"Boyhood" Movie Review

My review of "Boyhood" starring Ellar Coltrane, Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke.

"Boyhood"

Posted on Aug. 1, 2014 on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com.

Wayback Machine Archive Post 

“Boyhood”  (2014)

There are certain films that are so unique and special, you know it ten or fifteen minutes into the movie. “Boyhood” is one of those films. Richard Linklater has brought to the screen an amazing film that is so effortless and enjoyable to watch that it doesn’t seem it’s almost three-hours long. The film is about a young family that when we first meet them, they are going through the painful separation of a husband (Ethan Hawke) and his wife (Patricia Arquette). The dad showed up unexpectedly after a lengthy absence (“He’s been working in Alaska”), surprising his young 6-year-old son, Mason (Ellar Coltrane) and 8-year-old daughter, Samantha (Lorelei Linklater). The kids are hopeful that their parents are getting back together, but that is soon quashed as the two parents quickly get into an argument on the sidewalk outside of the family’s apartment. The hope, then pain is shown on the kids faces as they watch the unfolding argument happen below their bedroom window. This scene flawlessly develops, and it’s a perfect example on how this film takes small moments in time to let us understand where the characters are in their lives.

Photo courtesy of IFC Films

As the audience, we get to experience four people grow up. The parents, who married too young, go their separate ways, make mistakes in their relationships and eventually find their place in the world. We see how each parent matures and deals with each other and the kids. The two kids who go from elementary school to enrolling in college. Normally, in a film like this, you would use different actors to play the parts at different times in their lives. Then you would use makeup and hairstyles to show the parents growing older as the film moved along. In Linklater’ s film, we see as the parents turn into two adults in their mid-forties, their bodies changing as they get older. We see the kids in all stages of childhood to early adulthood. It’s an amazing viewing experience and adds greatly to the feeling of watching the small pieces of time go by.

Another remarkable aspect about this film is the marking of time through both technology and in cultural events. In a normal film, shot over approximately six months, the filmmakers would probably make more of a spectacle of say a smartphone being introduced to the public, making sure that the audience noticed the product and how important it was to the culture at the time. In this film, not knowing what was going to be popular or going to last, Linklater just lets technology be a part of their everyday lives. It permits the audience to concentrate on what is happening to the characters, allowing us to stay in the moment.

Photo courtesy of IFC Films

While there are a couple of groundbreaking moments in the film, the film is filled mostly with smaller moments. How you interact with the other kids in a new school, the pain of moving away from your friends, the relationships you form in your first job, seeing your mom flirt with someone other than your dad. These are all moments in this film that define its characters and allow us to experience the wonder of growing up. There were several times in the film, when I was waiting for something big to happen, and instead was relieved and surprised when that major event did not occur. It’s an accumulation of smaller events that shape the film’s characters, just like what happens in real life.

The four principle actors in this film do a remarkable job. Early on its Lorelei Linklater, as Sam, that dominates the action. She shines on the screen, interacting with the others with almost dominating presence. She is the more outgoing of the two kids, as Ellar Coltrane plays more of the quiet and retrospective child of the family. As the film moves along, she begins to take a backseat to Coltrane’s performance, becoming more of a supporting character as we get to know more and more about Mason. I really enjoyed Ethan Hawke’s performance as the father who starts shirking his parental duties and then grows into the man his kids need. While Hawke didn’t age too much in his appearance (present day Hawke is still pretty darn boyish), I enjoyed his character’s growth, and I think it’s due to in part Hawke’s maturing as an actor. Arquette is the perfect choice for the role of a young woman who grows into being the matron of the family. She is wonderful in the role, bringing a toughness, yet vulnerability to the role that fit the character of the mom. Arquette lets us see the pain of her character as the mom trying to figure out how to survive with two kids on her own.

Photo courtesy of IFC Films

Coltrane, playing Mason is the anchor and focus of the film. It’s quite an experience to see a young boy grow into a man right before your eyes. I felt that early on, as an actor, his inexperience showed on the screen but as the years went on. He became more comfortable in the part, and I think, also in real life, more relaxed in his own appearance, as most teens do. It’s remarkable how much as a young adult he looks like Ethan Hawke, not only in his body type but how he carries himself in on the screen.

It’s a remarkable film to watch and is truly one of great experiences I have had in the cinema. Linklater has done an impressive job of making a film that is consistent in its quality from start to finish. Think about how the technology of film has changed in the last ten years, but the movie has the same look and feel throughout. What does change are the people in the film and how we feel about them as they grow older. Like your own family members through the years, your opinion of these characters change that they grow older and evolve, some for the better, some for the worse. Linklater has made a film that is an amazing work of art and one to savor as you watch time move across the screen.    My Rating: I Would Pay to See it Again

My movie rating system from Best to Worst:  1). I Would Pay to See it Again  2). Full Price  3). Bargain Matinee  4). Cable  5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

“Boyhood” is playing exclusively at Landmark Midtown Art Cinema

“Boyhood” Website

"Happy Christmas" Movie Review

My review of "Happy Christmas" starring Anna Kendrick, Melanie Lynskey, Mark Webber.

"Happy Christmas"

Posted on Aug. 1, 2014  on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post

“Happy Christmas”  (2014)

To say that Jenny (Anna Kendrick) is a slacker and not very motivated would be an understatement. She comes to live in her brother’s basement (Tiki bar style decorated by the previous owner), a filmmaker named Jeff (Joe Swanberg) who lives in the home with his wife Kelly (Melanie Lynskey), a novelist who hasn’t written much lately, and their two-year-old son. Neither Jeff nor his wife are happy at the prospects of having Jenny live with them for any amount of time. Jeff knows first-hand how irresponsible she can be, and Kelly is worried that leaving their son with her for any amount of time would be a bad idea. Jenny promises to be on her best behavior and to help out babysitting to “earn her keep.” Jenny quickly breaks this promise by going to a party at her best friend’s (Lena Dunham) house. There she gets intoxicated, makes out with a stranger and then passes out in a hallway. She is so drunk that her friend calls Jeff to come pick her up. That’s all on her first night. In fact, Jenny is so drunk that she doesn’t get up in the morning, and Kelly has to hire a babysitter, Kevin (Mark Webber) to take care of her son as she goes out to run some errands. Once again, Jenny has let her family down; can she ever turn it around?

Writer / director Joe Swanberg, who brought us last year’s hilarious “Drinking Buddies” is back with this film about growing up, taking responsibility and finding the motivation to finish what you start. This film is a little different than most, in that all of Swanberg’s dialogue is ab-libbed by the cast, making the scenes feel very real and touching. The downside to this approach is that several scenes go on a little too long and because the nature of the film, too often the camera either has to stay in a two shot or moves back and forth between characters, making it seem like you are watching a ping pong game.

Anytime you ab-lib anything it’s up to the cast to make it work, and fortunately, this is a very talented cast, full up for the challenge. Led by the personable Anna Kendrick, the cast is the best part of the film. Kendrick is a performer who dominates any scene that she is in. She moves with grace and humor, filling the screen with her likable persona. She has a natural comedic touch and no matter what stupid things her character does, we still end up liking her. Lena Dunham is a nice presence in her scenes as Carson, playing the low-key best friend. She shares a couple of wonderful scenes with Kendrick and Lynskey, mostly over wine. Joe Swanberg does ask too much of himself, and I am guessing playing a version of himself. Mark Webber does a fine job playing the love interest of Kendrick, in the role of a man who has to struggle to keep up with her personality and quirky ways.

Besides Kendrick, it’s Melanie Lynskey who makes this a film to watch. Lynskey, getting to use her native New Zealand accent, is perfect in the role of the woman who has put her career on hold to raise a child. Lynskey has great chemistry with Swanberg, making their scenes together highly enjoyable to watch, so much so, you don’t always want the scenes they have to end. There is a scene very early in the film that shows you the ease that Lynskey plays the part. She has walked into a conversation that Jenny and Carson are having. As they invite her to join them, she has to quickly size up if their compliments they shower on her are just to butter her up or if they are genuine. You can see in her body language, how her character goes through a number of emotions before finally realizing and enjoying the moment.

Cinematographer Ben Richardson shot the movie with a somewhat grainy look, making the film at times feel like it’s a home movie. Swanberg gets everything from his talented cast, especially Kendrick and Lynskey. It’s rare nowadays in modern film to have two such strong, dominate female performances in the same film, and that is what makes this film worth watching.    My Rating: Full Price

My movie rating system from Best to Worst:  1). I Would Pay to See it Again  2). Full Price  3). Bargain Matinee  4). Cable  5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

"Venus in Fur" Movie Review

My review of "Venus in Fur" starring Emmanuelle Seigner, Mathieu Amalric.

"Venus in Fur"

Published on July 25, 2014 on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post

"Venus In Fur"  (2013)

“Venus in Fur” starts out with the camera moving down a Paris street during a lightning storm. The camera then makes a right turn toward a rundown theatre. The doors open and as the camera proceeds inside the theatre, we see Thomas (Mathieu Amalric) at the end of a very long day auditioning actresses for his new play. In walks Vanda (Emmanuelle Seigner), a gum smacking actress who doesn’t seem to stop talking for a second as she explains why she is so late to the audition. When Vanda throws a crying fit, Thomas reluctantly agrees to read with her. They read the first three pages of the script, and Thomas realizes that he just might have his actress. Thomas decides to keep reading going as they soon develop a pattern of doing the play, and then stopping as they take time out to learn about each other or discuss the finer points of the play.

Roman Polanski directs this two-person play within a film. Polanski’s wife in real-life Emmanuelle Seigner plays Vanda, seemingly changing skins as her character gets more and more involved with the play and the ongoing discussion with Thomas. Seigner is perfect in the role, beautiful and playful one moment, downright scary in another. Thomas, played by Mathieu Amalric, looks so much like Polanski, it’s almost uncanny. His character at first is full of bluster and ego. As the film moves along, Amalric lets his character’s cracks show, allowing us to see more than just the surface. There is great chemistry between the two actors and their dialogue, especially when they are just talking about their lives, flows easily between them. It’s fun watching these two actors spar, almost as if they are boxers looking for weaknesses in each other.

This movie is a cat and mouse game; with both characters on the offense in one scene and in the very next scene, they are fighting for their lives. The film explores many topics such as sadomasochism, never getting too graphic, as both actors explore their feelings, especially ones that they have kept hidden. As the film progresses, the line between what they are reciting from the play and what they are discussing becomes blurred. Most of the film takes place up on stage, with the actors changing the lighting via a lighting board. Cinematographer Pawel Edelman uses this to set the mood for the various scenes between the two characters. It’s an interesting visual experience where at times the camera is placed where the audience would be in the theatre and other times we are in far more intimate circumstances up on the stage with the actors. Just like the actors in the film, we are sometimes experiencing a stage play and at other times, we are part of a more in-depth conversation between the two characters.

Polanski shows his skill in keeping the film moving at a brisk pace, and though it is just the two actors alone on the screen, the film never gets boring or predictable. It’s a steamy film that questions the relationship between a man and a woman. It’s a movie that explores the boundaries that we set for ourselves and for the people with whom we have relationships. It’s an interesting take on the man/woman relationship dynamic, making something that seems to be for the stage fit perfectly on the screen.  My Rating: Full Price 

My movie rating system from Best to Worst:  1). I Would Pay to See it Again  2). Full Price  3). Bargain Matinee  4). Cable  5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

"I Origins" Movie Review

My review of "I Origins" starring  Michael Pitt, Steven Yeun, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey.

"I Origins"

Published on July 25, 2014 on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post

"I Origins"  (2014)

Your eyes are said to be the windows to your soul. The complex patterns of your irises are supposed to be unique to you. Just like fingerprints, our eyes have a pattern that no one else has. Ian (Michael Pitt) is a serious micro-biology student whose interest involves the evolution of eyes. Ian takes his field of study so seriously that he has been taking close-up pictures of eyes for a good deal of his life. In the lab, Ian has been given a new lab assistant, Karen (Brit Marling). Ian soon learns that Karen can keep up with him, and her knowledge is on par with his, bringing fresh and exciting ideas to the lab.

On a rooftop Halloween party, he encounters a girl who is wearing a costume where only her eyes are not covered. After a brief, flirtatious chat, he convinces her to let him take a picture of her eyes. She then leads him to a closet, and briefly makes out with him, before mysteriously leaving without giving Ian, her name or number. While the research in the lab looks promising, Ian can’t get the mysterious woman out of his mind. Through a series of coincidences, he comes across a billboard that displays her eyes as part of the advertisement. Through the Internet, he finds information on who she is and where she lives. He starts hanging out in her neighborhood and quickly finds her on the subway. Very rapidly their romance blooms and he seems to have the world by the tail. The girl, Sofi (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) is like no one he has ever met before; someone who is all about spirituality and God…two things in which Ian the scientist doesn’t believe. Is there too much of a gap between Sofi and Ian for their relationship to last?

In this film from director/writer Mike Cahill, we ponder the question of science versus spirituality. Do we believe in only the facts and what is in front of us or believe in a God that created the world and all it contains?  Cahill along with Marling brought us the wonderful “Another Earth,” which also made us question our place in the Universe. Cahill doesn’t succeed as well as he did with the early film. The payoff of the film takes too long, letting the film drag at both the middle of the movie and near the end. The film does have a few twists and turns that I didn’t see coming, making the film a little out of the ordinary.

I love Brit Marling, one of my favorite up and coming young actresses, and she doesn’t disappoint in this film. Showing versatility and the ability to be extremely believable in the part, she stands out in the role. Astrid Berges-Frisbey is just quirky enough in the role of Sofi to be likeable, though I think, “Mr. Intellectual” Ian would have become bored with her eventually. The film though is let down by the lead role, played by Michael Pitt. Pitt makes a believable scientist but doesn’t have the charisma to carry the full-screen time that the role demands. He seems to have only one emotion, being staid, and when asked to do more, just doesn’t quite carry it off. There is also very little chemistry between Berges-Frisbey and Pitt, making the scenes seem a little staged. The script, by Cahill just doesn’t quite deliver on the emotional effect that this film needed. There isn’t that “full of wonder” moment that needed to be there. Brit Marling does all she can to help the film, but the movie is ultimately let down by its lead actor and it very slow resolution.

My Rating:  Bargain Matinee

My movie rating system from Best to Worst:  1). I Would Pay to See it Again  2). Full Price  3). Bargain Matinee  4). Cable  5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

"Wish I Was Here" Movie Review

I review "Wish I Was Here" starring Zach Braff, Joey King, Pierce Gagnon.

"Wish I Was Here"

Published on July 18, 2014 on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post

We meet Aidan (Zach Braff) an unemployed actor, husband and father to two kids, as he is fantasying about being a spaceman running from a mysterious man clad in all black. Aidan is brought back to reality by his young son who wants to know the iPad password at the breakfast table. Aidan is having sort of a mid-life crisis at age 35. He hasn’t had an acting job for a while, he learns that his father, Gabe (Mandy Patinkin) has not paid for his kid’s private school tuition (something that his father had agreed to) and his house is badly in need of repair. He is married to Sarah (Kate Hudson), a loving woman who has supported her husband’s dream of being an actor. They have two children, Grace (Joey King), who is immersed into her Jewish heritage and Tucker (Pierce Gagnon), who would rather play video games than pay attention to anything else. Aidan soon learns the reason that his father hasn’t paid the school is that he has cancer and is trying a costly experimental drug treatment.  Sarah and Aidan decide that the only thing they can do is homeschool the kids. This means that Aidan will have to put his acting aspirations on hold.

Braff, who had both box office and critical success with his 2004 film, “Garden State,” doesn’t quite live up to those lofty expectations with this film. The movie, while at times both funny and moving, goes for the easy laugh or the cliché plot point too many times. It’s almost as if this film is a pilot for a network sitcom, especially when Braff’s character comes back with a witty retort so often that you keep waiting for a laugh track. There were a number of things that did work in this film. The interaction between Aidan and his kids is fun to watch. There is a nice rapport between them that feels very natural and loving. Also, I liked the fact that Hudson’s character, Sarah stands by and supports her husband’s quest to become a full-time actor. Sarah guides him to make life changing decisions, but she doesn’t force anything and or overly criticize him.

This film does have some nice, touching moments, most of which occur when the family is trying to connect with each other. There is a wonderful scene near the end of the film where Sarah delivers a moving speech to her father-in-law. Another is where Sarah and Aidan have gone out on a date night to discuss their future. It’s a perfectly shot scene with two people in love trying to reconnect under the moonlight on the beach. Unfortunately, those moments are cheapened by the attempt at the easy joke, such as Sarah being sexually harassed by a cubicle-mate. The amount of sexual harassment that Sarah undergoes would never be as lightly handled in life as it is in the movie.  It just wouldn’t happen in today’s corporate world, and it weakens the script, which is written by Zach Braff and his brother Adam.

As with “Garden State,” music is incredibly important in this film and features songs from Coldplay, Cat Power and Bon Iver. Unfortunately, Braff goes to the well too many times, as when he takes his kids to an auto dealership just so they can ride in an expensive convertible on a test drive. Instead of adding to the plot, it just becomes an oddly placed  “music video” segment inside the movie.  The scene also seems to be a little forced, as to just to give extra spice to the Kickstarter campaign by using Donald Faison cameo as an extra incentive to back the film.

Braff’s  performance, while being in almost every scene in the film, doesn’t  stand out from the rest of the cast. He is just playing a version of himself, though one that isn’t successful as the “Zach Braff actor” in real life. Josh Gad, playing Braff’s slacker brother Noah, sleepwalks through most of his performance, only coming to life when he has a scene with a neighbor (Ashley Greene) who makes “furry” costumes for a living. Two performances do stand out in the film.  Kate Hudson does a wonderful job as the sane person in the marriage. Hudson seems to glow on screen and she has some nice chemistry with Braff, making their conversations real and believable.  Joey King as the older daughter, Grace, masterfully portrays the all too serious girl who seems to have a much better understanding on how people relate to each other than her father does.  King portrays Grace as a girl who at times seems to be the normal 6th-grade girl who has crushes on boys and can’t stand her little brother.  But King also lets Grace have a mature side who is smarter than the adults that are supposed to be teaching her.

“Wish I Was Here” isn’t a bad film, in fact, overall it’s an enjoyable film with some truly moving moments. The film just goes for the easy joke or the predictable scene too many times. It’s something that Braff’s “Garden State,” a film that I enjoy more and more with each viewing, never did. I do want to see Braff try again. Just do a few more re-writes till you start up that next Kickstarter campaign Mr. Braff.   My Rating: Bargain Matinee

My movie rating system from Best to Worst:  1). I Would Pay to See it Again  2). Full Price  3). Bargain Matinee  4). Cable  5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

"Third Person" Movie Review

My review of "Third Person" starring  Liam Neeson, Mila Kunis, Adrien Brody.

"Third Person"

Published on July 11, 2014 on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post

Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

"Third Person"   (2013)

Third Person” involves three sets of couples. In New York, Julia (Mila Kunis) is fighting for her rights as a parent after being accused of trying to kill her young son.  Her lawyer (Maria Bello) is fighting a losing battle as Julia does everything wrong in her efforts to win back custody from her ex-husband, Rick (James Franco). Julia can’t hold a job for long, is perpetually late, and is mired in a depression that she can’t escape. In Paris, Michael (Liam Neeson) has left his wife and is ready to spend the week with his mistress, Anna(Olivia Wilde). Michael is a Pulitzer Prize-winning author whose better work is in his past.  In Rome, Scott (Adrien Brody) is an American businessman who meets Giorgio (Michele Melega) in a bar. Giorgio barely acknowledges Scott at first, but eventually he wears her down, and they strike up a conversation. Scott finds out that Giorgio is in town to meet with a man who is holding her 8-year-old child for ransom. Scott decides to help Giorgio in her quest to get her son back.

And so starts the latest Paul Haggis film, the writer /director who gave us “Crash” (1994). It’s a film filled with characters that all seem to have pasts that they are trying to escape. Julia, the accused mother, seems at first to be a sympathetic character, as we want to believe that the charges against her are unfounded. Michael seems to play the tortured artist to its full hilt. You could start a superb drinking game based on how many times he says, “I’m sorry” to his wife and his mistress. Anna is no bundle of joy herself, seemingly all about playing games with Michael that eventually lead to sex and hurt feelings. Scott, who against his better judgment, can’t stay away from trying to be the knight in shining armor for Giorgio, only to create more problems for her. Even Julia’s lawyer seems to have something hidden in her psyche as she can barely keep her contempt for Julia under control.

Haggis’ screenplay jumps back and forth between the three stories so much it makes the film seem incomplete as we spend a great deal of time with certain characters at the expense of others. There is so much jumping around between the stories that at one point Julia in New York somehow interacts with another character in a hotel room that is in Paris.

While the film has a great cast, I don’t think there are any performances in this film that standout. Liam Neeson never displays any emotion other than self-pity. Olivia Wilde, in the thankless role of the mistress without a heart, isn’t asked to do too much other than pout and act a little crazy.  Of the rest of the ensemble, Mila Kunis is the only cast member whose role seems to be a challenge as a woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown. There is a fragility to Kunis that comes to the surface, especially near the end of the film when she is just beaten down by the system and the actions of her ex-husband.

This is a film that is full of unhappy people, some temporarily finding happiness in one another, only to be broken by one or both partners.  It’s a film where its characters lie to not only their lovers but to themselves. Not until the end of the film do you realize that all these characters in the film have a common thread; unfortunately by that point, you don’t care. You just want to get away from all these unhappy, miserable people and their repressed, hidden problems.  My Rating: Cable

My movie rating system from Best to Worst:  1). I Would Pay to See it Again  2). Full Price  3). Bargain Matinee  4). Cable  5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again

"Life Itself" Movie Review

My review of the documentary "Life Itself"

"Life Itself"

Posted at July 4, 2014 on CWAtlanta.cbslocal.com

Wayback Machine Archive Post 

“Life Itself” (2014)

I was a big fan of the late film critic Roger Ebert.  Not because I agreed with his reviews because truth be told, I agreed more with his “And the Movies” partner, Gene Siskel. No, I was a fan of Roger Ebert because he wrote so well. He had the ability to write about a film and make it such a joy to read. Roger had that uncanny ability to be incredibly knowledgeable but at the same time, write the review as if he was just one of audience members at your local theater. “Life Itself,” the documentary telling the life story of Roger Ebert is also able to skirt that fine line. It’s an extremely smart film but at the same time, makes you feel as you are a part of the Ebert family, enjoying the man and his thoughts on not just film criticism but “Life Itself.”

Filmmaker Steve James (“Hoop Dreams” (1994)) deals with the big elephant in the room right at the start of the film. Roger had gone through a number of procedures to get rid of the cancer in his body, which included taking his whole lower jaw and his tongue.  At first it is a little unnerving watching him with his lower lip and chin just dangling there, but Roger’s spirit and humor are so evident in this film, that it isn’t very long that you are comfortable with his appearance.  He had long come to accept his fate and was determined to live his life to the fullest. The film takes place during the last year of his life. He thought he had beaten the cancer, at a great cost of course, but still had beaten it.  But at the start of the film, Roger has fractured one of his legs and has to go back to physical therapy.  As the film goes on, we learn that the fracture was not caused by a fall, but his bones had been weakened by the onset of more cancerous tumors.

While the film deals with Roger’s fight to continue to live, it also deals with his remarkable career.  One of the aspects that I liked about the film is that it explored what made Roger that man he came to be.  When Roger was just a kid, he started a neighborhood newspaper, which he wrote and then delivered to each of his neighbors.  By age 15, Roger was on the local town paper and while at the University of Illinois at Urbana – Champaign; he became the school’s newspaper editor.  The film points out an interesting event in his career at the university paper.  President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated, and Roger wrote an editorial that in the first paragraph quoted both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Shakespeare’s Macbeth.  Over and over the film shows just how Ebert wasn’t just smart but could express himself in such elegant ways, all the while never seeming pretentious.

The film covers his early days at the Chicago Sun Times, where after being employed at the paper for just six months, he was given the title of film critic of the paper.  There are a number of people interviewed from his days on the paper, and the film doesn’t shrink back from Ebert’s bad qualities. As one of his colleges says in the film; “He’s an asshole, but he is my asshole.” Roger dominated almost any conversation that went on during that time period. As one former bar mate says “Roger was not just the star of his movie that was his life, we was also its director.”

For many early years, Roger drank at bars near the paper late into the night. The film talks frankly about this period and also about Roger’s joining AA to quit drinking.  In fact, we learn that Roger met the love of his life, his wife Chaz, at an AA meeting. While Roger was open about his battle with alcohol, until this film, Chaz has never openly admitted being in AA. The film does an incredible job of showing the love between Roger and Chaz.  The relationship was quite a surprise for both of them. Roger was convinced that he would never find a soul mate and Chaz, was a proud, independent black woman who had never even considered dating a white man, much less falling in love and creating a well live life together.  They were perfect fit for each other, and it showed till the end of his life.

The film blends in some of Roger’s more famous film reviews, letting us understand and feel just how he looked at film and the excitement he felt when he discovered a movie he could champion. The film also does a great job showing us the dynamic between Roger and Gene Siskel, the rival Chicago Tribune film critic that would be forever tied to Ebert.  The film showcases that the two were rivals, barely acknowledging each other until they were on camera. The movie goes in depth on the creation of their famous show, a program that early on wasn’t a great success but soon made Siskel and Ebert, with their two “thumbs up,” the most popular film critics in the world.  As the producer of their “Siskel and Ebert and the Movies” TV show says “At first the studios helped us. Then they hated us, and finally, they feared us.”  The movie does an excellent job of showing the working relationship between the two, showing some hilarious outtakes of their review show.  One of the most fascinating aspects of the film is how Siskel and Ebert decided everything that they disagreed with while producing the show.  Whether it was which name would go first on the title or who would sit next to Johnny Carson on “The Tonight Show,” it was all settled by a flip of a coin.

This is a fascinating film, sometimes sad, sometimes funny, but never dull or slow moving. Roger Ebert was an intelligent man who could express himself so well that he won the Pulitzer Prize; something at the time had never been won by a film critic. As one of his colleagues describes Roger as “The definitive mainstream film critic in American letters.” The film is worthy of its subject and ultimately we come away from the film knowing that Ebert as the great film director Martin Scorsese says about the man “He really loved films.”   My Rating: I Would Pay to See it Again

My movie rating system from Best to Worst:  1). I Would Pay to See it Again  2). Full Price  3). Bargain Matinee  4). Cable  5). You Would Have to Pay Me to See it Again