To read the critics' reviews, one would think that this film was the Mona Lisa of cinema and that Linklater was the second coming of da Vinci.
Well, color me unimpressed.
There was really nothing to this film besides the central gimmick. Take that away and I doubt that it would have registered a blip on the radar.
[deleted]
^And this.
Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.
This film was boring and hadn't thing going for it except that they shot it over the course of 12 years. MY life is more interesting than this film, and Ive never said that in comparison to a movie before.
shareHere is why I though Boyhood was a masterpiece:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1065073/board/thread/240989390
Except the fantastic acting, the great pacing, the awesome directing, the slice of life reality aspect of it, and watching someone truly go through a real looking adolescence, sure, there's nothing left but the gimmick.
Using real actors over that long of a time period heightened the movie in just about every way, but it's not the only redeeming factor as to why this got 100% from almost every critic. It also has a super high user rating, so it appears the critics and the average audience member disagrees with you. Sorry.
It's perfectly fine not to like it, not every movie is for every person, but to claim it only has one well done factor is silly and somewhat ignorant honestly.
I remember seeing a movie nobody else heard of or wanted to see at a little theatre in Chicago called "Napoleon Dynamite" and I thought it was funny and crazy but my point is had the critics gotten ahold of it and touted it as this or that it woulda ruined it for most people because they expect things. I hadn't heard of this, then I really wanted to see it, then forgot about it only to see it today and it was just a good flic, nothing amazing but worth the watch. I think the best movies I've ever seen aren't the movies critics like anyways.
shareYou do bring up a good point -- the "anticlimax" factor.
However, the only reason I made a point of seeing it is because of all the hosannas it received.
So, classic Catch-22.
I agree with you. It is unbelievably boring.
I was disappointed because I thought this film would be different than so many of today's films that all seem to be based on comic book characters and are filled with a lot of cgi effects, but devoid of cleverness or heart.
Well it turned out to be different, but not in the way I was expecting. Some people might think those of us who didn't like the film felt that way because there was too much talking, but that's not true. Most of my favorite movies all feature great dialogue. I like talking in movies, but the characters have to be talking about something that matters, not just chewing the scenery.
An example of an amazing movie that is mostly dialogue is the brilliant Glengarry Glen Ross. It's full of pathos, wit and sharp exchanges between the characters.
Boyhood, on the other hand, is just one scene after another of the characters talking about nothing interesting. The acting ranges from wooden to over dramatic and none of it feels sincere or real.
There are some exceptions, such as the section of the film featuring the mother's second husband. It was interesting seeing him go from an apparently nice, mild mannered guy to a scary, abusive drunk and it was the only part of the movie the involved real drama or made me care about what was happening. However that was just a small part in a long and otherwise dull film.
It really was a very overrated. While it was cool watching Mason grow from a child to a young man, that and the previously mentioned scenes with the step father, just weren't enough to carry a 3 hour film. I certainly don't think it was deserving of all the critical accolades it received.
I don't really feel like this movie will stand the test of time. It had an interesting gimmick, but wasn't an interesting movie and I think it will eventually be forgotten once the novelty of its gimmick wears off.
Spot on, MissGoldHeart! Like you, I found the part with the second husband the only interesting part of the film. I suppose that Linklater was going for some slice-of-life approach to the whole project. But even slice-of-life should have an overall dramatic arc, and if it is going to be nothing more that a series of vignettes, then those vignettes have to be WAY more interesting than what is on display here. "This is him as a little boy... this is him as an older boy... this is him as a teenager" is not remotely interesting on its own.
And, yes, Glengarry Glen Ross is great! As a dramatist, David Mamet leaves Linklater in the dust.
soooo boring--couldn't stay awake--zzzz
shareGo home, hipster.
share