Do you remember John Singleton’s Boyz n the Hood? It was about teenagers from wealthy families deprived of the well-being of the ghetto. But it was a long time ago, and it could well have been linked to the paradigm of racism and segregation. But in the hopelessness of the young inhabitants of the ghetto, a certain sophistication could be found. It's about youth. And here, in Linklater’s Adolescence, we are told about representatives of the “golden billion”, who must probably be incredibly happy and successful already after their birth. Many are jealous of them, but it turns out that everything is not so simple. So why is it so difficult?
Linklater courageously tries to understand the modern matrix of social realities by boldly choosing the format of extended timekeeping. Moreover, he does not hesitate to fix attention on the most modest nuances of family life. And all for the sake of an adult individual stating seemingly obvious facts. Expensive are the confessions of the main character about his frustration associated with predetermination in his life and the actual lack of opportunity to make personal choices. This is Linklater’s answer to the silently asked question of what “adolescence” is. It is the appearance of the young hero of his own opinion independent of external stimuli that is the main marker here.
But in such a difficult existential quest and passes the spiritual life of many young people in all corners of the “civilized” world. Linklater studying questions of family and personality gets to the point. Carefully, exquisitely, elegantly, without unnecessary bloody metaphors (as in the "Fast Food Nation") and fantastic allusions (as in "Obscurrence").
Even somewhat annoying that most of the audience, it seems to me, “grabbed” only the original form of the tape – the shooting, stretching over time for more than ten years. However, the time has not yet come for universal recognition of the obvious truths. While, apparently, you just need to be content with the unexpected recognition of this picture (I’m sure many it seemed accidental). Having fun with the form, Linklater grasps some of the basic mechanisms of a rapidly changing era. This is expensive.
Watched "Boyhood." Richard Linklater’s new film had already stirred people’s minds long before it was released. The reason for this was a 12-year (!!!) filming process. Think of it! But even after the film began screening in theaters, he did not cease to surprise: the average rating of “Boyhood” on the website Metacritick.com is equal to the average. 100/100. Now let's go into more detail.
The film shows the childhood and youth of Texan Mason Evans, whose parents are divorced. The story spans twelve years (from the first grade at school to the first day at college) and consists of small episodes of his life, showing the growing up and relationship with the parents of a child, teenager, young man. The script was written by Richard Linklater himself, the author of such films as Before Dawn, Before Midnight, and Darkness. The story, which tells about the growing up of a boy, touches the soul from the first minutes. The attention that the author of the script approaches to creating the character of the characters of the film cannot but admire, because Richard Linklater touches on very important topics of modern society and the modern family. The film tells about the attitude of parents and their children, and about the first love, about going to college and saying goodbye to childhood. Each viewer will find in the plot of the film something reminiscent of the moments of his childhood or the first steps of entering adulthood. But Linklater’s main merit is that he showed the character of his characters from all sides, so that we could make our impression and get to know the characters more deeply.
Making one film for 12 years is a very time-consuming process, but the American director did a great job. The director's hand is visible in the film in almost every frame. You can feel that for him it is not just another filming process, but a matter of life. And it’s no surprise that filming began in 2002 at Linklater’s home because he was willing to give his all to the film. But the most important thing he achieved is that he made a real family out of the actors, who grow up and live together for many years. And this means that the relationship on the set is completely different, that there is complete dedication to work and the actors play, first of all, with their heart. I think this is the peak of directorial skill. Richard Linklater is proud of his creation. This is the director’s masterpiece!
It's the actors' turn. I will not slander here by saying that each deserves its own praise. The main character is played, until recently, by the little-known actor Allar Coltrane, and watching him and his character grow up from year to year is extremely unusual and interesting. His father and mother were played by Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette. Both actors played amazingly well. It was so interesting to watch the actors in a long time. I always thought of Ethan Hawke as a very talented actor, but he didn’t reach his full potential. Any appearance of his character on the screen makes the film more alive, and watching how he communicates with his children is a pleasure. And if Ethan Hawke was known to a wide range of viewers, then Patricia Arquette was a revelation to everyone, including me. I haven't seen any of her work before this movie (as a shame and shame on me), but I can't help but enjoy her performance. Arquette played great. You really believe that life over the past 12 years has rattled her pretty well: a failed marriage, income problems, escorting children into adulthood. And when you watch the last scenes with Arquette, you feel sorry for her and she causes some sincere feelings in you, which means that she coped with her role perfectly. The whole cast deserves praise and I will definitely be rooting for them at the Oscars and Golden Globes.
Bottom line: "Adolescence" is a very strong, vital and truthful movie. The complete triumph of Richard Linklater, who deserves all the praise and many awards. Say goodbye to the characters, because each of them brought into the life of the boy something special. This film is not only about the growing up of a boy, but also about the development of life in America. Amazing movie! And even after watching "Boyhood" does not let you go and remains in memory for a very long time, and it is already expensive.
This film is like a life lived while watching!
Why did I watch this movie? Because R. Linklater, because E. Hawk! A large-scale project at 12 years old is not bad advertising, isn’t it, including the significant names of the actors, writer and director in one person? The film is about the growing up of children, mainly Mason, from the age of 7, to his admission to college. The film is long and a little boring, lasts more than two hours and it always seems that now and something grandiose will happen. But. Alas. Nothing's going on. Everything at the pace of life, unremarkable. Maybe that’s the thing about the movie, that there are no super scenes that excite and immediately exalt the film. There may be some depth beyond the actual growing up of children (and it is a risk to start this and implement your plan!), but I think even my school years were much more fun, interesting and richer than those shown here. You could probably add more intrigue, rather than reduce everything to changing hairstyles.
Favorite moment – as the father gives his son on the 16th anniversary of the disc in which the Beatles he reassembled especially for him.
Through washing and skating, the feature film Boyhood was screened. Curious fact: the film shows 12 years of the life of GG and his family, and he was filmed. Bingo! 12 years. The director decided that it would be right, and even provided a successor for the role of director, in order to complete the picture, if he did not live to see the bright day of the release of the film. Fortunately, previously known to me only one film ("The Awakening of Life, which I honestly tried to watch 2 times and both times fell asleep in a sweet baby's sleep) Richard Linklater, alive and well, and smiling from the photos.
“Adolescence” is what is commonly called “good criticism.” Actually, I came across this film on the website Rotten Tomatoes, where it received high marks from the discerning public. In the Russian-language Internet, the picture causes conflicting reviews - from complete delight to weakly hidden yawning.
“The steering wheel is out there,” Mulder said as he got in the car. I mean, in my case, the truth is somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, the film captures a beautiful picture, the regularity and naturalness of what is happening in the frame. It is far from the pursuit of some roof-bearing plot and shows absolutely ordinary and everyday scenes from the life of a simple American family. The picture shows the sequential maturation of a 12-year-old teenager (from 7 to 18 years old) with characteristic sketches, not without tact, and practically without vulgarity.
At the same time, not everyone will be able to withstand 3 hours of screen time in such a downtempo, given that we are not offered to watch any kind of intense narrative in internal drama. Undoubtedly, certain eternal problems in the film rise, but, admittedly, rather sluggish. I would not say that the level of drama rises at least 1/10 from, say, the picture “Idiot” by Ivan Pyriev (the best film adaptation of this work, in my opinion, so, unfortunately, not finished). I like movies about the American heartland and all that. But the film causes criticism not only and not so much protracted as a general feeling of some understatement. Bribing with naturalness and intentional withdrawal from the boring Hollywood cliches, he does not give in return enough depth to make you truly empathize with what is happening inside. In some ways, the film resembles an ordinary chronicle. Those things that could be emphasized by the director, accentuated, shown with some cold detachment: it is not clear what the author himself feels for his characters and, most importantly, does he feel anything at all?
Do I regret spending time watching this movie? Nope. Will I review it? See the previous answer.
When watching "Boyhood" came to mind such a good film as "Fireflies in the Garden." The story told in "Fireflies..." in some ways echoes "Boyhood," also telling the story of one family over the years. At the same time, the pace and tonality of "Fireflies ..." seem much more meaningful in emotional terms.
It looks like the movie is bad, but it’s not. The final scene is wonderful (as well as the first). It is a pity, the atmosphere of this dreamy brooding, the director did not have enough for the whole film. See "comfortably numb" today's deficit:
One of those films that will be remembered for a lifetime.
Adolescence is one of those films that leave a lasting impression after watching for many years. And it is not so much the real maturation of the main characters, although this is the cornerstone of the picture, but the dialogue and essence of the film. The slowness of the narrative and the development of events is so immersive that you involuntarily begin to associate yourself with the main characters. You begin to remember your childhood, youth, adolescence. Seeing the same things you did wrong. The same problems, the same relationships that seemed important then. But everything flows, everything changes and we change.
Truth be told, the movie is hard to watch. It is difficult because life is mercilessly shown in it. And even more difficult to accept that nothing will return, you are different and the people around you have also grown up – they are different. The dialogue between son and father at the end of the film about the relationship between the sexes is so true and profound that it completely blurs the lines between countries and generations. We are all the same on every continent and we are concerned about the same problems.
Unlike the problems of relationships between parents, children, sexes, the topic of friendship was paid very little attention. Sorry. Friendship, true male friendship, is one of the life jackets of this world. Perhaps the absence of a true friend made the protagonist so vague and phlegmatic, showing who we really are without true friends.
Very heartbreaking transformation of the mother of the protagonist. That's for whom the soul hurts, so it's for her and the Oscar for acting is quite justified.
The film is definitely recommended for viewing, to once again remember, touch, live your youth. And then draw conclusions and with full life eyes go on.
10 out of 10
P.S. It is a pity that such films did not exist during my teenage years.
How delightfully this film floats on the tops of the mountain slopes, how gently and smoothly it flows at a quiet pace andante. A melting narrative covered by the inevitable, elusive, unconscious passage of time.
A delightful narrative, unparalleled in its kind, immerses us in the almost tangible world of a boy whose life is a mirror opening, whose adolescence is the main essence. The gradual maturation of the main character is so honed in all aspects that you unwittingly recall your own childhood and notice how sensually the film reflects reality. There are no exaggerations, no unnecessary colors here, which is why fans of action plot may seem bland and unremarkable. Twelve years of filming led to the creation of a masterpiece, to a film, which is a film in the traditional sense of the word, can not be called because this picture is a reflection of reality in all its authenticity.
“Adolescence” is a complicated film with external simplicity and this, in my opinion, is its dignity. Almost three-hour tape looks in one breath, it is easy and beautiful to lie the plot in the amalgam of various segments of life, and in the end leaves a bitter-sweet aftertaste and light chills.
This is a film-river, a film-mirror, a film-wind.
9 out of 10
The film is long, ordinary and I thought just boring. Although critics think otherwise... As young people say, the “trick” here is that in the story, the hero imagines himself growing up throughout the picture – from a small boy to a college student. In the plot there is no sharpness, delicacy, clinginess, intrigue. Heroes do not stand out, this is strange, if only because there are many events in their lives - the mother of the main character is married three times, her first husband, like Khlestakov, "with ease in unusual thoughts," also finds a calm friend.
The hero grows up, but somehow without enthusiasm. Speaks in youth slang, with a mother, almost always banal. Finds a friend who, having barely slept with him, immediately cheats on him. In general, there is no basic idea, concept, highlight. As a relevant example – Khotinenko put a film show – “Born in the USSR”, which aroused universal interest (especially his heroes-children, since they were sincere), this is first. And secondly, there was also a short masterpiece of Istvan Szabo (?) from the series “10 minutes older”, in these 10 minutes the whole life of the hero – with his emotions, desires and feelings – from a young man to an old man, but so brightly, with such filigree precision of the artist and director... (Here’s an old man looking at young girls fidgeting on bicycles.) But in time an apple falls on his head - know, they say, his time and place.
Maybe reading this would be more interesting than watching a movie. It was such a masterpiece for Tolstoy. What is the role of writer and director? As a plus - there are beautiful landscapes in the film (at the end). There are beautiful shots... And in general — it shows the routine life — so here it is. I also have a personal motive - watching this saga, I missed the first-class film "The Hustle" on TV.
6 out of 10
For some reason, from the very beginning, it seemed that the film would not be particularly interesting, superficial, not deep and I don’t even know whether it was because of the lyrical poster, or because of the title, but the high awards still pushed to view the tape. A week to watch - I watch a boring movie for a long time and here I write a review.
I agree with the opinion that the film turned out extremely dull, monotonous. The first 40 minutes I waited for a tie-up and now she seems to have appeared with a drunken stepfather, but it turned out that this is just one of the household scenes, after an hour and a half of painful viewing, I realized that there is no plot in the film and will not be. Just a stupid narrative of the lives of people, and not the most interesting, not the most successful or vice versa, and so you know the usual gray mice, which are already 7 billion. We see this kind of life with you every day, and we live this way ourselves – why else to watch a movie about it is a mystery to me. But even this did not work out, some all staged, theatrical, fake. Well, let’s say we wanted to make this movie narrative, well, we could at least add some highlights, such as Mason’s passion for photography. Here would take off how he was fond of the photo, but he did not succeed - well, as it happens in real life, so it was not necessary to make him a genius photographer ... All his relationships with girls look so unnatural and playful that I don’t even want to discuss it. But the mother-heroine is an eternal victim, with some delusional sales, fuss and her everyday problems - why load the viewer with all this? Emptiness and decay. There is no story, there is nothing to see and nothing to see.
So, why did this film have a great success? 12 years of filming is the answer. Brilliant! This is the main thing, this has never happened before. And no matter what the film is about nothing, but in 3 hours you can see the actors as much as 12 years. It seems like a good idea, but the creators of the film did not take into account one thing that people will change, in general, this is what they wanted to show, but this world is not perfect. Let’s say the first stage of filming, cast, all polished, beautiful, fit, ready to work. In the lead role, a cute cute boy - everything is fine here. Here passes some time, comes the next stage of shooting and what we see, the actors are far from the same, no, they are the same, but themselves as actors are no longer fit for anything. And why, but everything is simple – 12 years is a huge period, people during this time live changing, someone gets fat, someone loses weight, someone has health problems, etc. And you know, you can see it on the screen. As for the main actor - so this is the biggest failure, the child grew up and just stupidly could not play - he is not an actor, there is no acting in him.
In the end, we don’t have a movie as planned, but some kind of reality show of the lives of ordinary American actors. Instead of watching the movie, I was looking at people, the lack of plot was just that. And why I was disgusted by all of this, I didn't like to look at it all: this teenager with his transitional age, all these people with their real and artistic lives, and the plot that wasn't there, it was just as repulsive.
A simple story about the growing up of the main character, which, on the one hand, is a plus for the film, since many will associate themselves with the heroes and nostalgic for their adolescence. On the other hand, sometimes you want from the script not to describe the everyday life of the main character, but something more.
But the implementation of "Boyhood" is very good because of Richard Linklater's directing and Ethan Hawke's acting work. And in addition to the question of growing up, "Boyhood" is a very interesting chronicle of American culture of the early XXI century - from the war in Iraq to Harry Potter and the Dark Knight.
As for the secret of the success of Linklater’s tape, there are 2 points. The first is a new approach to making a movie in real time. On the one hand, nothing, in general, would not change, using Linklater makeup and special effects, but from a somewhat innovative approach nowhere to go.
Second, it's theme. The focus of cinema has always been on extraordinary personalities and stories, whether it's Captain America or McConaughey's space journey. Or Terrence Malick in his somewhat similar film about the problems of growing up all the time pulled beyond one-story America. Films about everyday life and the most ordinary heroes are relatively few. Basically, it is either indie or not the closest to Americans European and Asian purely festival tapes. And there are many aspiring indie directors, and their professional level is far from the recognized authors of American cinema. In “Boyhood”, the theme sought by many is simple and therefore close to the viewer of life is revealed just by an experienced and recognized director, which determined the great success of the film.
8 out of 10
The fact that this film was shot for 12 years, does not know, probably, only those who are very far from cinema. Manufacturers even put this fact in the slogan. Apparently, nothing else remarkable was found... But really, what can the film “Boyhood” boast? This is not a picture that tells us an exciting and interesting story that stretches over a long period of time. This is not a 12-year adventure. It is more appropriate to compare this film with a video album - family chronicles adapted for the general public.
We witness as Mason grows up, as he explores the world and tries to find meaning. This has been happening for almost three hours. The family moves from place to place, changing locations, people, but in fact there is no plot. I assume that it was not the plot at all that was the director’s goal and idea, but without the story as a framework that brings together heroes and events, it is difficult for me to perceive this picture as something holistic. Perhaps the case could have corrected the main conflict, or a few conflicts, strangling the hero from the inside, and thereby pushing the narrative forward, but this did not happen. No, they were, of course, but left behind. Here Mason has a fight with his stepfather, and in the next shots this stepfather is no longer, and no one mentions him; here Mason is happy with his girlfriend, they are no longer together and the crumpled conversation barely brings some order to what is happening. Everything else is the same. Because of such moves, the film was not perceived as a drama, did not cause strong emotions. I think the picture, filled with events from the life of the boy, is more focused on evoke in the souls of the audience some associations with his growing up, pull from the depths of pleasant and not very memories, and thus win some favor. Anyway, I stayed away. That is why such a flurry of sympathies and delights from critics and all kinds of cinematic awards was somewhat surprised.
“Adolescence” does not give intelligible answers, does not show something extraordinary, but only tries to convey the life of a simple boy who is not going to be anyone’s hero, but only trying to find a path leading to his moment, to Mason’s moment in life. And the song "Hero," which sounds a little bit closer to the credits, sounds like it's an idea that's so simple and simple. Maybe that’s what the director wanted. Transmitting life itself to the screen? But is that possible?
There is not much to say about acting. Only Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke held their gaze. They are also professional actors. Ellar Coltrane did not disappoint, but did not give anything special either. His hero, though in the center of all the turmoil, but somehow looked pale.
The film "Boyhood" is interesting as a kind of cinematic experiment that did not fail, and now will be a kind of, say, very valuable experience, but no more. This is not the picture that is able to impress to the depths of the soul, to cause catharsis, but at the same time, for some reasons inexplicable to me, causes some charm, amplified by the beautiful melodies of songs.
7 out of 10
Fiction Film winner of a decent number of prestigious film awards. The life story of a boy named Mason covers a time period from 7 years to 18 years of a young man.
This film is truly unique in the world of art cinema. To think this movie was made for 11 years. A decade about how a person grew up and with uncertain movements became on his feet. How the world around him and his inner world have changed.
But, unfortunately, this creation can not be called a great work. And before I'm likely to face a wave of misunderstanding, I'll explain in detail why I'm saying that. Yes, the film is unique, I would even say that it is very significant in the history of cinema, because it may have spawned a whole path of films. Movies we’ll probably be watching many years from now. However, uniqueness alone will not go far. The picture does not show the artistic message that extends through time. Not the idea that the author laid down at the very beginning of the film, so that we could see it until the very end. Instead, there is not even a parable or, in the end, an interesting story. Just imagine that this film was shot in just a couple of years and the main character would play different actors. Remove mentally that very highlight of twelve years of work, and now what interesting will remain of the picture!? What value is it? Richard Linklater was never able to write the final script of the work, from which he wrote it along the way, and every year of filming, making significant changes to it. From this, it is quite possible to conclude that “Life is an unpredictable current that can turn anywhere”, similarly justify the writer’s screenplay sloppiness. So you can even come up with an excuse for any pile of trash. But apparently, the person who shot this tape did not even think about why he was making this movie. All the now deceased philosophers of the world would weep while watching, and not with tears of happiness.
Ultimately is baffled by the incredible number of major awards from various prestigious film academies, such as the Oscars, Golden Globes, British Academy and many others. Another proof of the non-competence of these structures, although I was overzealous about the competence. The heads of these guilds promote only the cinema they see fit, like this!
In general, I want to summarize: the film is not as sad as it may seem from this review. It's just that he's been grossly overrated, under all the wrappers of awards and stuff, there's ordinary mediocrity. I only tried to explain that people need to be more attentive to what they watch, listen, eat, etc.
The film "Boyhood", rightfully deserves the title of soap bubble of 2014
This film by director and screenwriter Richard Linklater enters a new level of cinema and cinema in general. The film was shot for twelve years, and in this movie we see the story of the life and growing up of a boy. We see him grow, and we are shown the most important moments of his life twelve years from first grade to college.
This movie is like a window into someone’s real life. We see how the main character really grows up and from a boy becomes an adult, charming guy. The idea of the film is good, and the movie as a whole turned out well. It's spiritual and vital. Everything in it is shown realistically and as it happens in life, so this picture pleased me so much.
I previously unknown young actor Ellar Coltrane after this film is well remembered. We see how in the film his character grew up, and the actor also became an adult. To observe it was extremely interesting and unusual, there is nothing to compare. For two and a half hours of this film, it was as if we had been through the whole childhood and youth of the protagonist. Again, that was very unusual. You have to have the patience to return to the film twelve years from now and shoot one or two scenes a year. His clean and realistic game was well pleased with Patricia Arquette. She is a good, talented, American actress, and I remember her well since childhood since the movie Nightmare on Elm Street 3. In this life drama, her play deserves close attention. Lorelei Linklater also remembered after this picture, her character, like the main character, also grew, and we saw how she changed.
"Adolescence" is an American, life drama of 2014. This film is deeper than it seems at first glance. It's for those who love soul movies. It was the original idea.
Claude Miller’s niche is children deprived of parental love.
Nisha Victor Salva – allegorical parables about the inner struggle and acceptance of his secret nature.
Nisha Marco Ferreri is a study of people from the point of view of veterinary medicine.
Alfred Hitchcock’s niche is psychological thrillers with sexual overtones.
Nisha Vernor Herzog is a man who challenges the forces of nature.
Richard Licklater also has a niche. His author’s films (not to be confused with commercial hacks such as “School of Rock” or “Intolerable Bears”) are unmistakable. They're completely storyless. They are spontaneous, rough and awkwardly sincere. They're a kaleidoscope. We see people and stretches of time. Not key or fateful periods of time. But the main catch lies in the fact that Linklater’s periods of time live people to a greater extent than people live these periods. In 50 years, these people will be dead, and instead of them, in the same place, in exactly the same period of time, there will be the next people - time experiences people, but people do not experience time. "So what's the point of all this?" How do I know? Just improvising! Linklater does not know the meaning and does not pretend to know. The boy and the girl met on the train, walked all night, and the next morning – said goodbye. They did not capture the moment, but the moment caught them - a moment passing without a trace, followed by another, equally traceless moment. Linklater in his author's films always shot not people, but moments - an hour and a half, day, evening, night, 12 years. Moments of life of those who will disappear from the face of the Earth, and in their place will appear others, but the same. And they will rediscover the world, open relationships from scratch, discover themselves. “Adolescence” is the quintessence, summing up the work of Richard Linklater. Forest by tree, river by water. Evidence of life, both priceless and worthless. But no realism. Filming about the mortal routine, Linklater manages to remain a poet of the moment and eternity. In his account, life is sacred despite (and perhaps because of) its absurdity and predictability. The first kiss is indeed the first, and the hundreds of billions of people who have kissed in human history do not diminish the significance of your great discovery.
I decided to watch this movie because of the good rating on MoviePoisk and IMDb. It was also interesting that this film was made for 12 years. Sitting down to watch this movie, I expected a lot, but in the end I got not what I expected.
Pros:
(1) Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette. They somehow save the situation with their acting skills.
2) I don’t know how it happened, but this film touched my remnants of soul and I remember this film as something very good and bright: probably because it was shot for 12 years and because of it became very “hearty” and atmospheric.
3) OST for the film. That's beautiful! A lot of good songs accompanied "Boyhood", take even the main song "Hero". Everything is very good here.
Cons:
1) Plot. More specifically, his absence. If this film was shot not 12 years, but let’s say a month, and the actors would change in the degree of maturity of the characters, then it would turn out to be a very primitive film, with a rating barely interspersed with the 5th 6th.
2) Tightness. Although it is logical that from 12 years of filming there will be a lot of material, but 3 hours is a lot, especially for this.
(3) The predictability of plot twists. While watching, I guessed the actions of the characters and plot twists a few steps ahead. This is very bad.
7 out of 10
P.S. I know it's positive, not neutral, but I can't make a neutral assessment because of the OST, it's too good.
“Youth” was destined for a bright future, and deservedly. First, Richard Linklater opened a new facet of cinema. Secondly, he made a great, subtle and multi-layered film. At the same time, compiling twelve years of the hero’s life in three hours of screen time, without clichés, and without turning the film into a confusing mess.
Separately, it is worth noting the cast, especially its youngest part. The time intervals between shootings did not affect the game in any way, and all the drama of the characters flows harmoniously, without visible breaks and seams.
Yeah, sometimes it's boring. Yes, sometimes temporary transitions knock the viewer off track. Yes, there are script stubs. But in general, the picture is worthy of great praise and beautiful figurines.
8 out of 10
P.S. For those who think the film has garnered so many awards for its bloated story of twelve years of filming, so right. There were no such precedents. Everything new should be appreciated.
In the center of the plot "Adolescence", the timing of which is almost three hours, is the life of a boy Mason Jr.. We watch it from the age of 6 to 18, and shooting, accordingly, began in 2002. The main role was played by Ellar Coltrane. The guy has a sister, as well as parents, whose roles were performed by famous actors Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette. The adulthood of a person is the plot of the film; the dynamics give a social emphasis - so, having divorced Mason's father, his mother contacted an alcoholic, whom she left as a result, because he beat her.
With his father, the children communicate regularly, and he tells Mason how best to charm girls and constantly reminds them to have condoms. There’s also a lot of economics: Mom complains that you have to provide everything, including electricity, to charge mobile phones.
53-year-old American director Richard Linklater for this work received the Silver Bear for Best Director at the Berlin Film Festival. But those who have watched his previous works, such as Before Dawn (1995), Before Sunset (2004), Before Midnight (2013), will notice that he persists in developing the same theme. It's a family relationship. The characters in the films Linklater talk a lot. Yes, to make the characters to discuss mundane topics so that it is impossible to break away from the screen is, of course, cool.
Time is the best makeup. Approximately this motto guides the director, creating many of his best paintings. But if in the romantic trilogy Linklater three times organizes a date with the characters with a difference of about 10 years, then in the "Adolescence" he enters the life of one average family, demonstrating the transformation of the body and spirit literally by months for twelve long years. It's kind of the longest reality show in human history, compressed in 165 minutes. There are no smooth transitions, says Linklater, and the heroes of him, hiding behind the door, in a moment appear from the same door "gray" for several months.
Such a montage, when the episode is layered on the episode, when you do not have time to get used to one image of the characters, as they are replaced by others, works wonderfully on the general idea of the picture: our life is terrible and hurtful transient. You can fall into sadness and longing about this, you can work tirelessly, you can wait for the right moment to prove yourself, you can create these moments and opportunities yourself. Everyone has their own. There is no single and correct recipe. The main thing is to understand what you want from life and what you can take from it.
10 out of 10
Everyone in life has a movie, after which a person changes forever and, probably for me, this is the film.
Everyone already knows about the fact that the film was shot for 12 years and tells the story of the growing up of a little boy, but it is more than growing up - it is a perception of the world from different points of view, it is a unique life experience, and it is the growing up of not only the hero himself, but everyone around. Throughout the film, we are shown different life stages of the protagonist, but the most interesting thing is that at first the attention is not paid to him at all, we understand and very vitally tell about older characters and how they influenced him.
The environment in which this character develops is also very well reproduced. The film runs for 2 hours and 45 minutes, and although it’s mostly dialogue, I’ve never been bored. There is religion and experience of marriage unions and Harry Potter with Star Wars, as well as dialogues about space, modern technologies and relationships (one scene as the father of the protagonist tells his sister about sex, what is worth), and most importantly, all this will then be reflected in the future actions of our young child.
This is the kind of movie that everyone should watch and is definitely worth the attention of any teenager.
In the famous Soviet comedy, the heroine, who did not want to wait for the time to pass between the “heroes kiss” and “they have a baby”, asked her fiancé to make a “montage”. If you can imagine the most complete embodiment of such a desire, then the film “Boyhood” is just that. The 12 years of the heroes’ lives are neatly cut and packed in less than 3 hours of screen time. A remarkable achievement, from whichever side you look. As after that, “Boyhood” was deprived of the “Oscar” for editing – a mystery on the verge of absurdity.
Modern cinema has reached the heights of perfection in the art of makeup, not to mention computer effects that help actors not only reset a few years, but also change their height, race, or even turn into a different form of life. Was it worth spending 12 years filming the growing up of a teenager in real time, instead of taking two or three performers of different ages with similar appearance for each child role (for adults, this would not be necessary), bringing this similarity to perfection with the help of appropriate specialists and shooting the entire plot in the same 45 shooting days?
Contemporary cinema is extremely demanding on actors in everything that concerns the realistic embodiment of the image of the character. Actors gain and shed tens of kilograms of weight, like Christian Bale, Tom Hanks or Matthew McConaughey, lead a lifestyle of the other sex, including off-set, like Hilary Swank, drive themselves to real depression, like Adrian Brody, master new professions and skills, like the same Brody or Robert De Niro. And all this in order not just to play, but to reincarnate into your screen image, so that the viewer believes that he is not an actor, but really the one for whom he pretends to be. But what does an actor need to do to authentically embody the image of a boy of seven, eight, nine and so on? Nothing. You can only be that boy.
Richard Linklater chose the most expensive and longest, but perhaps the only true way to fully show the growing up of a child. Without makeup, without changing actors, who, no matter how similar, are still independent personalities with their own characters and manner of performance, without deception. Year after year, he recreated the same family on set, each time adding a new episode of her story.
Vitality is the corporate style of the director and the main advantage of “Youth”. In his script, with only one exception, there is no special sharpness, there is no end-to-end conflict, questions of life and death are not resolved, the setting and climax are conditional, and some scenes are generally more like sketches. Each of the characters at any time solves their life tasks, sometimes very small and private, some actions will play a role in the future narrative, some do not. Secondary characters appear out of nowhere, exist for some time in the space of the film and disappear without a trace, and sometimes even without explanation. It's like real life.
Stylistically, "Boyhood" is like "Before Midnight", in both films Linklater is extremely realistic, every word in the dialogue is taken from real life. In addition to the unique form of shooting, this quality allows the film to give the impression of almost documentary authenticity for all the merits of the work of art.
Having received ideal conditions for the embodiment and development of their images, the performers used them 100%. Patricia Arquette played so brilliantly that even the laws of the state of California did not give her competitors a chance for the Oscars. However, Ethan Hawke, if anything was inferior to his partner, it was only in the amount of screen time. And the lead actor Allar Coltrane got every right to say about himself that he grew up and matured in the cinema, and in every sense of these words.
The producers of the film deserve special admiration, who froze their investments for 12 years with no guarantees of profit. Although the film’s budget of $2.4 million is negligible by Hollywood standards, the fact is important. How far he is from the approach of the sleazy film business, seeking to earn income almost before the start of filming!
Although the film "Boyhood" and won only one of the six nominations for "Oscar" (plus another 148 awards and, among only 11 films in history, the maximum possible score of 100/100 on the combined assessment of professional film critics), it entered the history of cinema not only as the longest filming project, but also as one of the pinnacles of cinematic realism, which someone will not soon be able to surpass.
10 out of 10
Every few years, American film academics have a massive total psychosis, as a result of which in the race for the cherished statuette, the winners are objects of very dubious quality, but exclusively original, or filled with tolerance and patriotism. The last at the moment, the draw of the golden dummy, despite the generally wonderful set of films, was not without a weighty scattering of Oscar-oriented tapes, among which was the story of rear-wheel drive mathematics, which won the Second World War, but was still persecuted, which is why he disintegrated ("Imitation Game"), there was a story about the greatest African-American, in which he created freedom for blacks ("Selma"), was even a degraded analogue of the Americans, where he was saved by numerous enemy citizens ("Impressed").
It was not without the story of the original, the originality of which lies and is completely exhausted only by the fact that the film was shot every year for twelve years (slavery), and therefore the viewer had a rare opportunity to track in real time the process of growing up (Ellar Coltrane), the process of obesity (Patricia Arquette) and the aging process (here was supposed to be the name of Ethan Hawke, but he for 12 years did not change at all, so the film crew had to age him artificially). And, despite all the originality pointed out by critics and other aestheticists, such a world has already seen, with a much larger budget and scope, where the boy in glasses and with friends led an unequal fight with a cruel noseless half-foolish, there was growing up, and maturation, and aging, and, you will not believe, even death, there was a wonderful source, and therefore the whole originality of “Boyhood” is only the fact that if a charming spectacle required several directors and a billion budget (which paid off the film), this was not enough for eightfold.
But even with the remaining small bits of originality, “Boyhood” could turn out to be a noble spectacle if the story described in the movie was not so squat and ordinary, because no one is interested in watching someone else’s home video from kebabs, where nothing happens except kebabs and incomprehensible family jokes, or the story of how someone, having gone for bread, prudently took a package with him so as not to punch an additional one at the box office. Realism, of course, was never superfluous, but it should be in moderation, and in "Boyhood" really whole and interesting was only the growing up of the character of Ethan Hawke, who from impulsive X turned into an exemplary family man with a minivan and a beer belly. The line of the other parent is not so good, but there it is very interesting to watch how Patricia Arquette every year gains two or three additional pounds and in vain search of lost family happiness rushes between men, when one is frostbitten by the other, and in the meantime life from boredom quickly creeps past.
Small and amusing references to bygone eras, "Boyhood" lazily plays with the viewer in guessing, throwing either Gaga or Star Wars, occasionally throwing family dramas in the performance of parents, but in the foreground forces to contemplate the permanent despondency of what is happening when in the life of the main character, if anything happens in life, it is either boring or behind the scenes, by the way, the same applies to the nasty sister of the main character.
Richard Linklater is still a lover of playing with time and watching how hastily and ruthlessly people have an expiration date, it is enough to recall his amazing trilogy Before Anything, which stretched for two decades, capturing three different eras, against which there were charming in its beauty love stories. “Boyhood” turned out to be an even bolder project, when it was necessary to shoot more than once every ten years, but for a whole film at once, and every year, but a little bit, and it could turn out great, perhaps even better, if we could come up with the same powerful conflict that was at the junction of the two parts of the above trilogy. But.
Worthy design of "Boyhood" categorically lacked nerve, which is why the film looks like a screen adaptation of a home video, the almost hopeless longing of what is happening is aggravated by the indistinct play of Allar Coltrane, who, being a charming boy, rapidly turns into a loose substance with bangs to the knees. Ambitious intentions turned into a failure rather than a success, when the grandiose story of growing up remained only in dreams, at the output being only three hours of nonsense about how uninteresting to grow up, to be a teenager, and in general to live. The film happened the same thing that happened with the appearance of the lead actor, and perhaps the director, seeing what the main star turns into, realized that the masterpiece of this can not be blinded, and therefore unnecessary efforts should not be made.
In the race for the Academy Awards, “Boyhood” ingloriously flew past all the main nominations, happy only Patricia Arquette (not for nothing fatty, but Sharon Stone will now stage a strike for “Alpha Dog”), and leaving behind a strange feeling of total hoax about the next masterpiece of the millennium, which died out in several festivals, was licked by critics from all sides, but nothing useful in his address was extracted. Indeed, it would be strange to give all the credit to the film, just because it was shot every year for twelve years. That’s when the film is shot as if in one take and without gluing – it’s yes, it’s another matter, well, certainly a masterpiece.
It is not for me to decide whether this picture is worthy of an Oscar or not, but the fact that such a cinema has not yet spewed is for sure. There is no heartbreaking drama or brilliant acting work, but it is the innovative approach that made this film one of the possible contenders for the statuette.
Before the viewer will pass the maturation of an ordinary boy, with some family details. A kind of moralizing excursion, not boring at all, attractive not only for the eye, but also for the soul. When else to imagine the opportunity to observe quite ordinary life, without any violence and gays, absolutely no black women, only life's vicissitudes.
In general, it is very unusual to observe the real maturation of heroes, rather than the work of makeup artists. Become very not at all from the thought of the transience of being, you even begin, but only do not think, but how to immerse yourself, rethink, but not values or your life, but wider - Life, it is with a capital letter and begins to torment the question, but far after watching - What should we have time?
The film will be recommended for viewing, the main thing is not to be afraid of timekeeping, time will fly not only quickly, but will not bother, the narrative does not focus on specific time periods, everything will go quite cheerfully. Moreover, I repeat, the reception is really innovative, with twelve years of experience, which is compactly packed to the delight of the viewer.
I wish everyone a pleasant viewing!
Do you notice how fast time flies? Did you have the feeling that just the other day we were learning to read and count, and the day before yesterday we graduated from school and are preparing to go to university? Do you remember the moment when you began to understand the world very differently than when you were a child, when you began to understand your parents? When did we grow up? Director Richard Linklater presents to our attention a film that was shot for 12 years, which will help to find answers to these questions.
Almost 3 hours we see the growing up of the most ordinary boy Mason Evans, from the age of six and first grade to entering college. He is experiencing a breakup of his parents, numerous moves, a new mother’s relationship, attempts to join the team of the new school and tries to endure the antics of his older sister. We listen to him talk about where bees come from, and then talk about the injustice of his stepfather. We see him coming home for the first time later than was said, how he got his first job, how he fell in love for the first time, how he found his passion in life and perhaps his future profession.
The film is surprisingly simple. It does not show any extraordinary family. No, watching heroes, we indulge in memories. We remember what we were like in childhood, what we were passionate about, what we dreamed about, what we most wanted to learn. Heroes of the film enthusiastically chat about Star Wars and look forward to the release of a new book about the adventures of Harry Potter. They work in a restaurant, learn to drive. They observe and try to clarify the relationships of adults. The film shows completely ordinary everyday pictures that, without a doubt, occur in the life of every person. Linklater urges us to look at life from the other side. It is these ordinary life situations and the way we deal with them that make us who we are today.
The film is also very soulful. He is very close to the viewer, because we see ourselves in little Mason and Samantha, and very soon in Olivia and Mason Sr. In the same way, we fought with our brother-sister (as an older sister, I understand this confrontation), talked with friends about everything in the world, took the change of scenery because of moving, did not understand why it was so difficult for adults, got our first job, fell in love for the first time, made important decisions and continue to make them to this day. And most importantly, it shows how the characters of the film grew up - a process that is very difficult to observe. Here we're watching it from the outside. How children became teenagers, how life experiences were gained, and how their parents got older, coped with their problems, and raised their children. As a result, I watched the film as enchanted, not wanting to miss any change that had taken place in the Evans family.
I really liked the actors. The main character here is Ellar Coltrane, whose maturation we watched these 3 hours. The main feature of Mason Evans I would call dreaminess - in boys it is rarely seen. But Mason was just that: from the very first scene where he lies on the grass and looks up at the sky, to the very last scene where he looks at the sunset and talks about life. Mason is an ordinary teenager who lives an ordinary life, thinks, sometimes even expresses interesting ideas. His older sister, Samantha, played by director Lorelei Linklater’s daughter, embodies everything an older sister can embody: arrogance because she is older, unbearability because all siblings don’t get along immediately, understanding because they are both worried about moving and their parents’ divorce, and love because siblings, despite all their differences, love each other very much. Mason’s parents and Samantha were played by Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette – they also made a great impression. They played parents who are divorced, but each in their own way brings up children. And I also liked that the father managed to become more than a “Sunday Dad” for children, and looking at the life of the mother, you can understand that everything she did was to raise children with decent people.
Boyhood is one of the most amazing films I have ever seen. Richard Linklater shows us how beautiful life is. Beautiful in its routine, beautiful in that it changes with every second. And we change with her. It shows how important things are for a person such as childhood, family, love. How fast time flies. And what it means to capture the moment. What if our whole life is that moment?
Nice viewing!
I watched three visits, only because of the Oscar nomination, it was interesting at first, waiting for the dramatic development of the plot. But after 12 years of the hero, viewing is not exciting at all.
The usual family history - we all have such ordinary events in the family, and many more interesting life has developed.
The experiment with the real maturation and aging of the characters as an idea is super, but if you add at least a little elements that change consciousness when watching, but alas – nothing!
In my opinion, it is much more effective to view photos of your family chronicle in order to add a puzzle or answer questions of the kind, solve the mystery of karma - if such a goal was pursued by the director, but not by the Evans family.
The main character is sucks, imho. Pretty boring character.
The guys who put positive reviews - very interesting - what exactly is so cool that there is no in your family - you saw.
The conclusion is a film for deep phlegmatics and introverts.
"Adolescence." It is almost impossible to bypass this picture to a person who somehow follows the world cinema industry: 12 years of filming (believe the slogan), approval of critics, the percentage of positive reviews of which became almost the main advertising tool of the film, numerous awards of various festivals and awards, including taking the statuette for the Best Film-Drama of the Golden Globe, and finally 6 nominations for the Oscar. It is difficult to find a person who, having seen the list of merits presented, will not be interested in viewing. Personally, I couldn't. But is it worth so much attention around? Let's try to figure it out.
The entire action of the canvas unfolds around an ordinary family of America - a mother and two children growing up without the constant presence of their father. And we, the audience, can watch their lives for 12 years. The most interesting thing (which is clear from the name) is, of course, the moment of the gradual transition of the child into an adult, affecting such important stages of the boy’s life as puberty, the first confrontations and relationships with girls, acquaintance with forbidden substances, a change in the outlook of the world and behavior, which is fully reflected in the film. And its main advantage: the actors are the same, from beginning to end, taking into account the entire duration of the creation process.
Shooting "Boyhood" began back in 2002, when Ellar Coltrane, who played the role of the main character, Mason, was 7 years old. At the time of the last shot, the actor was already 18. And this is a truly mind-boggling scale. 12 years old, the characters are getting older, and you are lying on your couch, watching this, literally traveling through the nooks of space and time. I am sure that this approach will forever leave a huge mark in the world of cinema.
The model of the film, in my opinion, is different from the one that is familiar to us. This is not a coherent story with a denouement, climax and set, but a walk through the gallery of the life of Mason, his sister Samantha and their mother, which captures the most basic footage of the fate of the family. Often with a change in the time period, the viewer has to think through it himself, conducting a causal relationship. Such a move is quite interesting and explainable: not the whole dish is served on a plate, in order to understand the full essence, you need to think, carefully concentrate on what is happening, thereby witnessing just deeper into the plot. Despite the fact that the script has been repeatedly rewritten, any logical and emotional inconsistencies are absolutely not felt, for which a huge bow to Richard Linklater.
And yet, if we discard the scale, the exact, verified work of the director, the excellent acting, there remains the plot, the foundation that holds the project as a whole. No matter how good the components, details, scenes listed in the previous sentence, the “stuffing” itself, its development and ending turned out to be some weak, not evocative, frankly, ordinary, as if the story of a neighbor’s grandmother in the yard about the events of her youth, and a little unworthy of such colossal work. Yes, shown close to the soul and current events draw lots, but - does not catch. The main disadvantage of the film.
But it is impossible to say anything bad about the composition of the actors, since on the screen I saw the most accurate and ingeniously constructed projection of reality. Any person who remembers himself in the period of 10-18 years, is unlikely to say when watching: “No, this does not happen in life!” In total, it was played insanely well.
Two and a half hours contained twelve years of gracefully shown history. And how quickly the time of “youth” flew by, life will fly by even faster. Live, do the right thing, love loved ones, but most importantly – live, because “time flies.”
The film definitely deserves the attention.
As always, I do not know how to start my review, so I just encourage you to always doubt and check. That’s how I was disappointed by the high rating and many Oscar nominations. Just in a day we will find out whether the “Boyhood” will win as the “film of the year”, and only then you will be able to focus not only on the review of the Film Search and rating, but also on the final result of the film award.
In the meantime, the painting itself. Unaccustomed to me categorically divides the film into “positive” and “negative”. Let me start with the second one:
According to the annotation and words of the director, the film shows a rather long and very important period of the formation of a person as a person. I saw only the outer maturation of the main character. Perhaps the main reason for this was that Mason himself (the main character) almost the entire film is just silent and watching what is happening. This is what prevented me from reading his thoughts, understanding his feelings and experiences. I didn't get into him at all. The boy just goes with the flow and does not interact with the circumstances and does not affect them. I was surprised that Mason was the main character in the film, because to me he was invisible.
The film lacks not only the “cheap philosophy” I don’t like, but philosophy in general. The problem with adolescence is that it does not carry a concrete value, does not justify its idea. After watching the film, I can’t tell you what it taught me, which, in my opinion, is the most important thing!
To positive I would like to attribute a separate part of the plot, where Mason's mother after a divorce meets another man and begins to live with him. The problems that developed then deserve more time and full disclosure. This period of Mason’s life was the most interesting and memorable.
In my opinion, the fact that the film itself made famous is the most positive – 12 years of shooting. I can't even imagine how hard this job is! Sincere thanks to the whole group for tolerance and perseverance! That’s what made the movie impossible! But... as in real life, everything is very monotonous and not very interesting.
Considering all the disadvantages and pros, the assessment is quite obvious, so
Richard Linklater once again plays documentary on screen. Most of the director is familiar as the author of the trilogy “Before Dawn”, “Before Sunset”, “Before Midnight”, in which he follows a couple of lovers, shooting them once every 9 years. This time, Linklater came closer to realism and for 12 years continuously watched the growing up of Allar Coltrane and his on-screen relatives (including the daughter of the director himself, Lorelei Linklater, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette).
Retelling the plot in this case is pointless, mainly because almost nothing happens on the screen. Artificial drama has been negated. At the same time, Linklator manages to keep the viewer at the screen for no more than 3 hours, showing him, roughly speaking, his daily life with mortgages, moving, quarrels, divorces, etc. "Boyhood" is definitely a film-feeling, where the action is replaced by the atmosphere.
Linklater’s picture can probably be considered a kind of cinematic event, this has never happened before. Shooting for 12 years (although a total of only 45 days), the opportunity to observe real changes in the appearance and character of actors who, like their characters, have no idea what will happen to them next, narrating in the present tense - all this gives an incomparable and rare for the movie sense of the present moment.
Boyhood is a painting with a special character. Linklater reverses the formula “life as in a movie” and shows us “cinema as in life.” It's a delightful idea, but it's one of those cases where the idea beats the result. It was like the movie wasn't enough.
“Life is not cinema” or the extraordinary effect of ordinary reality
Initially, I was very skeptical of Richard Linklater’s project, thinking that making a film 12 years is another way to stand out in the film industry and attract the attention of critics and the public, and there is hardly anything worthwhile behind the film itself. Even its duration (2 hours and 45 minutes) was not particularly encouraging to start watching. In general, everything created the impression of a long and boring movie, which is a little sorry for the time spent.
I have to admit, I was totally wrong. Seeing characters grow up and change literally every 10 to 15 minutes is amazing. In life, it is impossible to trace this phenomenon so fully and in detail, at least because of this, it is not a pity for the time spent. Not to mention the fact that the film shows real life in all its colors. Perhaps someone will say that the film is not about anything, that it has no meaning and storyline. And that's what I found beautiful about him. We are so used to the fact that cinema is almost completely different from life, that the events that take place in the film are usually a little unrealistic, and we ourselves can not do what the characters do. “It only happens in the movies” – everyone has heard this phrase. And indeed, these basic scenarios, with their standard phases of introduction, climax, climax, denouement, conclusion, sometimes changing places, so far from reality, designed to stun us, surprise us, frighten us, delight us, make us envy and dream about the same. This is absolutely not about "Boyhood" - a measured and damn pleasant film-life. It goes simply and effortlessly, as simply and effortlessly our lives go, in which there are no scripts with their template schemes, no general culmination, but only the culmination of individual events or stages. The film illustrates the transformation of life, its constant flow, constant change, continuity and saturation. After viewing, a sense of the fullness of life and value of the present moment is created. You know, life is really not a movie. It's much better.
The director and the entire crew did a tremendous job. To shoot one film for 12 years and still finish it, not to quit halfway, not to lose interest in the case. Their zeal and patience simply amaze the imagination. The thrilling attitude of the director to his project and his diligence can be traced in every frame. No, he definitely shot it for many years not to stand out, but to show a real, realistic and full picture of life.
8 out of 10
Almost undiluted slice of everyday life. Crime, well, except that the ugly, threatening antics of the stepfather, there is no observed, for action, too, you need to turn to completely different works. Even drama as such does not feel so much, or maybe it is simply dissolved here in all sorts of household details.
The advantage of the film here can be exactly the same as the disadvantage - the absence of a cross-cutting plot, intrigue, in general intense conflicts or something too sharply tearing the fabric of the narrative and violating the measured, leisurely, sometimes even as if viscous action. Taking children away from a dangerous new husband is not as difficult as it can be feared at first; with an ex-husband, if there are quarrels, then they do not reach the ugly use of children by spouses as a tool to pressure the former / ex under the slogan “Who do you love more?”
This is the story of an average family, not too prosperous, not too bad. More precisely, several families, for from the sweetness of reconciliation to the newly flared up feelings unknown from where they could refrain. Everyone has their own life, those who are too burying themselves, can be completely erased from life, and it turns out that you can talk with new chosen ones and chosen ones of your exes without enmity, showing interest in new events that are significant for them and sometimes organizing joint events. As a result, even the monotonous and ordinary here acquires at the same time universal universality, and to the limit chamber coziness.
The experiences of the characters are shown mainly through their actions and in general external signs. What may be lacking is the notorious sense of a childhood fairy tale, in which a child perceives the world significantly differently. All the characters here are natural, in life everything often looks like this from the outside, but at the same time inside children sometimes something happens that all the mundaneness and routine cannot be regulated or extinguished to the end. However, it is also an option: to reveal not so much the inner world of a person as the incomprehensible inclusion of everyone in the network of actual relationships between loved ones ... and very close ones. And the myriad compromises made every day by people, well, except for those who try to extend their unlimited tyranny to others.
The film illustrates the metamorphosis of not only the main character, but also his relatives, and, perhaps, even no less expressive. The leprosy bugger, bully and bully Samantha turns into a fashionable, unstoppable, often still nagging, but already inconspicuously beginning to empathize and hurt teenager. Mason himself, from a focused cloud-watching toddler, will be reincarnated first into a fallen, swelled, terrified stepfather boy - a scene in which his hair is cut naked, in the film is probably the most disgusting. Then Mason is a teenager, boring with friends about all sorts of amorous adventures and as if ready to get hooked on bad habits, but then finally finds something that he can respond to the beauty of our world. My mother is more charismatic than anyone else. She may be reckless enough to get involved in relationships with oppressive men, but she is able to admit her mistakes, correct them, and is extremely proactive. From nervousness and frustration – by gradual, scrupulous work to thoroughness and prudence. The heroine does not torment children, does not impose any ideas on them about what to strive for, but seeks to make them take responsibility. And then sobbing, then juicy phrases frankly with his son about what she really experiences now, when he leaves for college.
Cautious and unobtrusive strokes outline the characters of those who are somewhat different from others, for example, here is cognitive dissonance, reads To Kill a Mockingbird and has not yet watched Twilight. The panorama of global events is refracted in someone’s private perception, the father expressively persuades children in the future to support one of the politicians, and something not to welcome. But no less than the world cataclysms, the temperament of a child is sometimes influenced by another book or adaptation of Harry Potter - it is very sensitively illustrated how the love for fictional characters persists through the years. And as a result, we have one of those films where the signs of the era, cultural phenomena and iconic episodes from the history of cinema are also actors.
Every year, I, like most, try to study and watch as much as possible all films nominated for prestigious awards in the field of cinema.
There has been a lot of hype around this film for months. There were a lot of expectations, but it’s not often that you see 12-year-old paintings. But what a bit of disappointment I got in the end. .
The movie is really boring. Every ten minutes I looked at the time, waiting for the end. The idea, the idea itself, is initially very good, but as a poor content.
Even despite the fact that the main character is my immediate peer, and I was able to catch that very nostalgia for a moment, remember my own growing up, I did not leave the thought - and what is all this for and what does this film want to say with its plot?
Only the final dialogue gave a small thread of the idea of the "b" moment and how we try to catch it when it catches us.
The acting was unimpressive. Sometimes it was unbearably boring. There was a complete feeling that during these 12 years they were all tired of this ' masterpiece'.
The conclusion is that this film is overrated by 100%. The probability that it will be called the best film of the year is great, which can not but disappoint. Duration of creation is a weak argument, and I could not see the others. I will never review it, but I advise you to watch it. Maybe I don’t know anything about cinema, since this work has received so many honors this year.
Alas and ah, but on 'something more' this film does not pull.
I usually criticize big-budget fantasy films for their tabloid, boring scripts, and I never expected that a film like “Boyhood”, which was shot for 12 years and made so much hype with its appearance, would be no better than the aforementioned fantasy.
I expected something profound, unusual, and eye-opening about reality. I expected that this film will bring some feelings, emotions, nostalgia for childhood and youth. While I was expecting something from this painting, I was expecting absolutely nothing. I was ready for completely unusual twists in the plot that could not even occur to me. And in general, I was ready with open arms to meet any topic that would not be touched on in the film. In general, I was positive about this project, I was also interested in why everyone around is praising it so much.
What is "Boyhood", it became clear already in the thirtieth minute of its viewing. Endless, empty dialogues, which, by and large, do not affect the development of the plot, the disclosure of the characters. Events from life that somehow had to be the most vivid impressions during the growing up of the main character. They are cut, superficial and somehow even insignificant. The feelings of the main characters are shown monotonously: a children's holiday is joy; a quarrel between parents is sadness. Everything is straightforward, there is no development of the plot, it is just unsuccessfully glued clippings from “life”, which do not produce the desired effect on the viewer.
You wouldn’t notice the difference if I said, ‘This movie was made 12 months or years ago.’ In less short periods, they created great masterpieces.
The film is very boring and does not carry any moral load. The action was felt only with the appearance on the screen of Ethan Hawke, the rest of the time the head was loaded with empty chatter of the main characters and their bored faces expressing hopelessness.
The worst thing about this film is the play of a young cast, namely Allar Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater. From the first blows some kind of figment to what is happening, it seems to me that he was clearly not particularly interested in the project. Lorelei played on the principle: “the further, the worse.” As she began to play as an adult, she felt unprofessional. It was clear that the girl is very modest and frankly afraid to speak on camera. Even when she was in the background, it was clearly visible how nervous she was, pointing her gaze at the floor with the expression “do not look at the lens!”. The closer the film came to an end and the older the young characters became, the fewer lines Lorelei had and the worse her character was revealed, whose appearance in this film eventually ceased to be significant.
In the end, I came to the conclusion that "Boyhood" is nothing more than a pathetic drama, dullly claiming to be a masterpiece. Not recommended for viewing!
When we talk about “Adolescence”, there is no escape from mentioning the upcoming Oscar. Already painfully, Linklater’s new creation in relation to its competitive competitors fits itself into the category of “not bad, but others are better.” The difference from the same “king speaks” or “collision” in a fundamentally different approach to the film process. We are talking, of course, about those notorious twelve years of slavery (not to take literally!), which fell to the lot of the film crew and actors. This method of creating one picture is as simple as it is unique, and in this case it is correct.
Relying on metaphors, "Adolescence" is such a detailed album with photos on the same topic, which flickers through between business over a cup of tea in the company of relatives or friends. Of course, the album is not yours. You will not be able to keep such “singleness” carefully! It's a guest album. So, the perception of this album depends entirely on how nostalgic you are by nature. Not indifferent to the past - the movie is for you! You will review it, admire it, recommend it to other people. Otherwise, the "Adolescence" at best will seem trifling, but the worst will be damned as a waste of precious three hours of life.
If this assumption is correct, Linklater, of course, looks like a spoiler of fate. The praises of his new film began to sing at last year’s Berlinale, continued at all other festivals and will sing, probably, until the American Film Academy distributes its awards. The film is a kaleidoscope of absolutely universal life events of one average American family. He is able to conjure up certain episodes of his youth, but he is not able to fully immerse himself in his world. Linklater spent twelve years shooting small pieces of a boy, his sister, mother and father every year, but in the pursuit of maximum realism he forgot the most important thing that should be in such stories - spiritual excitement, catharsis and the subsequent conclusion: who we are, what we are for this world and in this world, how our perception of the world changes under the onslaught of accumulated experience and the increasing number of years of life.
Unconditionally great here look references to events, one way or another already inscribed in the history of the United States. Here you and the release of the last volumes of “Harry Potter”, and the criticism of the hero of Ethan Hawke Bush policy, and the promotional campaign in support of Barack Obama, and “Wish You Were Here” by Pink Floyd, performed by one of the heroines under the guitar. The presence of such stages as conversations with his father, skirmishes with his sister, a rude stepfather, first love, the first parting, the mandatory drinking of the first bottle of beer with friends at the first party look good only because the very awareness of the viewer of such moments in principle passes on “hurrah”.
Perhaps, with the best leading actor, all these shortcomings would not be so striking. But Allar Coltrane in the role of Mason looks lost on all articles, and therefore any other star, whether it is trying Arquette or beautiful Hawk, although they do not raise any questions about their presence in the frame, but it is not about them in the film.
As a result, childhood has passed, youth is just beginning to boil, and the main acting youth already looks to the future not with fear or admiration, but with longing and indifference. In addition, he enters the adult world, seemingly without learning from the mistakes of his parents. It's kind of sad. The heroes of the famous love trilogy-long-term all the same Linklater met their dawns and sunsets an order of magnitude more interesting.