Boyhood

Upon release, this movie got a lot of praise for its unique concept of filming a story over a decade with the same actors, allowing the audience to see the young boy grow to manhood. I think many observers got caught up in the gimmick and glossed over the key film-making mechanism in that idea: the experience of seeing the actors--particularly the children--age over a compressed time period creates an artificial sense of long-term familiarity. That is, the viewer gets the impression that he knows these people like friends or family, which raises the quotient of caring about what happens to this boy, this family, these people. Had this story been filmed in three months, with different young actors representing the stages of the children's lives, viewers would be faced with the fact that, in and of itself, any given individual's life cycle is not especially meaningful or interesting to an outside observer. But develop that artificial sense of intimacy, as this movie does, and you find yourself caring about these characters far beyond anything on the screen--in terms of "story"--actually demands. It's a unique experience, to be sure, and worth seeing for yourself--but perhaps it's not as profound as some might have you believe.

Lost Highway

Yes, it's exactly the sort of pulpy, avant-garde noir you'd expect David Lynch to make. Which is to say, it's brilliant...or possibly retarded--sometimes it's hard to tell. The few clues we have: murky storytelling, amateur hour acting (I've seen better acting in an Ed Wood flick), a turgid pace--and all that's before the inexplicable story shift. I can be forgiving, but not that forgiving.