A Movie Re-review: Boyhood

I wrote the below review of Boyhood back in 2014 on my original blog site. I recently re-watched the movie and decided to re-look at what I wrote and add some negative critiques.

Boyhood. The movie starts out with five year-old Mason (Ellar Coltrane) staring up at the Texan clouds. He’s waiting for his mom (Patricia Arquette), who is talking to his teacher. Mason is apparently a bright kid, but just unfocused. He lives with his mom and sister, Samantha (Lorelei Linklater), who is a couple years older than him. His parents are divorced (it sounded like for over a year) and his dad (Ethan Hawke) is currently working in Alaska. The family moves to Houston soon after this scene. The dad also returns from Alaska and relocates to Houston, as well.

From here, the movie takes us on a 12+ year journey over the course of around 2 hours and 45 minutes. And no, new actors and actresses do not replace Ellar Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater. This movie, directed by Richard Linklater, was filmed over the course of 12 years. Maybe you should read that again: filmed over the course of 12 years. Over this time frame, we get to see these characters develop and grow in fascinating directions.

Though the movie is called Boyhood, it really feels that at the beginning this movie should be renamed Family. For much of the early going, the more interesting characters are Mom and Dad. Mom and Dad got divorced largely due to the fact that Dad was too immature and young to handle a life with two children. In search of someone with a more disciplined life, Mom gets involved with two individuals who definitely know a thing or two about discipline. First, she marries and divorces a college professor named Bill Welbrock (Marco Perella); and later, for a time has (I believe as I didn’t see a wedding ring) a live-in boyfriend, Jim (Brad Hawkins), who served in the military. Unfortunately for her and her children, both are alcoholics. Mom also grows up with a desire to achieve, but ends up as someone who has a nice paycheck, but has become house poor . . . essentially ending up where she started, but just better educated. Dad meanwhile lives a musician’s life in Houston. While there, he slowly turns himself into the man that Mom probably would have wanted to marry: a man with discipline, a touch of the wild side, and definitely not a drunk. Dad also goes from a big time liberal who encourages his two children to put up Obama lawn signs to one who (dare I even say it) probably considered putting up Romney signs in the next presidential election – partially driven by the fact that his second marriage was to a woman that gave off the impression of being a conservative Christian.

During the middle of the movie, a title called Siblings is more appropriate. For much of the movie, until she leaves for college, Samantha is just as important in this movie as Mason. There is a real tender moment in the movie when Dad comes back from Alaska. He is in Mason’s room. Mason is showing him arrowheads and snake vertebrae that he has collected. Not wanting to be left out, Samantha comes into the room with some photos. The Dad tries the impossible, paying attention to both of his children. And though it is impossible, he does his best. Yes, Samantha is not the child who is ignored in favor of another. Neither parent has a favorite, they love both children equally.

In the beginning and middle of this movie, I call it Family and then Siblings, because in some ways I found Mason’s childhood life less interesting than the others in his immediate family. I’m not saying I didn’t like Ellar Coltrane’s acting as a child actor and a tween. I’m just saying I found myself connecting with Mason later in his life as he was in his high school years. He still had those early traits with him that you saw at the beginning of the movie where he was just a bit of a scatterbrain. But in other ways you saw his passion in life (photography) and that was thrilling.

This is a movie that grows on you. This isn’t a movie that digs deep into a brief period of time such as a movie like August: Osage County. You only get maybe twenty minutes worth of storyline per selected year in this family’s life. What this movie does do is give you the breathtaking landscape of an individual’s youth: the good, the bad, the banal.

Highlight: One of my favorite Los Angeles bands is Family of the Year. I believe the first time I saw this band was September, 2010. They were doing a residency at Silverlake Lounge. Their song ‘Hero’ is featured in the movie and I say it is placed perfectly. I couldn’t help but sing along as Mason was heading off to college to find himself in the state of Texas – and yeah, maybe I irritated my fellow movie goers as I sung along.

Guess: Dad (Ethan Hawke) has a moment with his teenage son where he discusses his only personal growth and how it related to Mason’s Mom. Was this a moment where Ethan Hawke was acknowledging his own personal short-comings in regards to his marriage to Uma Thurman?

Complaint: During a drive to Austin, Mason discusses Facebook with his girlfriend. Ah . . . isn’t Mason a photographer? Shouldn’t the discussion have revolved around Instagram, which I believe based on the timeline would have fit.

**************************

Updated based on recent re-watch:

On second watch, I really did not like how the mom was portrayed. Let's contrast this with the dad. The dad is definitely someone who improved his life over the years. He settled down and was in what appeared to be a happy marriage. Even though he only saw his kids on occasion, he was still a solid part of their lives. He even was philosophical, admitting that adults were trying to figure life out just as much as children. In terms of the mom, she started the movie looking to improve her life. She immediately moved the family to Houston in order to get a college degree and eventually got a masters degree. At the start of the movie, one would think that the dad would be a slacker for the rest of his life while the mom would improve her life. Instead, we appear to end the movie with a mother who is broken. Three failed marriages. Forced to sell her house (due to a drop of family income resulting from the third divorce). And what one might describe as a mental breakdown when Mason leaves for college. I get the housing situation was an attempt to show the impact of the housing bubble. Yet all that could possibly go wrong in one's life seemed to occur to the mom and the movie seems to end with her feeling defeated. Let me emphasize something: both parents realize at the end of the movie that they don't really understand life that well, but the dad views it as a challenge while the mom views it as a defeat. Perhaps there was a glimmer of hope there in terms of future love as Mason's former boss seemed very intrigued by the mom.

I also found another theme of the movie to be a bit disturbing on second glance. Perhaps I found it a touch disturbing when first watching the movie, but certain events in the Los Angeles music scene has made it more of an issue for me. The Los Angeles music scene has had to deal with accusations of grooming and statutory rape claims in 2020, which provide the context. There is a theme in the movie where older women are attracted to Mason (actually throughout his life girls and women find him attractive). There are two distinct moments I want to highlight. First, when his mom has a house party for her college students one of her students hangs out with Mason in his room. She is definitely doing some flirting. How old is she? Probably 19 or 20. I make that assumption based on the following: We know that the mother has a masters degree and is probably teaching at Texas State University San Marcos. With a masters degree she probably isn't teaching graduate students and more likely teaching freshmen or sophomores. Based on the timeline, Mason was 15. The scene is awkward and has that Cherry Glazerr storyline feel to it. Even more awkward is when Mason has his graduation party. His mom's friend, a fellow professor, makes the moves on Mason. She's likely in her early to mid 40s like the mom (the movie mentions that the mom was 24 when Mason was born, which makes her around 42 when he graduates from high school). The friend does show up in the background throughout the time in San Marcos, but there doesn't appear to be any prior interaction between Mason and the friend until the end of the movie. Was there some grooming scenes during his younger years that didn't make the final cut of the movie?    

Minor final thought: the movie is a lengthy 2 hours and 45 minutes. I wonder how much didn't make the cut. Back to the graduation party, the dad's brother just shows up in the movie. Like many of the characters in the movie, was the uncle always in the background storyline, but just didn't make the final cut until the end? I do believe that his character (was his wife with him?) is the only character in the movie that we see for the first time (perhaps Mason's high school friend, as well, though he might have been in other high school scenes).

Final final thought: Back to my comments about contrasting the mom and dad, during that graduation party there is a recognition that only one of the mom's three husbands are at the party while both wives of the dad are there. Just another signal about how these two adults have been able to deal with life. Now perhaps I'm being too harsh on the direction the movie is taking. It is highly possible that the point of the movie is that taking the more artistic approach to life leads to a more satisfying life -- the mother improved her life via an intellectual improvement while the father was a musician who finally had to take a regular job in insurance. The movie's message might be that pursuing your dreams (even if you fail) leads to that satisfactory life. Of course, that might contrast with the final message of the movie, which is that moments seize the person instead of people seizing the moment.

A Movie Review: The Virgin Suicides

The Virgin Suicides is Sofia Coppola's directorial debut. The opening of the movie foreshadows the direction of the movie. It starts out with a street view of a Michigan city. Folks are doing every day things. Walking a dog. Playing some basketball on the garage hoop. City employees inspecting dying trees. Then you hear an ambulance. And one might think that this is just part of the every day life of a city, but instead the ambulance is heading to the Lisbon family house where young Cecilia Lisbon (Hanna Hall) has attempted suicide. The whole opening scene is of people living their normal lives even though untold tragedy is happening just across the street.

After Cecilia recovers, the family has a party for her to get her spirits up. Unfortunately, during the party, she succeeds in committing suicide by jumping out of the second floor window and landing on a metal fence spike. The invited friends at the party leave without saying a word, no doubt horrified by what they've seen.

This leaves the remaining four sisters trying to live a normal life. The movie focuses on Lex (Kirsten Dunst) who attracts the attention of fellow high school student Trip Fontaine (Josh Hartnett). At the start of the movie, Lex is 14. Perhaps by this time she's 15. Trip Fontaine is perhaps 16 or 17 and is on the high school football team. He asks her father (James Woods) -- who also happens to teach at the high school -- if he can take Lex out to the high school homecoming dance. The father seems to want to approve of the idea, but has to get an agreement from his wife (Kathleen Turner) as the family policy is not to allow their daughters to date at such a young age.

The wife agrees and all the daughters head to the dance together with dates. Trip and Lex end up winning homecoming king and queen. It really feels like the family has moved pass the suicide of Cecilia. 

Then everything collapses. Trip convinces Lex to leave the dance. They end up having sex on the football field. For some reason, Trip just ends up leaving Lex there, walking home. Through flash forward scenes, Trip argues that he was deeply in love with Lex, but you really have to question that after seeing how he ditches Lex on that football field after having just had sex with her. Lex wakes up and is devastated. She arrives back home in the early morning hours and the parents over-react to the situation in a manner that honestly doesn't feel realistic. They pull all four sisters out of high school and ground them, apparently not letting them leave the confines of the property. Admittedly, the parents are strict Catholics, but one might see them grounding Lex, but all the sisters and for well over two weeks?

Restricted to just being able to communicate via phone and flashlights with some teenagers across the street, the four sisters decide to commit suicide like their sister Cecilia.

The movie comes from the memories of a now 40-ish man who communicated with those four sisters via the phone and flashlights. He is still struggling to piece together the life of the family. One piece of info we do learn is that Trip Fontaine eventually ends up institutionalized. Perhaps he just couldn't live with himself, knowing that he was directly tied to the suicide of four people. 

You also witness the breakdown of the father, which occurs prior to the group suicide. Perhaps the father realizes his failings as a parent. After Cecilia committed suicide, he was very open to giving Lex more freedom to date. But once she broke the rules, he allowed his wife to impose extreme restrictions. Maybe he realized that he just didn't have the strength to go up against his wife even though he knew that it might lead to an unfortunate outcome.

Though obviously not the choice of Coppola, I wonder if the last name Lisbon was inspired by the 1755 Lisbon earthquake.

This movie showcases the under-stated tone that Coppola has taken in movies such as Lost in Translation and Somewhere. I don't think it is as good as those two movies where she no doubt polished this technique, but you do get to see the beginnings. In some ways, you can also see influences from the movie

Move Review: Silver Lake

Silver Lake is a movie that was on my DVR for months. With Los Angeles in the middle of a coronavirus lock down, I decided to watch the movie one night. The movie is about an author named Nathan. He has written a couple books and at the beginning of the movie earns a fellowship to start work on a third novel. When he isn't writing, he is a teacher. (As the movie progresses, I got the sense that he was probably an occasional adjunct professor at a local university.) His main group of friends are creatives. They meet up on occasional at a house where people share music and poetry. His girlfriend, Mary, has a more conventional life. She works in an office, is divorced and the mother of two. You can just tell by her name, Mary, that she leads a more conventional life.

The movie explores the two sides of life. Nathan is seen struggling with writing. To avoid his lack of inspiration, he hangs out with his mentor Howard at baseball games, helps a fellow writer named Eric with his hospital visits and gets life advice from a Buddhist mystic named Jeff. He also spends time with Mary and her two children. Mary wants to settle down in life with Nathan, but wonders if Nathan has the same desires. Of course, Mary's child Charlotte doesn't help Nathan in his decision making as she is constantly telling Nathan that she hate's him. Mary's ex-husband Dan seems to make Nathan feel inadequate. There are also financial issues that pop up. Due to the divorce, Mary is living on the edge with school and housing expenses that are above her head and Nathan feels that he needs to earn a wage that would help put a dent in those family expenses.

The movie is low-keyed and probably done on a very tight budget due to its indie nature. I loved recognizing the various locations of Silver Lake. And I loved the philosophical dialog about life and how to deal with it. There is also that tension between the creative and conventional worlds. Finally, there are a number of familiar faces such as Martin Starr of Silicon Valley (which I have to admit, I've never seen), Deborah Ann Woll of True Blood, and Seth Gilliam of The Walking Dead.

The tension in this movie is the exploration of the creative vs conventional worlds. Throughout the movie, the creative world is portrayed in a negative light. You have people hyping up their credentials. Nathan's mentor, Howard, is brilliant and yet holds some darkness to him. Those same short-falls can also be applied to the conventional world, but really aren't explored in-depth other than perhaps the troubled life of Mary's ex-husband. And yes, this movie is about choices and having to pick which world fits best for an individual. Which world will bring the most satisfaction in a holistic manner (personal finance, personal satisfaction, stability, etc etc).

This movie really feels like an autobiography for Sean McGinly, who is the writer/director of this movie. I looked him up on IMDB. This movie was released in 2018 so it hasn't been that long, but this was the last movie he's been involved in. And in the last decade, he's been attached to only 3 projects. I wonder if this was his middle finger to the life of a creative. Or maybe not. It'll be interesting to see if he writes/directs another movie in the near future. I'll need to keep an occasional eye out on IMDB, because I'd love to see where he goes next.

A Movie Review: Thoroughbreds

I saw this movie months ago, but had to re-watch Heathers for comparison purposes. Of course, a few months have passed so my memory of Thoroughbreds has faded. Initial review was written after seeing the movie so that is more timely than my comparison between Thoroughbreds and Heathers.

Thoroughbreds. The movie opens with Amanda (Olivia Cooke) in the process of killing her horse -- though we don't see the actual killing. Interestingly, we don't even learn Amanda's name until well into the movie.

After the brief encounter with the horse, the movie shifts to Amanda knocking on the door of Lily's (Anya Taylor-Joy) house. It doesn't take long for us to understand that these two teenagers live in a wealthy Connecticut suburb. A maid opens the door and let's Amanda inside. The maid calls about for Lily a number of times. At this point, we immediately learn Lily's name, but still don't know the name of Amanda. It appears at first that Lily is helping tutor Amanda with the SAT. Instead, Amanda's mother has hired Lily to hang out with Amanda. The two had been close at the start of high school, but grew apart. At the moment, Amanda doesn't have any friends.

Though the two are brought together via the grease of money, they are able to reconnect their friendship. To a large extent, it seems that Amanda actually brings more to the table in terms of friendship. Lily is feeling isolated as we learn that she doesn't get along with her step-father along with one or two other tidbits of information that is provided.

The movie takes a turn to the dark side as Amanda and Lily hatch a deadly plan, which I won't go into.

I will say that I'm not in love with this movie. I really found both characters to be emotionally dead. Amanda has an excuse as she has a medical issue that prevents her from feeling emotions. Yet, Lily also is played in an emotionally dead manner. It is actually hard to see why Lily is a popular person -- we see her hanging out at a party and seems to be one of the popular kids. With such dead emotional characters, I found it hard to connect with them and see things from their point of view.

Though I didn't love this movie, I did find that it lingered in my mind. Yet, it isn't some great philosophical movie, so I'm not sure one can say that it should be given a positive review due to that. What did entice me about this movie is trying to think through the friendship between Lily and Amanda. Was it really a friendship? Or did Lily realize that she could manipulate Amanda to do what she wanted. There is an interesting scene in a pool that perhaps has Lily testing Amanda's feelings towards her. Back to why it took so long for us to find out Amanda's name? Was it because she was essentially not important, just a person to be manipulated by Lily? Did either have any moral character?

As can be seen in the one sheet, this movie is being compared to Heathers . . . it took awhile, but I finally put aside some time to re-watch Heathers. I don't recall when the last time it was that I saw Heathers. Maybe more than a decade ago. This was probably my fifth time seeing it. It definitely is one of my favorite teen movies. To me, it works perfectly with Pump Up The Volume, the Christian Slater double feature.

So is Thoroughbreds similar to Heathers? In terms of the end goal, sure, though on a more micro-basis. Though I think Heathers has something that Thoroughbreds doesn't have: morals. Both Lily and Amanda seem to have rather poor morals with little emotional responses. Heathers has Veronica (Winona Ryder) playing off of J.D. (Christian Slater). Yes, Veronica is pulled into a couple of J.D.'s murders, but you can tell that she is horrified. She is someone who has morals and emotions. As mentioned in my review of Thoroughbreds, I don't think either character does. And even J.D.'s quest had a grander vision versus the more microcosm that surrounded Lily and Amanda. To me, Heathers is a movie that connects deeper with the viewer .

A Movie Review: Annihilation

Annihilation. The movie starts with Lena (Natalie Portman) in hospital scrubs. She is being questions by an individual who is in a hazmat suit. He's trying to get details from her regarding her time spent inside the shimmer. The shimmer was caused when space debris lands near a lighthouse. Immediately a shimmer (an anomaly that creates a color-filled distortion that looks like a domed Aurora Borealis) appears that slowly expands. The movie occurs three years after the start of the shimmer and by this time it has expanded to the point where it takes days to walk to the lighthouse.

The movie then flashes between timelines. Most of the movie is spent with Lena inside the shimmer. It also goes back to her time with her husband Kane (Oscar Issac) and their marriage; and during the interview process.

We learn via these flashbacks that Kane suddenly appears in their home after having gone missing for a year. He suffers a massive hemorrhage and is rushed to the hospital. The military intercepts the ambulance. Lena is taken with him. Both are brought to the edge of the shimmer. He spends his time in a hospital bed, dying. She is being held due to security/interrogation issues as her husband was actually in the shimmer and from what we know was the only individual to ever find his way out of the shimmer.

Lena soon learns that there is another expedition going into the shimmer. It is being led by Dr. Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh) with Anya Thorensen (Gina Rodriguez), Josie Radek (Tessa Thompson) and Cass Sheppard (Tuva Novotny) also going. Lena volunteers to go with them. She has the perfect qualifications. She has a military background and is a biology expect.

Inside the shimmer we quickly learn certain details that I don't think are overt spoilers. We learn that time appears to dramatically slowdown inside the shimmer. Also, biological changes occur quickly. Breeding between various plants and animals occur in random fashion (or not so random fashion).

Maybe it was just my mood, but I really loved this movie. (I say this because critics loved the movie, but the audience appears to have hated it.) Though not all the characters were well defined, I thought a number of them were. Decisions made by Dr. Ventress, Anywa, Josie and Lena all made sense. Perhaps the only characters that weren't well defined were Cass and Kane. Kane, of course, spent a significant amount of time in either the ambulance or a hospital bed.

I also enjoyed the sense of dread that even though much of this world inside the shimmer is beautiful, there is this constant sense and reality of danger. Also, there is this over-arching thought of what it means to be human and what it would mean to give that up. Perhaps this shimmer will provide the world with a new meaning of humanity or this is just an attempted alien invasion.

And the ending allows for some debate on what we're to assume is the final outcome. If there was a sequel, this no doubt would be answered, but based on the box office that isn't likely to happen. If one wants, the ending provides for a handful of interpretations. All are just as likely to be the correct interpretation.

My petty complaints (spoilers):

I found that eventually the music got monotonous.

Hey, when Tessa got attacked at the house (seen via the movie trailer), she was wearing her eye glasses. After being rescued, the glasses are gone. Totally makes sense considering the situation. Later, her glasses are back on. Movie goof? Also, she seems to have not suffered any injuries from the attack.

So we learn that it takes -- I believe -- six days to get to the lighthouse, but two days to exit from the lighthouse. Okay, so why exactly did they start where they started?

A Movie Review: Darkest Hour

Darkest Hour. I have to admit that Darkest Hour was not on my list of movies to see. I was thinking: I've already seen Dunkirk. Darkest Hour is basically Dunkirk from the viewpoint of British politicians versus the British military. Then the movie got a nomination for Best Picture so I decided to see what the fuss was all about.

The movie opens with calls in Parliament for Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to resign. He had followed a policy of appeasement towards the Nazis. With country after country falling to the Germans, British politicians were calling for his head. And so it was delivered.

Initially, the Conservative Party -- Neville Chamberlain was part of the Conservative Party and even though he resigned they still were able to select the replacement Prime Minister -- considered Lord Halifax, who withdrew his name from consideration. A compromise choice that would gain the support of the opposition was then put forth, Winston Churchill.  Churchill in fact had concluded that he would be the next Prime Minister.

After the decision, he went about putting together a War Cabinet of rivals, which included Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax. The movie then explores the various pressures that he went through over the course of a few weeks. Chamberlain and Halifax didn't agree with Churchill's desire to go to war with Germany and so went about being his political foils. He had to figure out a way to rescue British troops from Dunkirk. His military generals essentially provided no suggestions on how to do that. He had to rally the British people around the concept of fighting Hitler. And then there were other pressing issues that got minor moments in the movie, but were also just as important such as trying to convince the Americans to come to his rescue and dealing with personal financial short falls.

What I really love about the movie is how Churchill's characteristics are revealed throughout the movie via short conversations. For example, we learn that Churchill had a drinking problem via brief conversations such as when he had lunch with the king and the king asked why he drank in the middle of the day. I loved how the movie showed him as a wordsmith. There was a scene where he edits a speech right up to the last moment.

I always find it interesting how closely a biopic sticks to the facts. Slate does a rundown on fact vs. fiction.

And to conclude: this is my favorite Best Picture nomination of 2018.

I'm so Irritated with Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Upfront: I don't think I'd be considered a fan boy of Star Wars. I've seen all the movies, but I haven't read any of the books or seen the various cartoons.

Upfront 2: I found The Force Awakens to be a fun movie; however, I also thought it was plagiarism.

I had some serious problems with Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Essentially, it boils down to this: it was obvious that the two movies of this trilogy (The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi) had two different writer/directors (J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson). The first movie teased out future story lines that I anticipated would be revealed in expected or unexpected ways, but were instead answered in a "meh" way.

Now most critics loved the movie. And this Vox article attempts to put a hammer down on fans who criticize the movie (or perhaps a critic who is trying to justify his position). Here's a quote from the writer:

But if it’s going to keep pleasing those who love it most, then it needs to stay preserved in amber (or, if you will, frozen in carbonite), leaving Luke Skywalker as the best boy who ever lived and continuing to tell endless variations on the story of a young kid from a nowhere planet who learns he’s part of the biggest saga of them all. But that kind of fetishization of what’s come before is the quickest way to kill off a pop culture artifact. 

Okay, I'm fine with moving on from the original trilogies, but I think this movie also attempts to move on from The Force Awakens, which is part of the new trilogy.

My issues with the movie (Spoilers!!!)

Example of disconnect between the two movies: The Map

If Luke Skywalker didn't want to be found, why did he leave behind the map? This Quora discussion argues that Luke Skywalker didn't leave behind the map. Okay, but in The Force Awakens the two pieces of the map fit perfectly together (the larger map that R2D2 had and the smaller map that BB-8 had from Lor San Tekka). That can't be coincidental. To me, the map was perfectly cut out from R2D2's map.

Honestly, if Luke spent so much time trying to hide his location while at the same time deciding to leave R2D2 behind, why didn't he take the simple action of deleting the map from R2D2's database?

My issue with this is debatable as can be seen by the Quora discussion, but basically within a handful of minutes into the movie I was getting irritated.

Major issue: The lightsaber

If Luke did not want the lightsaber that Rey handed to him, why did he just toss it a few feet behind him? Why not toss it into the ocean like he did with his X-wing?

Maybe it is a symbolic move by the Rian Johnson to show that we're moving on from the original trilogy, but seriously toss that lightsaber into the ocean.

Minor issue: Rey practicing with the lightsaber 

Rey is practicing her skills with the lightsaber. We can see Luke walking down towards her. She puts too much of a swing into it and destroys a small rock formation. Off Luke goes, back up the mountain. Seriously, that moment pissed him off? If anything, I'd think he'd find it amusing.

Major issue: Luke considered killing Ben Solo

Would Luke really consider killing off his nephew? Okay, maybe, but wouldn't this be something you'd talk to your sister and brother-in-law about? Maybe say: Ben has serious dark side tendencies, we need to be careful or scared to death regarding this. Though, I will admit, this provides some dimension to why Luke disappeared.

Example of disconnect between the two movies: Rey's ancestry. 

So Rey's parents were drunk nobodies. Seriously? Why spend all that time in The Force Awakens teasing the audience about this important fact, if it wasn't important at all? We have the moment where Maz Kanata asks Han Solo, "Who's the girl?" We have Leia walking right past Chewbacca to comfort Rey after the death of Han Solo. And then there's that brief scene where Rey recalls her separation from her parents and the mother (or the woman who was asked to help Rey disappear) looks like she's in total anguish.

I will admit my thought process when hearing that Rey's parents were drunks leaped to that episode in Breaking Bad where Jesse is having to deal with a couple who are meth addicts. They also have a daughter that they totally ignore. So maybe my problem with Rey and her parents are misplaced by my own thought process from past entertain experiences where parents who are addicts are overwhelmed to the point where they have little care for their child(ren).

I've read in various articles that maybe this is just a misdirect about Rey via Kylo Ren. Part of me wonders if this is true as if Rey's parents are of no real importance how can she be a person that Luke Skywalker recognizes as someone who can rival the most powerful Jedi ever?

And yet, Luke feels no connection with Rey so I think we can conclude she's not Luke's daughter. In The Force Awakens, you have a sense that both Leia Organa and Han Solo feel connected with Rey, but at this point in the story if she were their daughter you'd think they'd have let her know. Sure, maybe they were protecting her by sending her off to the desert world, but at this point in time there is no reason to continue protecting her.

Also, the movie made it feel that there was no doubt with what Kylo Ren said. There was no apparent tease implying that there was still a question.

So she can't possibly be a Skywalker though maybe there are connections to other pass Star Wars' characters.

Minor Issue: Why no communication

Okay, so this is also an issue I have with The Walking Dead. You spend all this time together as a team and yet important information is never exchanged. On the other hand, that's how story lines can develop. But . . .

Rey doesn't tell Luke that she's communicating with Kylo Ren? We know via Kylo Ren that Rey is looking for a father figure. First it was Han Solo. Then it was Luke Skywalker. To me, something this big would get communicated to Luke.

Vice Admiral Holdo doesn't let Poe know what's up with her strategy? Yeah, Poe was on Leia's you-know-what list and therefore Poe was on Holdo's you-know-what-list; however, this isn't a situation where there are 100,000+ solders getting ready to invade Normandy. Maybe there were a couple hundred rebels remaining at that point in time. This simple lack of communication almost threw the whole plan into disarray. Actually . . . hey, even the soldiers during WWII knew they were going to be invading continental Europe.

At the end of the movie when Luke meets up with his sister . . . he couldn't tell her, "Hey, I'm going to buy you some time to try and find a way to escape? Personally, I don't know how you'll do it, but try and figure it out."

Minor Issue: Vice Admiral Holdo's strategy

Seriously, did anyone really think Vice Admiral Holdo's strategy would work? That somehow the First Order wouldn't see a bunch of ships exiting for a planet. Sure, there was some brief explanation given that I don't recall the exact wording for, but seriously?

And did Holdo really need to stay with the ship. Even in modern real life, aircraft have auto-pilot. They don't have auto-pilot in the world of Star Wars? They can track you through hyperspace, but don't have auto-pilot?

And if she was going to stay with the ship, why wasn't going kamikaze the first option -- if you buy my argument that trying to escape unseen makes no sense.

Nitpicking Issue: The First Order being able to destroy the rebel escape ships

Weren't we told at the very start of the whole cat and mouse story arch that the rebel ship was able to stay out of firing range, because The First Order ships were too large and therefore too slow to keep up with the smaller faster rebel ship? So suddenly, The First Order ship is able to make up ground on even smaller ships?

Random Thoughts

Am I the only one who thinks Finn is the one person you don't want to trust in battle? I think Rose had him nailed: he's a coward. I think he was trying to escape and he was using Rey's beacon as an excuse for leaving the rebels behind. Sure, he acts as a hero when there is a distinct strategy/plan. But when there isn't one, he's out the door. He's a person who needs strong leadership, which I guess makes sense as he grew up under The First Order.

So seriously, Gwendoline Christie (Captain Phasma) signed up for two Star Wars movies for pretty much doing nothing of importance?

Part of me wishes that Leia and Luke had pass away at the same time. It just seems like it would have been an option at the end of the movie considering the passing of Carrie Fisher. To me, it'd be a cleaner way to start the final movie of the trilogy. Or maybe that would have been over-the-top.

Isn't a lightsaber the equivalent to the magic wand in Harry Potter? If Rey has no connection to the Skywalkers, why such a powerful reaction to the lighsaber in Force Awakens?

To me, the music often got in the way of the story telling. Sorry.

A Movie Review: The Disaster Artist

Other than wondering why in the world Greg (Dave Franco) and Tommy (James Franco) would even be friends . . . I mean, neither Greg nor Tommy are the brightest individuals in the world, but at least Greg has the ability to create personal relationships . . . this movie is down right fun.

The movie starts out in an acting class. Greg is acting out a scene. From what can be seen, he lacks confidence and the necessary skills to be an actor. Tommy also does a scene and shows even less skill, but this is offset by an over-whelming level of misplaced confidence.

Interestingly, Greg is drawn to Tommy's confidence and acting ability. They form a friendship. Hanging out at Tommy's place, they watch a James Dean movie. On the spur of the moment, they decide to go to the site where James Dean died. Inspired by the moment, they head off to Hollywood.

They spend their time trying to get acting gigs, but without successful. They come up with the idea to write their own script. Well, Tommy does the writing while it seems to be implied that Greg follows other interests (be it acting or something else -- the movie doesn't go into it). After a couple years of writing, Tommy finishes the screenplay and convinces a somewhat skeptical Greg to join the project. And so off they go making an unintended cult movie.

This movie is just filled with hysterical moments.

Some of the moments are already in the trailers such as a scene where Greg is constantly forgetting his lines to the frustration of many. But there are plenty others such as when Sandy (Seth Rogen) is shocked to learn that his check that he received from Greg doesn't bounce at the bank. (Yeah, that might be considered a spoiler, but since there really isn't any shocking cliffhangers, I'm not sure one can call that a spoiler).

The film reminds me of Dumb and Dumber. These two characters are just so out of their depths. I like the dynamics/friendship between Greg and Tommy -- though this doesn't negate my above question. Tommy is very dependent on Greg, probably because Greg is the only friend he's had in years. We learn early on that Tommy is very wealthy. I couldn't help but think that the reason Tommy decided to make the film was to make sure his friendship with Greg didn't end.

And the best thing about this movie: it knows not to over-stay its welcome. It is a quick 104 minutes. The jokes come fast. Character development is established. And when the movie ends, it makes you want a little bit more, which happens during the end credits. Kudos to those involved in the movie for getting it just right.

I loved the movie, but if folks hate seeing movies where they find themselves constantly yelling at the characters in frustration, "How can you be so stupid?," you might want to skip this one.

Movie Review: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Mildred's (Frances McDormand) daughter was raped and murdered. As time passes, the police are no where near figuring out who committed this horrendous crime just yards from where Mildred lives. As she's driving down the road that passes her house, she notices three billboards that have long been abandoned. She goes to the advertising company that owns the three billboards and purchases ad space that read:

"Raped While Dying."

"And Still No Arrests?"

"How Come, Chief Willoughby?"

It doesn't take long for news of these ads to reach Chief Willoughby (Woody Harrelson). He goes to Mildred's home to say he thinks that those billboards are unfair. Mildred won't bend. Though Willoughby sees the chess move that Mildred has made and doesn't hold it against her, one of his police officers, Dixon (Sam Rockwell), does.

Soon, skirmishes form where both Dixon and Mildred do very regrettable actions.

To me, this is a tough movie to like as the two main characters, Dixon and Mildred, are impossible to like. The movie largely revolves around Dixon, Mildred and Willoughby.

Willoughby ends up being a likable character. He's a police chief who tried his best to solve the murder, but just can't. He's also an individual that is dying from cancer and will be leaving behind a wife and two young children.

Then we have Mildred and Dixon.

We learn some of the backstory on Mildred. She was abused by her ex-husband. And the day her daughter was raped and murdered, Mildred got into an argument with her daughter where she actually said she hoped her daughter got raped (there is additional context, but those are awful last words). So there is a lot of personal vendetta that has built up inside her, which is driving her need to find her daughter's murderer. Though one can sympathize with her taking out the billboard ads, her actions after that are wrong headed moves that put innocent lives at risk.

Dixon is a hot headed, drunk racist who is known to have tortured an African-American teenager. (Of course, the fact that he is still on the force is a major ding on Chief Willoughby.) He takes offense to what Mildred has done and so he also takes actions that are horrendous.

Also, what I found hard to like about the movie is that many of the characters are just plain dumb. It makes it feel like this is a movie that has an agenda to make small town folk look silly. To me, it is one thing to have a movie that shows the quirks of a small town versus a movie that seems just mean spirited towards small town folk.

I'd say this is a movie that one can wait for until it hits Redbox, Netflix or pay TV. If you're looking for a better independent murder investigation, I'd say go watch Wind River. If you're interested in a vendetta movie, driven by the murder of a child, go watch Prisoners.

A Movie Review: Lady Bird

Lady Bird. The year is 2002. Christine 'Lady Bird' McPherson (Saoirse Ronan) is a high school senior in Sacramento. She attends a Catholic school on scholarship. Most of her classmates come from well off families. She comes from a middle class family that is on the brink of economic chaos as her father becomes unemployed early in the movie. She has a best friend, Julie (Beanie Feldstein), and that's about it. She falls for a fellow senior, Danny O'Neill (Lucas Hedges). This opens the door to the wealthy side of the school and she slowly pushes aside her friend Julie for a new set of friends. Meanwhile, her relationship with her mother is falling apart as she feels this desire to leave Sacramento behind.

What I loved about 'Lady Bird' is that in its simplicity, it throws various curve balls at you.

'Lady Bird', herself, to me is a wonderful curve ball. When I first saw her on screen, I thought: she's going to want to be the next great writer or musician or actress. Just pick one. Yet, we learn that she really isn't all that talented in the arts. And she's not all that good at math. The one great thing, is that it doesn't take her long to realize that she's not the next John Steinbeck.

I love the parental relationships. Her relationship with her mother (Laurie Metcalf) is one filled with conflict. In many ways, her mother is unable to emotionally connect with her daughter. The emotional connection occurs between father (Tracy Letts) and daughter. Who knows, maybe it helped that the father was unemployed through much of the movie and had a lot more time for his daughter, but he definitely understood her better. He not only loved his daughter (which her mother did, as well), but also liked his daughter (an issue that perhaps could be questioned in relationship to the mother). It also seemed like the two parents showed their love via different means. The mother showed her love via service while the father showed his love via affirmation. At this moment in her life, it seemed like 'Lady Bird' needed affirmation, which might explain her closeness to her father during that time of her life.

I loved how it was revealed that her second boyfriend, Kyle (Timothee Chalamet), was just a bunch of hot air. He was constantly reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, yet there is a moment towards the end of the movie (that I won't give away, but you have to pay careful attention) where 'Lady Bird' realizes that he wasn't what he liked to portray himself as.

Of course, this being high school, it wasn't like 'Lady Bird' wasn't filled with a lot of hot air herself. Her explanation for her cigarette brand loyalty. Her deception over her family wealth.

So yes, what's so lovely about this movie is the simple tale of the final year in high school that is filled in with wonderful details.

Is this one of the best movies of the year? It is hard for me to say as I haven't seen many of the top Oscar contenders for Best Picture. I will say I have a soft spot for high school coming of age movies. And I will say, I'd love a sequel to see how things turn out for Christine during her freshman year of college.