did they organize a shooting schedule?," and focus on the story was at time compromised. About midway through the film, however, all my concerns slowly melted away, and I found myself realizing that my criticisms and concerns were becoming more and more invalid. What I was watching was special, indeed, and by the time the last lines were spoken and the film went black to a close, it was a feeling of breathlessness.

What I realized midway through the film was that this film felt more real than most. Mason is a quiet boy, talks politely, sulks around the city, grows up and wants to be an artist. Oh, and he wants to delete his Facebook. While I perhaps didn't personally find a connection with his experiences, I nonetheless saw him as a true character, and the awkward way he spoke and delivered lines wasn't necessarily "bad acting," it was real. The way we hear these characters speak, and especially with Mason and his sister, it is accurate, and it is how kids talk. It's really something I have never seen in a movie before, and it became so challenging and rewarding. No one makes movies about a kid like Mason, and seeing a story with so little dramatic action and consequence (while at times slow), was invigorating.

The film's original title was "12 Years" (changed due to last year's Oscar-winner, of course) and in a way, I think it's the more accurate title. Yes, we follow this boy over the course of a decade, but we also follow his father, played by Ethan Hawke, and his mother (Patricia Arquette). Both have their problems, and we see over time how people adapt, how relationships change... Both his parents are divorced, and in fact they only have two scenes together: one near the beginning of the film which erupts into a huge argument, and one near the end at Mason's graduation from high school. Look at how they have changed as people, not just physically, but emotionally - the cadence of their words and how they address each other...

The film, too, could have just as easily been called "Motherhood." Patricia Arquette becomes one of the cinema's great moms. We want to love her and cherish her in our life as the film plays out. She is fragile, has poor choice in men, but her heart is always with her children, and her willingness to let them grow and mature in their own ways is one of the main aspects explored, and she is surely a driving force throughout most of the film. A scene midway through the film shows her talking to a construction worker about going to school and getting an education, and years later we see him again, having taken her advice. The film isn't littered with borderline-saccharine moments like this, but like life, they are touching and unexpected when they do happen. Ethan Hawke is also quietly effective as a father we can all come to love, a father we would all hope to have guide us through the footsteps of life.

The praise for the film obviously goes towards concept and execution. Richard Linklater is no stranger to stories like this, and his "Before Sunrise" trilogy is a masterclass in acting, story, and character development. What a glorious resume this man is building, and perhaps no one else in Hollywood understands the maturation of human beings like he. I think everyone will take away something different from this film. There are ideas and thoughts that you'll ponder long after the film is over, and even if it's not the most gripping of film dramas, it does what most of the great movies in history do: it stays with you.

(Awards potential: Best Director, Best Supporting Actress (Arquette), Best Supporting Actor (Hawke), Best Original Screenplay)

*Best Picture of the Year is a tricky category, and based on the overall accomplishments of the film, I believe this is purely a directorial achievement. I am not necessarily convinced that this movie is one that the Academy would (or could) reward with a Best Picture nomination... Prove me wrong. 

Life Itself (****1/2)

I wonder what Roger Ebert would have thought of this documentary on his life? As we see throughout filming, Ebert was clearly active in the production of this film, so it seems all the more fitting that the triumphs of storytelling are directly rooted in his personal accomplishments, mainly his will to survive. "Life Itself" is by no means a perfect documentary, but it touches on something so sincere and moving, that I defy most movie-goers to conclude this feature without at least a tear or two. Roger Ebert was the movies, and the movies were indebted to him. If nothing else, this story is a love letter to cinema.

We open on Ebert, recently admitted to the hospital yet again as a result of cancer. His jaw, now removed, reduces his communication to a laptop, his hands, a notepad... We see the documentarian filmmaker (of Hoop Dreams fame) reflected in the hospital mirror. Roger gives him directions on how to make the film. He tells jokes, the room erupts in laughter. He smiles constantly despite the obvious pain he is in. It's a charming look at the final days of one of America's greatest critics.

The film chisels away at Ebert's childhood, his college years, first news stories, etc, all the while feeling like something I may find on a public television station. The narration (oftentimes in Ebert's own voice (I later learned this was a very effective voice-over artist)) lends insight to Ebert's early years at the Chicago Sun-Times, troubles with alcoholism, favorite Chicago bars... It's a very clunky introductory, and you feel the filmmaker's want to squeeze in as much biography as he can.

What many may not realize was that Ebert fell into movies only as a technicality. When the Sun-Times senior Film Critic retired, Ebert was volunteered to step in, and thus began the career of one of America's most trusted voices for the movies. We hear glimpses of his earlier reviews coupled with clips from the actual films (Bonnie & Clyde, anyone?). How they chose the movies they did to demonstrate his writing style is beyond me. From such an eclectic and impressive body of work, why we need to hear about "The Tree of Life" is a bit puzzling to say the least.

The fascinating story here is that of Ebert and his wife, Chaz, battling cancer and personal struggles. Learning to walk again, Ebert slowly climbs a staircase in physical therapy, an image that perhaps could come to represent the overarching theme of the entire movie. With literally half of his face missing and his voice silenced, the passion of this man to make his illness known in his final years was one of the most moving things I have ever seen.

I remember his interviews and news appearances, as well as his death. Why so many people were moved by the death of Roger Ebert is truly a puzzle. Of course, America best knew him of "Siskel & Ebert" fame (Siskel, also fleshed out through proper back story, was seemingly the catalyst to propel Ebert forward in life. He was also, perhaps, the brother he never had - all the more touching and beautiful in the film when we hear a letter Ebert wrote to Siskel's wife after his death). He was a man we all knew, and for those of us who loved the movies, he was our trusted advisor: a friend we could consult with when others told us that movies don't matter.

While I may find flaws with the technical execution of this movie, there's nothing I saw in "Life Itself" that ever made me doubt the power of filmmaking, itself. That's what Roger Ebert was a champion of, and through his death, perhaps many more will come to see the strength in his writing and the beauty in his views on life (movies and otherwise). Well worth your trip to the theater.

(Awards potential: Best Documentary)

Maleficent (*1/2)

Perhaps I'm being a bit too dramatic to call something like 'Maleficent' offensive, but with the recent string of 'gritty reboot' films floating around out there, you're really going to have to wow me to gain any respect from me. The film, a 'retelling' of the classic Disney film 'Sleeping Beauty,' is told from the point of view of the villain, and perhaps one of cinema's greatest, too. Why I cringe reading that last sentence out loud will perhaps be spelled out in the following review.

Where else can we start from the beginning? If you need a little bit of spoilers, then look no further. Maleficent, a fairy-thing who lives in the land of Moore, is a happy girl-fairy-thing who falls in love with a human, Stephan, who gives her his true loves' kiss. As they grow up, the grow apart, and in order to win the throne from the dying King, Stephan lures Maleficent back and cuts off her wings... Because the King requested her head, but I guess that's good enough. Defiled and broken-hearted, Maleficent turns a crow into a man and then back into a crow, waits several years, then decides to visit Stephan when he has a child. At the christening, she curses the baby with a death-like sleep on her 16th Birthday (even though Disney went all the way with death in the original, go figure) - you know, pricking her finger on a spinning wheel. Those 3 fairies you may remember from the cartoon bring her into the woods to raise her, except Maleficent knows exactly where they live, grows to care for Aurora (the Princess, who calls her her Fairy Godmother), then tries to take back her curse... Then it doesn't work. Then, a 12 year-old Prince we just met, strolls along and tries to awaken her with 'true loves' kiss,' but drat!, it doesn't work. In the end, Maleficent gives her a kiss, wakes her up, gets her wings back, kills the king, then becomes a good person, I guess? I don't know.

Was I rambling? I'm sorry, I was just trying to imitate the pace of the film, horribly edited into small vignettes that fade in and out and never feel like part of a complete plot. There's a narrator who truly talks through the first 35 minutes of the movie (because we couldn't figure out that this little girl is Maleficent without you telling us), only to reveal herself as an older Aurora, the "Sleeping Beauty..." Wow, what a spoiler!!

Perhaps I can ask a few questions that someone could answer, questions that may explain my overall confusion with this film:
1. Why is her name Maleficent if she doesn't start out as a villain?
2. Why is she normal-sized and the other fairies are very fake-looking CGI doll-like things?
3. Why is the land called Moore? Is it just because it kind of sounds old-timey English?
4. If she curses this baby to basically die, why does she ever look out for it? Grow to love it??
5. How did her dead wings survive living in a glass box for 30 years?
6. Why was Maleficent wearing a Catwoman costume (complete with leather Spandex) under her robes this whole time, if not just because she has a major fight scene in the end?
7. Why was this movie made?

To elaborate on the last question a bit, perhaps this is the source of my frustrations. I would think most people consider Maleficent one of Disney's greatest villains. She's suave, coy, alluring, and pure 100% goddamned evil. That's it. There's nothing more to her character, and we don't need anything else. She exists in this world solely to be the antagonist, and it's literally the most bad-ass thing ever. The problem with a movie like this, then, is that it makes the false assumption that a character like this needs sympathy. She doesn't, she really doesn't. Perhaps in a few years they can make an origin story for Amon Goeth in 'Schindler's List,' so at least we can understand his actions....

The movie fails in almost every regard, and like last year's 'Oz: The Great and Powerful,' it's almost amazing how terribly a film can fail in so many aspects. From the small, cheap-looking sets, to the Maleficent costume itself (much more striking and visually amazing in the cartoon, even), everything feels like a dud.

Ultimately, what's the point? Oh, Maleficent is a good person, hurray. This world no longer has a villain, the original film is void, and Disney rakes in millions of dollars all because us innocent audience members wanted to see Angelina Jolie murder some goddamned kids. Instead, we're left with a cold, flat film with no discernible plot or character motivations, and a whole lot of wasted dollars out of my pocket.

(Awards potential: come on, now)

Godzilla (****)

In a time when Hollywood has stepped to the lowest rung of the ladder, when it seems like it could reach no lower for a petty way to make more money, another version of Godzilla making an appearance in cinemas seems like a terrible idea (but then again, I'm touching up a review for Spider-Man, a reboot of a series that only released its last movie 7 years ago...). With the 1998 version still mostly fresh in everyone's mind, it's with great joy that Godzilla stands as a smart Hollywood action flick, with the occasional moment of true movie magic.

The plot, can you believe it, begins in Japan, with the meltdown of a nuclear power plant. Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston, in an all-too short role) is the man who runs it, or seems to at least. His wife (the ever-gorgeous Juliette Binoche) dies in the accident, and their son, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson as the adult) witnesses the destruction first hand. Cut to several years later, when Ford is in the Army and his father is now a nutcase hard-bent on uncovering secret government conspiracies. His claim that the nuclear meltdown was a cover for something else seems like gibberish. That, and his recent studies of echolocation.

Perhaps he's not too far off....

Unlike the most recent incarnation of Godzilla, here he is not the enemy. In fact, he's here to save the world from a couple of monsters so nasty, they're like a mix of a spider, bat, and grasshopper all in one. And they're planning on breeding.

We learn that Godzilla was the reason for most of the nuclear tests in the 1950's - covered up by impending war. His presence goes largely unnoticed, but he rises from the water every so often to "restore balance," AKA kick some monster ass at our expense.

The movie definitely waits for the big reveal of Godzilla, and it pays off. The first moment we see his towering frame on screen - silent and lit by a single red flare, it really makes you want to get up and cheer. The build-up is slow, and perhaps the movie runs a bit long, but our anxiety at seeing a 40-story lizard has never been more rewarding.

And while it's wonderful to see some serious action scenes, how curious is it that we need a 'human' plot at all, one which revolves around Ford and a team of soldiers trying to detonate a nuclear bomb to lure the creatures out of downtown San Fransisco... Is it just me, or do we not really care what happens in that regard? When you see a movie like Godzilla, you're expecting some action. More often than not, though, I found the director cutting away from action just as it was about to begin, only to cut back several minutes later to see the city in complete destruction. Where's the fun in that?

In the filmmakers' defense, there are some truly remarkable fight scenes, and I left the theater generally satisfied (even with the 3D ticket, to boot). For a summer flick, you can definitely do much worse (and with an ending like that, expect to see at least 4 more sequels in the next decade).

(Awards potential: Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)