Boyhood
Billy Hicks
Posts: 475 Forum Member
✭
Absolutely the best movie of the year if not the decade so far, indeed one of the most remarkable films I've ever seen. Took 11 years to film, starting in 2002 and finishing late last year and following a kid growing up from the age of 6 to 18, highs and lows involving his family/friends along the way and various news and cultural events (Iraq, Obama, Lady Gaga etc) integrated into the storyline
It's been done as a documentary before but as a scripted drama it's pretty groundbreaking, and huge credit to the cast for staying with it for the whole time. Sadly it's on a stupidly limited release and not on in all cinemas, anyone else seen it yet?
It's been done as a documentary before but as a scripted drama it's pretty groundbreaking, and huge credit to the cast for staying with it for the whole time. Sadly it's on a stupidly limited release and not on in all cinemas, anyone else seen it yet?
0
Comments
The most recognisable actors in this are Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette who play the parents. The boy's sister is played by Richard Linklater's own real-life daughter. Her scenes when she's young are hilarious. Proper LOL moments.
Brilliant soundtrack and i LOVED the opening. Totally put me on a high and in a good mood.
Films like this are one in a million, this is one to be cherished. Hats off to Linklater and all the cast. Being deservedly praised left, right and centre with 5 star reviews in most places.
Just like Transformers 4, this is also 2hrs and 45mins long but you don't notice it and well this is well worth watching.
Let the moment sieze you.
You'd think that these big multiplex cinemas would free up 2 or 3 screens to show independent dramas like this, but no. Instead they're focused on herding people in and out of the mainstream tosh like cattle, meaning that nothing interesting like this gets any real exposure to a wider audience. I think that's a crying shame, personally.
The film does what it sets out to do extremely well. The trouble is that it does not set out to be compelling or dramatic or absorbing. It took me almost an hour to realise that nothing was actually going to happen in the film in the dramatic sense of the word. Hitchcock once memorably said that 'Movies are real life with the boring parts cut out'. What Linklater manages to do is take those boring bits and make them watchable.
The film is not without its flaws. It is never explained why Mason Sr goes from being a slacker wannabe musician to an actuary or why he ends up married to a woman from a Bible-thumping Texas family. One of the film's funniest scenes is where Mason's new grandparents give him his birthday presents; a Bible, a smart suit complete with shirt and tie and a shotgun. You get the feeling that, instead of a birthday party, they'll take him on his first picket of the local abortion clinic. I guess Linklater's point is that odd things do happen in real life. In addition, major characters drop into the film and then out of it with no explanation as to what has happened to them. Again, authentic and no doubt intentional but the constant ellipsis wears after a while.
As a meditation on the passing of time and the nature of life, the film works extremely well. Life not only consists of milestones like births and marriages but all the small things in between; a fun camping trip, a joyous bowling outing, a graduation party. It will resonate much more with American rather than UK audiences, I think, as it is deeply rooted in recent American events and culture. However, the film's message that life is truly fleeting is universal. At one point Mason says that 'It's always right now' and he is, of course, correct. At another point, Mason's mother's tearful reflection on her life is that 'I just thought...there would be much more' will strike a chord with anyone in middle age. Linklater does indeed get over his Proustian message about the importance of the tiniest details of our lives.
This is undoubtedly a good film but I think Linklater's undeniable technical achievements have dazzled many critics and fooled them into thinking it is some kind of masterpiece. I is not but it is a fine film and should stand out in the particularly barren year that we are so far having.
Yes, it really is a great movie. To call it a masterpiece is going over the top but the film will be regarded as a classic in years to come. If you want a movie to touch your heart and stir your soul this does it.
There is no gimmick. So it took a long time to make and uses the same actors, so what? You can say the same thing about the next Avatar movie.
Here's a link to Empire's 5/5 review and they sum it up nicely - 'Linklater’s beautiful film is an extraordinary achievement — tender, funny, wise and wistful, full of warmth and humanity'.
I'll also give you DS's very own 5 star review.
It is playing at GFT.
To take your rather specific points:
No, it is not a masterpiece but it is a very good film. If it's a choice between this and Transfomers 4, pick the former.
Acting is universally excellent. Patricia Arquette in particular.
Plot? Forget it, this is a character-driven film in the purest sense of the phrase. Don't expect dramatic moments of conflict resolution, don't wait for some trailed disaster. Linklater suggests all this but it doesn't happen. Relax and pay attention to what is happening - don't try to anticipate what might happen - bit like life really.
Gimmick? Well, making a film over twelve years sounds like a gimmick but it's actually a tremendous risk and extraordinarily ambitious. That said, the way it is made does seem to have over-shadowed the substance of the film. Critical appraisal seems driven by Linklater's deservedly remarkable technical achievement and has glossed over the failings of the film as a piece of storytelling.
My advice is to go and see it. Heck, what else are you going to watch? Some twät doing a 1970s drag act in an Irish accent?
haha! ok I am definitely going to see this, to see what all the fuss is about. Although if I'm honest it doesn't sound like the kind of film I will enjoy
Boy filmed from ages 6-18 (like we have never heard that before)
A feel good story about the tribulations of growing up (like we have never heard that before)
How a nation / family react to significant moments in history (like we have never heard that before)
I guess its just one of those films that somehow all comes together spectacularly but simplistically its hard to see why it will probably sweep the oscars
I can kinda see why you view it in that way; the critics have not been very helpful in explaining why it is a good film.
You dismiss the premise of filming a group of protagonists over 12 years as being un-original. It has actually been done very rarely before and certainly not in this way. If you have 'seen it before', I for one, would be delighted to know where.
I am also a bit baffled as to your apparent objection that the film is not being 'sold universally'. Of course you are correct that is not in the multiplexes but, then again, what decent film is these days? If you want some noisy CGI cartoon or a homoerotic comic character costume drama, knock yourself out. Genuinely good films almost always slip under the franchise radar these days and rightly so..
I think you have been misled if you think that the film has moments of 'reaction to significant events'. It really does not. This is not a conventional Hollywood film with tearful 'resolution' points. It does not ram home its message with gunfights or car chases or dramatic arguments or people coming to improbable Hollywood happy endings.
Heck, i don't know why I'm even defending this film; it did not blow me away. However, it is undoubtedly a good film and there are thin on the ground this year. Have a look; Transformers 4 is the same length and I would not wish that on anyone.
My Cineworld in Glasgow is showing it and I was in a packed screening. Probably because it has 18 screens.
I meant sold universally as its message as why the viewer should go out and see it, rather than it being in a multitude of cinemas worldwide
I imagine that it doesn't have the Hollywood action cliches but more of a how a nation recovers from 9/11 / death of Michael Jackson etc.. and how it is viewed from a boy growing up; hell I'm only speculating here as I can't imagine they can spend 2 hours 45 mins on how he recovers from his first pet to die or board game wins around the table for thanksgiving!
Tell me about it, barely any films look worth watching this year that have been released. I wanted to see Under the Skin but that was out of the cinemas quicker than you could say "Under the Skin"
Sorry, but you're totally getting the wrong idea here. It doesn't even have that.
It literally is the story of a boy growing up from the age of 6 to 18 and the trials and tribulations he goes through. That's it. Nothing else. He is the main focus of the entire running time incl. moments with his parents, sister, his friends and gf's.
Excellent review. Particularly agree with the part in bold.
Whilst I thoroughly enjoyed the film, I wonder whether I would have found it more emotionally moving had I been American. As a Brit watching a film like this, it still had a vague whiff of the glossy unreal sitcom air about it.
Have to agree with you here. I saw the movie a few days ago, and was underwhelmed. Yes, it is a technical achievement, yes, it's interesting to see them all age within the films running time, but my god what a bore. I never usually listen to critics anyway, but this time they certainly have been bowled over by the technique rather than the film itself.
It just dragged for me. There were moments that were good, but it felt like the emperors new clothes really. Nothing very interesting about the plot or dialogue, which to me, are very important to a film. At 3 hours it is way too long, it should have been made no longer than 2. Ethan Hawke doesn't impress me much as an actor either, and the scene in the car when he was asking the kids about their day annoyed me, like it felt very forced, in order to 'say' something about family life.
Hawke is a fine actor and a subtle one. The scene in the car where he says that he wants to converse properly with his kids and get them to open up and articulate what they feel is an important of his character. This is echoed later in the film in a similar conversation involving Mason Jr.
This is also part of Linklater's message about life and memory; like Proust, Mason wants to know the details of what is happening, of what people feel. Life is fleeting. If you don't focus on the 'right now', how will you enjoy it and remember it?
Yes i agree that the message is an interesting one, but hardly needs such a long running time. I think it's the kind of film I can only watch once. I still firmly believe that it wouldn't have garnered all the praise if it weren't for the 12yrs in the making technique.
I thought it was a tremendous film, and I haven't stopped thinking about it since it ended. It beautifully captures how fleeting and fast-moving life really is. As I'm a similar age to Mason Jr at the end of the film, I felt I could relate a lot to the changes he went through in the particular time he grew up - the film cleverly used quite subtle cultural references so you knew which particular year they were in.
I found it very poignant - childhood goes far too quickly and you're left with only a few memories of what is perhaps the most fun period of your life. My Dad, who I went to watch it with, also found it poignant, particularly in relation to watching me and my sisters grow up. He agreed that it has all gone so quickly for him as well.
For me, the film didn't drag at all. I wanted to savour every moment of it and the time just flew by. Ellar Coltrane was great as Mason Jr, particularly in the latter half of the movie when he could really show off his acting chops. Though Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke really stood out as Mason Jr's parents. That scene towards the end of the film where Mason Sr acknowledges to Olivia what a great job she's done with the kids was fantastic.
I agree with others that this will resonate a lot more with an American audience. However, the UK is so culturally similar to America now that there was still a lot in there that I could relate to. Though, as someone else up-thread said, its themes are pretty universal.
The film wasn't perfect. I found the philosophical chats about the meaning of life in the latter half of the film to be pretty wearing. The film on its own was addressing that question brilliantly, so I don't really know what the purpose of the characters also nattering on about it was. We didn't need to be told about it, as the film was showing us the answer to the question already. Also, I found the bit where the Hispanic guy reappears to thank Olivia to be quite jarring. I guess that Linklater included it to show that Olivia had in fact made someone's life worthwhile, even though she felt that it had all been pointless. But its inclusion seemed random, and I felt it came at the expense of following up on other dropped storylines and characters that may have been more interesting.
Overall though, I found the film to be a gem. It's certainly the best film I've seen this year so far. Richard Linklater really has an eye for the subtle and everyday moments that truly capture what life is all about. It really does go so quickly, doesn't it?
Yes, that did feel a bit shoehorned in. The film wears its liberal heart on its sleeve so exposition about the value of education felt superfluous. I wonder if it was aimed more at US audiences. Mind you, Linklater barely puts a foot wrong for the rest of the film...
Was absolutely engrossed for start to finish. We had no idea it was filmed over 12 years so when it finished, my OH googled it as we couldn't make out how the boy grew up but still resembled his younger self....
And to say that my OH gets fidgety if a film is longer than 1hr 30 mins....and he did not move until it finished.....this film is a masterpiece.