THE EMPTY BOX (TIFF 2016)

If you followed me on Twitter (@PINNLAND_EMPIRE) or Facebook this past September then you'd know that The Empty Box was in my top 10 coming out of TIFF (it'll probably be in my top 10 of 2016). But it's one of the only films, along with Prevenge, that I instantly gushed about on social media but didn't actually write about right away like I did with The Untamed, Moonlight, Loving & many more. I needed time to collect my thoughts with this one. It's not that I relate to The Empty Box on any kind of a personal level, but it does deal with certain issues that I'm very passionate about (race, family, the unfair baggage that sometimes comes along with darker skin, etc). This film also reminded me of so many other films & filmmakers that I love without feeling like it stole from or even heavily borrowed...

For those of you that are familiar with Claire Denis' 35 Shots Of Rum, imagine The Empty Box as kind of like the anti-35 Shots Of Rum. Both films do have striking similarities in that they focus on young attractive mixed race female leads (their racial identities do hold some importance in both films which is why I brought it up). Both films are essentially family dramas about the relationship between a father & his daughter (the mother/wife is only mentioned in past tense or shown in flash backs). Both movies are also directed by women. But 35 Shots & Empty Box greatly differ because one (35 Shots) is about the healthy relationship between a father & daughter, while the other film (The Empty Box) is about the unresolved/complicated/contentious relationship between a father & daughter. Our young female protagonist in 35 Shots loves her dad and has no problem trying to take care of him (even though he doesn't need/want anyone to take care of him). The female lead in The Empty Box ("Jazmin") is kind of forced to take care of her father ("Toussaint") because he's in the early stages of dementia and has no other friends or family to look after him.
The most difficult part in all of this for Jazmin is that now that Toussaint has dementia, she'll never be able to convey her past hurts to her father and have them hold the appropriate level of importance given his deteriorating mental state.

But putting the movie comparisons aside, The Empty Box is its own unique viewing experience. It's partially a lucid dream in the vein of Lucrecia Martel or a recent Carlos Reygadas film (oops, there I go with the comparisons again...). The flashback scenes (which make up a nice portion of the movie) are also a little skewed and almost dreamlike. Director/actor Claudia Saint Luce takes us back to Jazmin's childhood (where we see how tough & cold Toussaint was to her), and we also see how her parents met. But given the subtle lucidness of the movie, I'm left wondering if these flashbacks & back stories are 100% true or slightly skewed (dementia, sanity & memory loss are major factors in this movie so it wouldn't surprise me if those things crept in to the structure of the movie). If you happen to be lucky enough to see this, don't feel bad if you don't catch everything or if you feel a little lost. Parts of The Empty Box are meant to be surreal. Going back to Carlos Reygadas for a moment (specifically Post Tenebras Lux) the editing in The Empty Box seamlessly weaves in & out of reality, (possibly skewed) memories and lucid dreams.

It would have been easy to compare lucid surreality to something generic like Tarkovsky, Epstein or even Fellini, but The Empty Box & Post Tenebras Lux really feel like close first cousins in that they're both personal semi-surreal Mexican-based stories that casually touch on issues like race & skin color. I know this is something I say a lot but I feel like both movies exist in the same cinematic universe. However The Empty Box is a little more grounded in reality because it focuses on the specific relationship between a father & daughter and doesn't really veer off in to the deep random corners of the subconscious like Post Tenebras Lux.

The relationship between fathers and daughters can get very muggy & complicated. I know that's common knowledge but still... Even in cases where Fathers want to protect their daughters at any costs (either physically or in terms of instilling important life lessons) there's that invisible barrier that causes friction because they come off as over-protective, overbearing or off-putting (especially to young girls/teens). Even the wisest of men can (try to) instill lessons on their daughters but Fathers still won't experience life as girl and/or women so they'll never fully understand the hormonal/emotional component that comes along with being a woman. And that works both ways. Women will never fully understand how the male brain works no matter how much they sometimes like to think they do just because we may operate on more simplified emotions/cylinders. The protective motherly instinct that kicks in with a lot of women isn't always needed and when their help is turned down, it's taken personally. The Empty Box doesn't touch on all of these things but it does delve in to some of these issues.

This film holds a special place in my heart because Claudia Saint Luce actually acknowledges that Haiti exists. Bottom line - Haiti is misrepresented/damn near non-existent on the big screen. Furthermore, the tension between Haitians & Latinos (specifically Dominicans) is not addressed on any major/semi-major cinematic platform (I saw a short film on it two years ago but it was a kind of amateur-ish). The Latino/Latin American point of view in The Empty Box is Mexican, but a lot of the racial jabs and other hints & implications concerning race & skin color (Jazmin makes a snide remark about her father's dark skin early on in the film) do ring true to the Dominican/Haitian relationship. I've always found it funny when Dominicans act as if they have absolutely nothing in common with Haiti, or just Black people in general, even though they share some of the same DNA right down to the nappy hair, and, in the case of Haiti/Dominican Republic, they share the same land. That isn't to say Dominicans don't have their own separate culture outside of Haiti, Africa or other dark skinned/Black cultures, but their (sometimes) denial of having anything to do with anything Black is both sad & transparent...

The Empty Box - which not only gives Haiti a small voice and quietly addresses issues concerning race - won't get the same kind of release as other major/crossover indie/arthouse films but this is still a start (I don't know what kind of release this movie will get outside of a possible streaming platform and a multi-region DVD release down the line). While this film is based in Mexico, half of the story is told from the perspective of Toussaint who is Haitian. I can't think of too many prominent films with a prominent Haitian protagonist.
It's really a shame that The Empty Box might not get the initial exposure it deserves because it fits in perfectly with the new (somewhat progressive) black film canon made up of movies like Mother Of George, Newlyweeds, Moonlight & Black Venus. If you have the opportunity to see this film I recommend it.

MIDNIGHT SPECIAL

For the last five years leading up to Midnight Special Jeff Nichols has toyed with science fiction (Take Shelter), tall tales & fairytales (Mud) and just all around ambiguity (Take Shelter), so it was just a matter of time before he went all in and made a full-on science fiction drama (southern-based/Terrence Malick-ian Christianity & spirituality has also played the background in every one of Nichols' films so it wasn't a surprise that those elements showed up in Midnight Special as well). What's funny is that Midnight Special kind of picks up where Take Shelter left off in an abstract/slightly reworked way. It's like Michael Shannon's paranoid opinions in Take Shelter came to be true and now he has to act on them in the next film.

Midnight Special is the story of a "gifted" little boy (Alton) with magical powers that has to get to a special/significant place (with the help of his parents, played by Michael Shannon & Kirsten Dunst) before the FBI and/or a religious "organization" get to him first (of course the FBI wants to use him as a weapon, while the religious cult, led by Sam Sheppard, believes he's the messiah reincarnated in the form of a seven year old boy come to take all believers up to heaven).

What's frustrating about Midnight Special is that it gives off this vibe that it's not going to be like all those other science fiction movies where a special alien kid with magical powers has to escape the government that wants to use it/him/her as a weapon and/or test subject. But not only did Jeff Nichols end up making a modern/revamped version of E.T. or Mac & Me or The Boy Who Could Fly or any other movie that generation X & generation Y grew up on, but at times it felt like a feature length back-story for one of the X-Men...

(*SPOILER* the final climactic scene where Alton makes contact with other worldly beings is literally right out of the ending of Close Encounters and/or The Abyss *SPOILER*)

Look...I’m not the biggest Jeff Nichols fan but I do appreciate that a filmmaker of his ilk got the opportunity (and budget) to make Midnight Special rather than someone like Brett Ratner, Zack Snyder or Bryan Singer, but still - this film forces me to use cliché critic terms & keywords like "hack", "retreaded material", "slightly unoriginal", etc (it even forces me to do the cliché critic thing by taking shots at obvious targets like Zack Snyder, Brett Ratner & Bryan Singer). 

But perhaps it wasn't Jeff Nichols' goal to make an "original" film. There's only so much you can do with the basic source material that is Midnight Special. What this film does have going for it is that it is a true family film in the sense that it can be enjoyed by most ages. With the exception of two isolated moments of quick gun violence (with minimal bloodshed) there isn't any nudity, harsh language or inappropriate subject matter for little kids. As for the adults, Midnight Special isn't fluffy or made for 5-13 year olds. The dramatic aspect in Midnight Special is enough to keep the attention of any adult. Imagine elements of early David Gordon Green, Goonies, Badlands, live action Disney films, all the other aforementioned movies in this review thus far mixed together in a giant pot. While that may not sound appealing to some of you, to others I imagine the combination of all those things sounds pretty intriguing.

And maybe it was Nichols’ intention to tip his hat to all those classic movies in the same obvious way Refn, Jarmusch & Tarantino pay homage to films & filmmakers in their respective works.

Midnight Special / Starman

Along with the dark-ish/bottom heavy synthesized score (courtesy of David Wingo) Joel Edgerton’s performance as Shannon’s best friend “Lucas” is the only aspect of Midnight Special that I enjoyed without any criticism. Lucas is an interesting supporting character in that we didn't get his entire story, but we’re given enough information about him to know he’s an incredibly loyal person. It’s not so much that Lucas aids Dunst & Shannon on their mission to save their son by putting himself in danger numerous times, but it’s the fact that he puts his life on hold at the drop of a hat to help his best friend (Shannon) without any reservation. There’s no question that once the credits rolled on Midnight Special that Lucas has essentially ruined his life just to help people he has no obligation to (he broke quite a few laws; one of them being the possible murder of a state trooper) but that’s the kind of loyalty & friendship that I appreciate on a personal level as fucked up as that sounds (at no point in the film does Lucas expect anything in return for his services either). Some people might find Lucas’ motivation to be a little weak and I totally understand that. However, in the unlikely situation that my best friend showed up at my door unexpected with his young daughter (my goddaughter) and needed my help in the same way Shannon needed Lucas’ help, I’d probably drop what I was doing to help my friend. So no matter how many negative things I have to say about Midnight Special (and there are plenty), it obviously touched me on a personal level if it got me to think about people like my best friend and my goddaughter, so this isn’t a total “failure”. Edgerton’s role is easy to overlook in a film like Midnight Special with all the grandiose moments of glowing eyeballs & craters falling from the sky, but if you haven’t seen this movie yet I urge you to try and pay attention to the Lucas character.

I guess Midnight Special is the best thing Nichols has done so far but that doesn’t mean much coming from me (I’m not that crazy about his movies). I will say that there is a progression with each of his films. He dips his foot in the water deeper & deeper with each movie, and there are multiple continuous/consistent elements that start with Shotgun Stories all the way through Midnight Special (the presence of Michael Shannon, the exploration of spirituality, sanity, the south, etc). I just have yet to be completely sold on him.

JAUJA (CutPrintFilm.COM)

read my thoughts on Jauja over at CutPrintFilm.COM

enjoy...

YI YI: A ONE AND A TWO

I’m the proud owner of 214 Criterions (my two most recent acquirees are A Christmas Tale & Safe).

Regular folks just don’t understand us criterion addicts. Over the years I’ve been asked why I spend so much money on these movies (prices range from $29.99 to over $100) and I respond with these examples…

Besides the fact that both Stranger Than Paradise & Slacker are timeless modern films (Stranger Than Paradise being a personal favorite of mine) the special features on both supplementary discs are LOADED with some great documentaries (the made for German TV documentary on Jim Jarmusch is pretty important as it marks the last time he worked with cinematographer-turned-director Tom Dicillo and started working with Wim Winders cinematographer Robby Muller). Plus each movie comes paired with an additional (equally enjoyable) feature-length film (Permanent Vacation & It’s Impossible To Learn To Plow From Reading Books, respectively)

*Richard Linklater's commentary track on It's Impossible To Learn To Plow... is excellent  

Ok, all special treatment aside (Lodge Kerrigan is a PINNLAND EMPIRE favorite) for a single disc criterion this is one of my favorites. And not even so much for the movie itself (long before Clean, Shaven made it to the collection I was already a fan of the film and had seen it a million times). This disc contains my all-time favorite video essay (courtesy of critic Michael Atkinson) in the form of A Subjective Assault: Lodge Kerrigan’s Clean, Shaven (this analysis is so great it makes me angry!)
*George Washington is another great single disc criterion that features two of David Gordon Green’s early short films (which directly rubbed off on his first feature) and a rare short film directed by Clu Gullagher that also had an influence on Green’s early work.

This is easily the best box set in the entire collection. Cassavetes fan or not, you have to admit that most of these films were incredibly influential within the world of independent cinema (Opening Night is definitely a solid film but I don’t think it holds the same importance as the other four films in the set) and prior to the criterion treatment, they weren’t given a proper release (in the U.S.) on video

The movie of discussion is another example I like to hit people with (the cover art alone is beautiful). Ever since Yi Yi was put out by Criterion, interest in Edward Yang has grown quite a bit in the U.S. (he wasn't really known amongst your casual American cinephile prior to 2005/2006). 

It’s already been established in older reviews (Love Streams & Stories We Tell) that I’m incredibly fascinated by (good) films concerning large immediate families and/or siblings because I never had that growing up (I’m an only child) so it should come as no surprise that I’m a huge fan of Yi Yi. Edward Yang's 2000 family drama recently crept into my psyche because it shares a few interesting similarities with Richard Linklater’s Boyhood. Although Boyhood follows one main character over the span of 12 (real) years, it’s still very much a film from the school of Yi Yi. Both stories explore young boy characters going through a "coming of age" period, mothers going through a depressive mid-life crisis, the relationship between siblings (specifically the older sister/younger brother dynamic), and the relationship between grandparents (specifically grandmothers) and grandchildren. However Yi Yi is a much longer film (over three hours) so it delves a lot deeper in to those issues and it also touches on other things like life & death (Yi Yi starts with a wedding that soon produces a baby, and it ends with the passing of an elder family member). Boyhood never really gets in to that (I have very few criticisms of Boyhood but it is strange that the main character went that long without ever really dealing with the passing of a family member, loved one or acquaintance).

In the film we follow a middle class (upper-middle class?) Taiwanese family made up of Mother (Yin-Yin), Father (NJ) and their two children; Ting-Ting & Yang-Yang. Ting-Ting is in the midst of a teenage love triangle with her best friend and a boy from school they both like, while Yang-Yang has to deal with being bullied by both his fellow classmates as well as his teacher who has it out for him. Like Ana in The Spirit Of The Beehive, Ting-Ting learns about honesty (and dishonesty) among those close to her. And like Ana in Cria Cuervos, Yang-Yang quietly observes the world around him (he takes to photography to document everything he sees). Meanwhile, their mother Yin-Yin falls in to a depression after her mother has a stroke, and their father NJ is also having a sort of internal crisis (at work) coupled with an old ex-girlfriend who suddenly resurfaces. In an effort to find some meaning in life, Yin-Yin goes on a spiritual retreat while NJ quietly coasts through life in a half depressive existential state throughout a good chunk of the film.

The Spirit Of The Beehive / Yi Yi 

In addition to the four main characters, Yi-Yi branches off to extended family. Yin-Yin’s somewhat immature younger brother (A-Di) just married a beautiful & semi high maintenance woman (who brings along her own large extended family) but he can’t shake his clingy ex-girlfriend who’s trying to sabotage his marriage. A-Di is also faced with being a father for the first time and can’t seem to manage his money very well which all becomes too overwhelming for him.

Good Morning / Yi Yi

Besides Boyhood, The Spirit Of The Beehive & Cria Cuervos, Yi-Yi also shares the same DNA as other family-based films like The Secret Of The Grain (another criterion film centered around a large multi-generational family). The influence of Yasujiro Ozu is also pretty evident as Edward Yang focuses on multi-generational families in a similar fashion as Ozu.

Like most fans of Yi Yi, I found Yang Yang to be the most interesting character. He's practically the poster child for the film (when you do a Google search for Yi Yi his images are always the first to pop up and he’s not even the sole “main character” of the movie). Edward Yang could have easily made the young protagonist out to be a slightly unrealistic, super cute little kid character who says forced one-liners but instead he made him quiet, observant and a bit of an old soul (although he is occasionally precocious). He delivers poignant dialogue that you’d think would come from an adult, but because he’s an old soul it comes off as believable (perhaps reminiscent of the kinds of things we've said to/asked our own parents growing up)...

Yang-Yang (left) in a discussion with his father NJ (right)

side note - this scene always reminded of a part from The Spirit Of The Beehive (in an abstract way) when Ana has a somewhat similar exchange with her mother...

Yang Yang' maturity is exemplified in the final moments of Yi Yi. At the beginning of the film when Yin Yin's mother suffers the stroke she stays with the family instead of in a nursing home. Throughout the film each family member is required/expected to talk to her while she's in a coma in an effort to comfort her. One by one, each family member unloads their problems/dreams/concerns/daily news on the unconscious grandmother. However the one family member who won’t speak to her is Yang Yang. At first you're just supposed to think he won’t speak to his grandmother because he’s confused & afraid (like any 6 year old would be in that situation). But at the end of the film the grandmother passes away and we finally learn, through Yang Yang's powerful eulogy, why he didn't want to speak to her...

I’m sorry, Grandma.

It wasn’t that I didn’t want to talk to you.

I think all the stuff I could tell you you must already know.

Otherwise, you wouldn’t always tell me to “Listen!”

They all say you’ve gone away.

But you didn’t tell me where you went.

I guess it’s someplace you think I should know.

But, Grandma, I know so little.

Do you know what I want to do when I grow up?

I want to tell people things they don’t know.

Show them stuff they haven’t seen.

It’ll be so much fun.

Perhaps one day I’ll find out where you’ve gone.

If I do, can I tell everyone and bring them to visit you?

Grandma…I miss you

Especially when I see my newborn cousin who still doesn’t have a name.

He reminds me that you always said you felt old

I want to tell him that I feel I am old too

What makes this film so great is that it transcends race which is a pitfall that quite a few popular family dramas have succumb to (sorry but I can’t really relate to something like American Beauty). I'm black but when I watch Yi Yi there are so many things I can relate too even though the characters are Taiwanese. 

Edward Yang could have taken the typical family drama route by implementing tons dysfunction but he didn't (we all know dysfunctional parents & fucked up children are common within this genre). Sure there’s plenty of drama & dysfunction around the family (infidelity, money issues, attempted suicide, etc) but throughout the film the family stays a fairly tight unit (and they become even tighter by the end of the film).

CHEF: THIS MOVIE HAD NO BUSINESS BEING THIS GOOD

Movies like Chef come along every once in a while to balance out all the serious shit I watch & enjoy each year. In 2011 some of my favorite films were Faust, Once Upon A Time In Anatolia, Shame & Drive. Even the comedies and other seemingly “lighthearted” movies that I loved that year were centered around issues like suicide (Monsieur Lahzar), mass-murder (God Bless America) and deceased loved ones (Alps). Because I was consumed with so much dark content that year, I took to Midnight In Paris to lighten up the mood. In 2012, 21 Jump Street & Tim & Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie served as the counter to Post Tenebras Lux & Amour. Last year, the comedic elements in films like Newlyweeds & Frances Ha balanced out Bruno Dumont’s depressing double feature of Camille Claudel 1915 & Hors Satan (Newlyweeds & Frances Ha also got me to kinda like New York City again for a short period of time, but that eventually wore off). Besides Boyhood, most of my personal favorite films from this year so far are rather drab or have tons of violent murders. Both Stranger By The Lake & Li’l Quinquin are about serial killers, Night Moves focuses on terrorism (a more unconventional side of terrorism, but still…terrorism is terrorism) and Timbuktu is just downright depressing (there’s a scene of a woman getting stoned to death). See what I mean? I need a (TRULY) lighthearted movie like Chef to keep me grounded.

Chef is definitely lighthearted, but it isn’t mindlessly lighthearted. A big part of the story deals with the (POSITIVE) relationship between a father & son. That’s still not very common these days (I do recognize & appreciate Richard Linklater & Ethan Hawke’s attempt at showing a more complicated side of fatherhood in films like Before Sunset & Boyhood, but positive fathers are still scarce in modern film).

In Chef everything falls perfectly in to place for John Faverau in an incredibly unrealistic way. But dammit, why not?! Why shouldn’t John Faverau get with BOTH Scarlett Johansson & Sofia Vergara by the end of the film? Why shouldn’t his food truck business turn out successful and bring him tons of money? If the films of Bruno Dumont & Michael Haneke are allowed to exist with all the praise they get (well…I guess Dumont’s films aren’t always praised, but still…), why can’t the opposite exist? Sorry but if suicide, murder & depression can exist within the same 100 minute movie, then so can success, riches & hooking up with attractive women. There’s a ying and a yang to everything.

phones, mobile devices and other various forms of social media play a major part in Chef

In Chef, John Faverau stars as “Carl Casper” - a talented chef at a hot new restaurant who ends up butting heads with his boss (played by Dustin Hoffman) over what kind of food to serve. After a hurtful review from a big time food critic and a public meltdown that gets videotaped and blasted all over social media, Carl steps out, with the help of his former co-worker (played by John Leguizamo), his son, and funding from his rich ex-wife (Sofia Vergara), to start a food truck business that quickly becomes a success. Along the way there are a few bumps in the road (mostly having to do with the relationship between Carl and his son) but for the most part everything kind of just works out. Seriously, that’s pretty much the whole movie.
I’m sure a feminist or someone with plenty of time on their hands to over-analyze things (something I’m guilty of doing from time to time) could easily break Chef down as the ultimate male fantasy if they wanted to. Seriously tho, how convenient is it that the protagonist not only hooks up with two of Hollywood's most attractive actresses, but is also able to get a ton of money & support from his ex-wife without any strings attached?

But for me Chef was just a non-threatening good time that put a smile on my face. Shit, the only other movie that made me laugh/smile that much this year was Nightcrawler, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to enjoy that movie the way I did.

My only gripe with Chef is the shot that John Faverau tries to throw at critics & bloggers. Even though the villainous critic (played by Oliver Platt) who goes after Carl in Chef is a food critic, it’s more than obvious he represents all the movie critics & bloggers out there today. We do live in the age of internet trolling and a lot of movie critics/bloggers these days are more hurtful & immature, but it’s embarrassingly transparent when filmmakers try to take jabs at the one-note evil critic character. No filmmaker has yet to TRULY make fun of or call out critics in any kind of original way (we get it, famous people – you all think critics & bloggers are fat pimply deflecting losers that live in their mom’s basement. Ouch). But if you make bad movies (like a lot of filmmakers who attack critics are guilty of doing), don’t get mad when someone criticizes your work (that's not the case with Faverau btw. I'm just speaking in general).

This all reminds me of the story Kevin Smith tells in one of his one-man show/Q&A's about how George Clooney and his friends egged the house of a critic who gave Clooney's directorial debut (Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind) a bad review back in 2002...

Two things about this...

1. Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind really isn't that good. It's not awful, but its certainly forgettable (be honest, before reading this, when's the last time you even thought about that movie?)

2. You really have that much time on your hands, George Clooney? Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind still made money  yet you're mad that you got a negative review? 8 times outta 10 your presence in a film alone will trump any negative review. Grow up...

Remember that scene in M. Nigh Shayamalan’s Lady In The Water when the unfriendly movie critic character (played by Bob Balaban) gets killed by that monster? It’s like, of course fucking M. Night Shayamalan would do some shit like that. I know critics have been unkind to his post-Unbreakable filmogpgraphy, but still – his movies aren’t that good (certainly not as bad as some people make them out to be, but still - not very good).

As you can see, the whole filmmakers vs. critics/bloggers thing is much bigger than John Faverau, so I gave him a pass with Chef (he actually makes peace with the antagonistic critic by the end of the movie).

I honestly have yet to personally come across anyone who disliked this movie (my fiancée Sharon and PINNLAND EMPIRE contributor Rob Cotto are among the folks who gave it rave reviews) and that counts for something. Don't be surprised if this movie pops up in more categories than one next month when I give my end of the year review...

LOVE STREAMS

I’m an only child, so the relationship between siblings confuses & intrigues me at the same time. I’ve always liked the idea that you have someone who kinda looks like you who’ll always be there for you or have your back, generally speaking, through thick & thin. As a kid, I loved the idea of the big brother or sister protecting their younger sibling and never getting in to trouble for it. As a kid I thought: "you can fight or, better yet, beat someone up and not get punished (by your parents at least) as long as you were defending your sibling?!". I wanted in on that. I also wanted that unspoken connection/companionship that I imagine comes along with having a brother or sister.
I’m also dumbfounded/heartbroken by siblings who don’t really speak, aren't very close or have some major falling out and they no longer acknowledge each other.

I think my fascination with siblings is a big reason as to why I loved Sarah Polley’s Stories We Tell so much. It highlights a large immediate family of siblings, and, as I stated in my review of Stories, reminds me of my fiancee’s family to a certain degree (they're the same size as Polley’s family and are very close). I'm close with my immediate family but size-wise, were the opposite.

I love my parents to death but as a kid I was always the most enthusiastic friend in the bunch when it came to hanging out or having a sleepover because it meant I got to be around other kids my age for a while instead of my two adult parents who weren’t interested in playing video games or egging houses late at night (being an only child certainly has it's perks but it's also pretty boring).

That whole thing about only children always wanting their personal space is a bit inaccurate. Think about it - when you’re an only child you're around your (boring) parents more than anyone else. You cant wait to hang with other kids and communicate with people on your level. Another misconception about only children is our inability to share. How do you think we maintain such close friendships? We share & give things at an almost desperate level in order to have buddies. I think it says something that most of the friends I made between the ages of 7 through 12 are still my close friends today. When you're an only child, close friends fall in to that strange category where they aren't exactly siblings, but they're more than just  friends.

Now...one thing that is true about us is how accidentally self-centered we can be sometimes. Take this write-up so far. This is supposed to be a movie review yet I’ve only managed to write about myself up to this point...
Based on everything I just said, combined with my love for John Cassavetes (one of my all-time favorites), it should come as no surprise that I’m incredibly fascinated by Love Streams. The relationship between our sibling protagonists in Cassavetes’ 1984 dramedy is strange to say the least (and the fact that the brother/sister team in Love Streams are played by real life husband & wife; Cassavetes & Gena Rowlands just adds a whole ‘nother layer for analysis). But what else would you expect from John Cassavetes. Whether it be the topic of friendship (Husbands); marriage (Faces, A Woman Under The Influence, Minnie & Moskowitz); identity (Opening Night & Shadows) or parenthood (A Woman Under The Influence), he's going to approach it from an unorthodox angle. But no matter what, he always captures the truth & realism that comes along with whatever topic he’s focusing on.

Adapted from a play of the same name (also written & directed by Cassavetes) Love Streams almost acts as two separate movies that eventually meld in to one. Robert Harmon (Cassavetes) is a womanizing writer living in Los Angeles. One random day he gets an unexpected surprise visit from his eight year old son (“Albie”) and has to look after him for a few days. Harmon is the last person you’d want taking care of a kid (even temporarily). Besides his brash attitude, inexperience with children & womanizing ways, he’s an alcoholic who lives in a mansion with a rotating lineup of random nameless scantily clad prostitutes. 

During all this, Robert’s eccentric/depressed sister “Sarah” (Gena Rowlands) is in the midst of an ugly divorce with her husband (played by Cassavetes regular Seymour Cassell) and is about to lose custody of her daughter. When Sarah no longer has anyone to turn too, she makes her way to Robert’s home to crash with him. Sarah does make herself a little too much at home (she practically moves in with all her personal possessions, including her pets), but Robert still takes her in. 

Robert and Albie eventually warm up to each other (there's a funny scene of them sharing a beer together) but in the last half of the story, Albie goes back with his mother and Robert & Sarah are now left alone to take care of each other. Beyond the fact that they're both fairly self-centered, Sarah needs help with her depression while Robert’s alcoholism and just overall lifestyle has gotten out of control. 

Of all of Cassavetes’ films, Love Streams is most connected to Opening Night (1977). Not only do both movies touch on aging and feature dream sequences/dreamy montage moments (something that isn’t really common in his work), but Love Streams & Opening Night show female characters (both played by Rowlands) in the midst of a very crippling mid-life crisis.
That’s not to say Robert’s life isn’t a “mess”. Most people who analyze/write about Love Streams seem to only talk about Sarah’s instability, when Robert’s life is just as messy. This could be seen as subconscious sexism/misogyny. We see an unstable & emotional female character and immediately label her as “crazy”, while her counterpart (Robert) sleeps with random women (apparently impregnating some without realizing it), gets dangerously drunk and hurts himself (and others) and it's almost looked at as cool/humorous.

John Cassavetes is often compared too/mentioned alongside low budget, hand-held, "gritty" & sometimes sloppy cinema, but his influence goes way deeper than just indie guerrilla-style filmmaking. It wasn't until I started writing this that I noticed how little things from Love Streams show up in other semi-recent films I enjoy about siblings. When Sarah first shows up at Robert's house he immediately jumps on her like a kid and gives her a big hug because he hadn't seen her in quite some time. In You Can Count On Me, when Samantha (Laura Linney) first sees her brother Terry (Mark Ruffalo) after such a long time she gets immediately excited, just like Robert, and excitedly gives him a big hug in a similar fashion. That element of the dysfunctional (older) brother & dysfunctional (younger) sister from Love Streams also shows up in European-made films like Shame & Nenette & Boni. In Shame, Brendon (Michael Fassbender) & Jenie (Carey Mulligan) never mention their parents, just like Robert & Sarah, which speaks volumes in my opinion. And the way Jenie suddenly shows up to stay with Brendon in Shame is reminiscent of how Sarah suddenly shows up in Love Streams.
And I know how much French cinephiles love Cassavetes. Love Streams was fairly successful in Europe. I like to think elements of it seeped in to Denis' subconscious when she made the criminally underrated Nenette & Boni - a story about two estranged siblings (an older brother & younger sister).

Cassavetes' work is also known for it's spontaneity – the “improvisation” throughout Shadows, the bar scene in Husbands, Gena Rowlands & Peter Falk’s erratic behavior in Woman Under The Influence, Timothy Carey’s performances in Minnie & Moskowitz, etc. Love Streams is not without plenty of random & spontaneous moments, but it still feels a lot more rigid than anything else he's ever done.

My submergence in to the world of John Cassavetes seemed destined. During my senior year of college everything fell in to place in a short period of time. My college library uped their movie rental selection and they carried the pre-criterion DVD of A Woman Under The Influence (a film I had read about for years on various film websites but had yet to see). Shortly after watching that, I got a VHS copy of A Killing Of A Chinese Bookie at a local pawn shop for $1. Then, entertainment weekly did a special on cult movies which featured Love Streams on their list of 25 greatest cult movies. Love Streams was difficult to come by at first, but after working at a video store with a decent selection, I found an old VHS of it that my boss gave to me for free. I later mentioned to my father about how I was really in to Cassavetes’ films, to which he reminded me that I’d been watching his work, in the form of Gloria - his 1980 crime drama starring Gena Rowlands, since I was a child, only I hadn’t realized it (for some strange reason Gloria is my Dad's favorite John Cassavetes movie).

Love Streams may not have the same impact as John's previous work like Shadows or Faces, but it still left behind a small legacy and was the subject of the excellent non-Ray Carney book; "John Cassavetes Directs", which was coupled with a making-off documentary.
A lot of hardcore Cassavetes fans like to consider this to be his unofficial final film as a director (his actual last movie before passing away was Big Trouble in ’88 which was just a for hire gig/slash favor to his friend/Big Trouble co-star Peter Falk).
Watching this feels a little bittersweet. It's been documented in every book that touches on Love Streams but John's cirrhosis, which eventually killed him, was fairly visible in certain scenes. When it wasn't covered by a sports coat, his protruded belly (and somewhat gauntly face) were clear signs of his deteriorating health.

While this has a small cult following, of which I’m very much a part of, it’s audience is about to grow with it’s scheduled release courtesy of the criterion collection...

BOYHOOD: RICHARD LINKLATER'S TREE OF LIFE

Boyhood is kind of like The Tree Of Life for people who didn't really like The Tree Of Life (...kind of). Personally I'm a fan of both films (and I imagine anyone who liked Malick's film will like Richard Linklater's latest) but I can understand why The Tree Of Life turned some people off. Boyhood acts as a nice alternative.
I'm sure some of you reading this right now may be wondering what one film has to do with the other, but there's actually quite a few similarities between the two...
They're both personal, almost plotless, coming-of-age stories about young boys growing up in Texas. Both films look at the mother characters in a more positive light, while the fathers in each story are much more flawed but mean well at the end of the day. Lastly, each filmmaker dedicated large chunks of their lives to each project.
Boyhood is more straightforward in terms of delivery, but it’s just as ambitious as The Tree Of Life (possibly more). While Malick did take many years to complete his opus (with a few starts & stops, do-overs, adjustments to technology & re-casts in between) there was still a huge gap between his initial concept (which came about in the late 70's) and the final product that we now know as The Tree Of Life. Filming didn't actually start until 2009. Terrence Malick took breaks to make stuff like The Thin Red Line (1998) & The New World (2005) before really setting his focus on Tree. Obviously Richard Linklater has been quite active with other projects since he started shooting Boyhood in 2002 (he made 8 films during the 12 year span that it took to complete Boyhood) but he never actually took a traditional break from making it. Linklater had been filming Boyhood on & off since 2002 because he wanted to shoot in sequence using the same actors (Ethan Hawke, Patricia Arquette, Lorelei Linklater & Ellar Coltrane) to show realistic aging over the years, specifically with Coltrane, who ages from 7 to 19 through the course of the story. We also see his own daughter Lorelei age from 9 to 21 (an element of the story that's been downplayed in some early reviews).

The idea of Boyhood brings to mind other films that have already taken a similar approach. Richard Linklater is responsible for the Before Series (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset & Before Midnight) which chronicles the same actors/characters for three films over the span of two decades. The Up series, an on-going documentary that’s been following the same group of people since age 7, began filming in the mid 60’s; and art house cinephiles followed the Antoine Doniel character through five movies. Even smaller works like Hal Hartley’s Henry Fool (1998) and its sequel Fay Grim (2006) showed realistic aging through the years with the "Ned" character played by Liam Aiken in both films (age 7 in Henry Fool and age 15 in Fay Grim).
To me these are more than just standard sequels because they're quite personal and they show drastic changes in not only the characters, but the actors who play them over the years (minus the obvious Up film which is an actual documentary)...

Symon - The Up Series

Jean-Pierre Leaud as "Antoine Doniel" - The 400 Blows / Stolen Kisses

Liam Aiken as "Ned Grim" - Henry Fool / Fay Grim

Ethan Hawke & Julie Delpy as "Jesse & Celine" - Before Sunrise / Before Sunset / Before Midnight

And I’m not sure how many of you know this but Lars Von Trier also tried doing a similar project with Udo Kier that he started shooting in the late 80’s, then gave up on it after a while.

Boyhood is the first fiction film, that I know of, to span so many real years in one sitting with the same actors (I'm sure there's some obscure title out there that I don't know about). Obviously you can see a 12 year age change in the face & physique of almost any adult (which we do see with Hawke & Arquette through the course of the film), but it’s way more noticeable in a kid...

In Boyhood we follow Mason (Ellar Coltrane) – a young boy growing up in Texas. His parents aren't together and he lives with his mother (Arquette) & older sister (Linklater), while his father (Hawke) is a slightly immature/"every other weekend" dad who does eventually become a more consistent part of his life later on (I must say that the last three reviews I read on Boyhood don't paint Hawke's father character all that accurately). As the story progresses we see Mason go from a fresh-faced little boy to a college freshman with hair on his face. In between he goes through things like puberty (there's even a section in the film where his voice cracks a little bit), he gets his heart broken, learns a few important life lessons and all the other standard things that come along with growing up. There isn’t much of a “conflict” or "climax" in the film because ultimately it’s about watching a kid grow up in a world that's changing around him (note the subtle advancements in technology as the film moves along in time). However there are still some important bookmarks in the story like Mason's growing interest in art and the temporary presence of his various dysfunctional stepdads.
Throughout Boyhood Linklater expresses his own personal political views through his characters (which is fine with me because I guess we share the same basic beliefs). He also references his older works like Dazed & Confused (let's see if you can catch the two moments) as well as Waking Life (by the time Mason is in his late teens he sometimes talks like a character right out of a scene in Waking Life). And being the cinephile that he is, Linklater also uses movies (and music) as markers in time.

This movie can (and will) be enjoyed by both genders of just about any age but it is a boy’s story for the most part. When you have a film this intimate that touches on subjects like looking through lingerie magazines for half naked women, trying to be macho around other boys or the idea of having an inconsistent male figure/role model, it does become a little gender specific. It’s no different than how Welcome To The Dollhouse, The Virgin Suicides or It Felt Like Love can be (and are) enjoyed by both genders, but they still speak to women at the end of the day.

But the constant presence of Mason's older sister does provide an alternative/feminine perspective.

This is one of those recent films for me like Upstream Color, Post Tenebras Lux or Leviathan where no matter how many minor (or major) issues there may be, it’s still doing something new-ish or somewhat progressive for cinema. Yes this is a fictional story, but there’s also an accidental documentary here because we’re following the same people and watching them change over a real extended period of time (I'm aware there's plenty of fiction/documentary hybrids out there already, but not like Boyhood). 

I will admit that it would have been interesting to see Mason grow-up with both of his parents together, but that's just my opinion. Maybe Boyhood is also a reflection of marriage in today's society (I'm aware the relationship between Arquette & Hawke represents so many real parenting situations). But with so many films that portray fathers as either somewhat absent or one-note, it would have made Boyhood even more progressive if there was a working/healthy relationship between Mason's parents (it's almost become common to have a dysfunctional father character in a family film these days). As some of you can imagine, I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who saw bits of himself in Mason yet came up around two-parent households (even the couple of friends I had while growing up whose parents were separated still split the parenting duties 50/50 as best as they could). But just because this film didn't meet every one of my own specific personal needs doesn't mean it isn't a success. I obviously care enough about it to reference my own personal stuff in this review.

And it's not like Mason's parents are bad. In fact they're parenting style is a bit progressive & laid back to a certain degree. They both have their flaws (one has more than the other) but how many perfect parents do you know of? They actually grow/improve as parents through the course of the film.

Given Linklater’s attachment to certain actors & characters (specifically those in The Before Series), I wouldn’t be surprised if we follow Mason in to adulthood later on down the road (...Manhood?). There was an honest/organic attempt at doing something different with Boyhood. Without gushing over this film too much (plenty of reviews have already done that), it is excellent and will probably end up in my top 10 at the end of the year.

PUSHER 2: A SURPRISINGLY SAD & PERSONAL FILM

He [Tonny] is very much a sidekick in his own movie - Mads Mikkeksen

If you read this site regularly you'd know I'm a big fan of Nicholas Winding Refn. I've written about the majority of his filmography on here and he's one of the few young-ish/non-master filmmakers to get a "cinema of..." installment. But at the same time, I'm really not a fan of his early work. Prior to Fear X, which laid the groundwork for all of his future films, Refn was more of a guerrilla style filmmaker who embraced handheld camerawork & grittiness like every other young indie filmmaker in the 90's who looked up to Robert Rodriguez or John Cassavetes in a confused mis-guided way. Pusher & Bleeder (Refn's first two films) were full of gangsters, thugs & drug dealing for the most part. The goings-on in his work remain the same today: the criminal underworld, gangsters, and an almost immature exhibition of violence. But there's a beauty in everything he’s done style-wise since Bronson that makes his work so good (personally, I think it was Refn's unspoken exclusion from the Danish film scene that inspired him to move away from that cinema verite style and embrace the glossier, cleaner style that most people know him for today).
I know it’s strange to write about the middle film in a trilogy but Pusher 2 is quite different from the others. After watching the first Pusher I really had no desire to finish the series but an employee at the now closed video store; World Of Video, convinced me to give it a shot...and I was pleasantly surprised. If anything it's is a loose sequel in that it takes a smaller/supporting character from the first film ("Tonny") and makes him the main character this time around. The character of Tonny is the last person you'd expect to have an entire film based on. In Pusher he's essentially a sidekick that gets written out of the story in the first half. You honestly forget about him at the end of the first Pusher. 

Tonny shows a prison tattoo to his unimpressed father; "The Duke"

Pusher 2 picks up with Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen) after just being released from prison. This is hardly a story about an ex-con trying to rehabilitate to life on the outside or doing his best to not get pulled back in to a life of crime. Instead Tonny goes straight from prison to being a gangster again (even after discovering he’s a dad). It's almost as if his time in prison meant nothing. Tonny hopes to work for his father; "The Duke" - a respected criminal with a lucrative chop shop operation. The only problem is that The Duke pretty much hates his immature son and considers him an embarrassment. Throughout the film The Duke berates & disrespects his son Tonny to point where it gets ridiculous (Tonny does bring it on himself at times). But like a sad puppy, Tonny continues come back and vie for his father's love no matter what. There's an important subplot in Pusher 2 involving "Milo" (the Serbian drug kingpin from the first Pusher film and the main character in the third installment) and there's plenty of violence and other typical elements that make a gangster movie what it is, but at the end of the day Pusher 2 is really a drama about a son wanting to be accepted by his father. Refn just disguises all of that underneath a typical gangster story. I've read conflicting stories on why he made Pusher 2. Some believe Refn put no thought in to it. He needed to make a few quick films to get out of debt so he capitalized on the popularity of the first Pusher film and quickly churned out a sequel for the money. Others seem to think the real life relationship between Nicolas Refn and his father Anders Refn (also filmmaker) was the inspiration behind the relationship between Tonny and The Duke. Perhaps Refn's motivation was a little bit of both. I don't doubt that he made it for financial reasons, but maybe his subconscious kicked in during the writing process or while in pre-production and he drew inspiration from his personal life.

Much of this film's success is owed to Mads Mikkelsen's lead performance. I don't know if it’s his face or the vibe he gives off when he's acting but I can never picture another actor in any of his roles like I do so many other actors. Tonny is an interesting and surprisingly complex human being. He's a big immature child trapped in a man's body with grand illusions of being some big time gangster. Part of me dislikes him and wants nothing to do with him. Yet we somehow sympathize for him due to all the abuse he takes from his father and everyone else around him. No one else could have played the role of Tonny as well as Mads and not many filmmakers would dedicate an entire film to an unimportant sidekick character.

A big reason as to why I'm so critical of Refn's early work is because I was introduced to him through stuff like Fear X and Valhalla Rising. I'm more a fan of his slower, Kubrick-influenced stuff. I was a late comer to the Pusher series (I first saw the Pusher films only a few years ago). In retrospect I kind of appreciate the whole series because it showed Refn's growth as a person. For me, the first Pusher film represented a piece of work made by someone incredibly young (which Refn was at the time) with dreams of becoming the next Robert Rodriguez, who watched Mean Streets WAY too many times and still got the wrong message that Scorsese's early film tried to deliver. There's actually quite a few worthy comparisons between Mean Streets & Pusher. Both films are gritty/guerrila-style stories about lower-tier gangsters juggling women problems & unstable/lose cannon friends that get in way over their heads with people far more powerful than them. Both films even end on a negatively ambiguous note.
It's no mystery that Refn thinks gangsters are "cool", even though he did try to show the negative side of that lifestyle with the Pusher series. But from the score, the overall tone and even the advertising for the first Pusher - Nicholas Winding Refn's debut came off more like a "cool cocaine-induced indie gangster flick" instead of the depressing life lesson that it really should have been. However Pusher 2 makes up for all that. The Refn who made Pusher 2 was clearly a slightly more mature adult.

THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES: THE BEST DISAPPOINTING FILM OF THE DECADE SO FAR

The Place Beyond The Pines has just as many moments of greatness as it does moments of spottiness. Based on the talent involved (in front of & behind the camera) and the excellent trailer that was cut - this was something I thought would be a masterpiece, yet the final result ended up being a pretty uneven movie. I say uneven because the first 45 minutes are excellent while the next 90 minutes walk the line between intriguing & uninteresting (dare I say boring?). I recognize & appreciate director Derek Cianfrance's ambition but I don’t give his latest effort a complete pass. I liken this film to that of a student taking a really hard exam who doesn't necessarily know all the correct answers, but still shows their work in order to get some credit. Sure they ended up getting a B-, but at the end of the day they could have gotten an A had they studied harder.

But why should such an ambitious film like The Place Beyond The Pines be measured in terms of grades? That's a little insulting for the kind of project it was. Between the film's length, time span of the story and the actual plot; this was a bit of a risk/experimentation in a sense. Some of you might not agree with that statement, but a film can be "experimental" without delving in to the world of Stan Brakhage, Maya Deren or Kenneth Anger. Look at the cinema of Michael Mann. You wouldn't consider his work to be experimental at first, but as pointed out in the recent You Hate Everything Podcast, one could say films like Miami Vice and even Public Enemies are experimental/avant garde studio action movies. Anyone familiar with Mann's work knows how free and sometimes (intentionally) random his camera work can be when compared to other conventional action films. How many studio filmmakers besides him can you name that let the camera linger the way it does in Miami Vice or allow it to suddenly go blurry like in Collateral or Ali? The same loose interpretation of "experimental" applies to The Place Beyond The Pines as well. Besides being a layered story about the relationship between two different sets of fathers & sons that cross paths with one another in various ways over the span of 15 years, I feel like Derek Cianfrance was trying to take a page out of the book of James Gray and take it to another level by combining elements of the family melodrama with elements of realistic action & suspense. He also took a big risk by killing off the film's biggest (and most promoted) star long before we even reach the halfway mark. The length of this film is a little odd too, clocking in at 140 minutes. The Place Beyond The Pines is filled with bank robberies, murder, coming of age, police corruption, romance and more. Derek Cianfrance almost crammed a mini-series worth of content into a feature length film (seriously, if he wanted too, this story could have branched off in to so many different directions like The Wire or Twin Peaks). Part of me wanted this to be 45 minutes longer in order for it to feel more cohesive. But who wants to sit through a three hour long movie these days?

Set in upstate New York, the first part of the story follows "Luke Glanton" - a motorcycle stunt driver that's part of a traveling carnival. After a one night stand with a local townie ("Romina", played by Eva Mendas) Luke leaves town only to return a year later to discover he's the father of Romina's one year old son, although she’s now moved on and married too another man. Faced with the dilemma of wanting to support his illegitimate son with very little income, Luke turns to robbing banks in order to make money. His successful string of bank robberies is eventually put to an end by an ambitious young cop by the name of "Avery Cross" (Bradley Cooper).
How Luke went as long as he did without getting caught is a little perplexing to me. Not only does this story take place in a small town, but he uses the same loud recognizable motorcycle that he rides around town with as his getaway vehicle. Yes, he spray paints the bike a different color every time he does a bank job, but it still makes that same loud revving noise. No one in that small quiet town could make the connection between a bank robber who rides away on a motorcycle and a mysterious guy who recently rolled in to town that also happens to ride around town on a motorcycle? And without giving any more away than I already have, the only reason Luke is eventually caught is because he gets sloppy. It’s not like the police had any leads. I hate to be that guy to get all technical and pull out the rule book, but last time I checked, Derek Cianfrance is a filmmaker who goes for realism in his work. If that's your thing (which it certainly is) you open yourself up to that kind of criticism.

Like Luke, Avery Cross also has a one year old son which makes for a nice transition. Once Avery enters the story and Luke exits (which is putting it lightly), the film shifts and we focus on him and his discovery of police corruption within his department. Will he turn a blind eye to whats going on around him, or will he turn his fellow officers in to internal affairs?
The story then jumps 15 years ahead and we learn that Avery climbed his way up the ranks and is now a politician. By chance, his degenerate teenage son ("AJ") ends up going to the same high school as Luke Glanton's teenage son ("Jason") and they eventually befriend each other until the sins of both of their father's reemerge and cause a major conflict between the two boys (Jason & AJ are completely unaware that their fathers crossed paths with each other 15 years ago). 

The third act primarily focuses on Jason and the void he feels having not known his real father. I was a bit conflicted with Jason’s story. On one hand I get the angst of not knowing who your biological father is but Jason still had a positive male role model in the form his stepfather/Romina’s husband “Kofi” (The Walking Dead’s Mahershala Ali). It was brought to my attention, via my girlfriend, that once Jason eventually discovered who his father was and the things he did, that he should have appreciated his stepfather even more. Sure, there’d be some initial disappointment in learning that your biological father was a violent bank robber with a criminal past, but once those feelings eventually went away, Jason should have realized he had something that many kids in his situation don’t when their biological father isn’t around – a steady positive male figure, like his stepdad, to fill the void. 

Derek Cianfrance shows multiple father archetypes in The Place Beyond The Pines – The dysfunctional/absentee father (Luke), the good father (Kofi), The complicated father (Avery), etc. He tried his best to show multiple shades of fatherhood and didn’t simplify things like so many filmmakers often do with that subject. This is why I appreciate The Place Beyond The Pines no matter how flawed it is. Fathers in cinema are usually one-note or play the background. They deserve a spotlight too. I also appreciate that the one non-dysfunctional father in this whole film is a black male.

Kofi is just another example of someone or something that could have branched off to its own storyline that the film just  didn't have time for (again, maybe this would have been better off as a miniseries?)

Another problem for me with The Place Beyond The Pines was Bradley Cooper's presence (both the character he plays and his performance). And I don’t say "problem" like his acting was bad. To be honest, I can’t even think of another actor who could have played his role or done a better job than him. It's just that his presence is a little forgettable yet he's supposed to be carrying the last two thirds of the film. Going back to Michael Mann for a moment, when I think of Bradley Cooper in The Place Beyond The Pines I sometimes go; "Oh yeah, he was in this." the same way I think about Public Enemies and go "Oh yeah, that movie does exist.” There's something bland and/or redundant about Cooper's character and his performance is a little one-note through the whole second act. From The Prince Of The City to The Glass Shield, we've all seen the story of the young cop faced with the dilemma of having to turn on his corrupt brothers in blue. And when the story makes that 15 year jump he's suddenly a politician. I personally didn’t have an issue with the time lapse but I understand people's frustration with the sudden change in Cooper's character. 

I say all this without any extra Bradley Cooper hate. I know that the combination of the Hangover movies and him becoming an A-list actor in recent years has brought on some detractors but he doesn’t bother me. I thought he was great in both Silver Linings Playbooks & American Hustle and he also co-starred in Wet Hot American Summer so I can never fully hate him for that alone.
The Place Beyond The Pines is a bit of a paradox in that it’s already pretty long yet it still makes a 15 year jump and leaves a huge gap. But I feel like the same people who complained about the sudden 15 year jump would have complained if the film was over three hours long and had filled in all the gaps they complained about in the first place. Did we really need to see a meticulous layout of Avery Cross’ transition for being a police officer to becoming a politician? Did we really need to see both AJ & Luke grow from the babies we saw in the first act to the misguided teens they become in the third act? Personally I think Cianfrence gives enough information as to what’s transpired over the years, but I guess some viewers wanted everything spelled out.

There were also complaints about the lack of prominent female character but, without trying to be sexist, at the end of the day this is a story about men in the same way that everything from Ms. 45 & Variety to The Color Purple & The Hours are stories about women (generally speaking). The Place Beyond The Pines had been marketed as a tale about fathers & sons since 2012. What did people honestly expect? And even though Rose Byrne's role as Bradley Cooper's wife could have been filled by just about anyone, Eva Mendes honestly held her own and did her part in leaving some type of strong female presence in a film dominated by so many men. That’s not the easiest task, so props to her. Come to think of it, this might be the best acting she's ever done.
And let’s be honest here...although Bradley Cooper surprised some of us with his Academy Award nominated performance in Silver Linings Playbook, Ryan Gosling's role as a brooding stunt motorcyclist/bank robber was this film's biggest draw because it reminded some of us of Drive (although if you’ve actually seen both films, you’d know that they’re quite different). Gosling getting killed off in the first act didn’t sit too well with a lot of people. But that was honestly one of my favorite things about The Place Beyond The Pines. This was another risk/experiment Derek Cianfrance took that I really respect. I don’t know what it is, but a lot of American filmmakers seem to be afraid to kill off big stars early on in films these days and I'm sure A-list stars don't want to be eliminated so early on in big films either. This is why I love directors like Mike Leigh, Michael Haneke & Claire Denis. The same actors that star in their films come back to play very minor roles for them later on. A star like Gosling could have easily pulled an Ed Norton power move and demanded more screen time but he played his part along with a few other actors who had small but memorable roles in this like Ray Liotta, Ben Mendelshon & Bruce Greenwood.

2013 was a strange year for Ryan Gosling. You almost forgot that he was in three films last year. Between 2010-2011 it seemed like he could do no wrong. On paper you'd think 2013 was gonna be a repeat of his success from a couple of years ago. He reunited with the same directors that he shared success with in the past (Derek Cianfrance/The Place Beyond The Pines & Nicolas Winding Refn/Only God Forgives), he became a successful Internet meme and was still quite popular even though he wasn't in anything released theatrically in 2012. However in 2013, Only God Forgives' theatrical run came & went faster than the beating his character took in the very same movie and both; Gangster Squad & The Place Beyond The Pines were released in the early part of 2013 which made them pretty forgettable. Releasing Gangster Squad in January made sense. It's just one of those movies you wanna get out of the way early on in the year. But even with all of its flaws, The Place Beyond The Pines deserved the respect of getting a later release in 2013 when movies aren’t so forgettable. Think about it, how many academy award nominated films from any year (this year especially) were released prior to May? Now...I don't know how much of a difference it would have made releasing this later in the year as it would have had to compete with The Wolf Of Wall Street, Her, Inside Llewyn Davis and American Hustle (also co-starring Bradley Cooper).

The Place Beyond The Pines is about more than just the sins of fathers coming back to haunt their sons. It's also about the bad decisions we sometimes make or the lies we tell in the moment because we think they'll make things better when instead they just build up and weigh on us. In the case of the characters in this movie, things continue to build up and weigh on our characters for 15 years.

What very few critics seem to be addressing is that Luke didn't really need to rob banks in order to provide for his son. Romina had a husband & Jason a father (Kofi). Luke just had a skewed perception of what a father/provider was supposed to be because, as he mentions, his own father wasn't around so he had no model to look up to. Plus it's obvious he enjoyed the thrill of being a criminal too.

And Luke isn't the only character to make poor choices. After the fatal showdown between he & Avery at the end of the first act, Avery lies in his police report about who shot who first, and from that moment on his life becomes more & more stressful.

Perhaps if Romina just explained to Jason what his biological father Luke was really like instead of keeping it a secret (which only built up 15 years worth of curiosity) he wouldn't have felt so much angst growing up.

This is the kind of film that'll be reevaluated years down the line by those who were initially put off by certain aspects of it or didn't understand some of the choices that Derek Cianfrance made. Maybe I'll change my stance on the issues I have. I'll probably never consider The Place Beyond The Pines a prefect film, but it's definitely worthy of  some serious analysis and it won't be forgotten as the decade continues on...