A wonderful, even brilliant idea came to the minds of the filmmakers! The idea to show in a natural way how children grow up and the adults around them age. A great idea and no less beautiful implementation. The filmmakers set themselves a difficult task: for 3 hours of screen time to show us, perhaps, the most significant and emotional period in a person’s life – his adolescence and adolescence. And with this task they coped perfectly! Carefully selecting the key moments of the narrative, we, step by step, reveal in each new episode all the versatility of the experiences of the main character. And they do it so simply, honestly and convincingly that it is impossible to be indifferent. Together with the main characters, I asked myself questions and searched for answers, rejoiced and laughed, sad, afraid and embarrassed.
A beautiful film that touches on a lot of topics, talking about something directly, about something only hinting. I am sure everyone here will find something for themselves or at least just remember their childhood and adolescence.
I especially wanted to mention the actors, the quality of shooting and attention to detail. Everything's up. Thank you very much to the authors!
If someone asks me, "How's the movie?", I'll say: "Smart, kind, honest and just a good movie, which after watching leaves food for the mind and a pleasant residue in the soul." A film made with heart and soul that helps us become a little better. A movie that is so missing today!
As can be seen from the description, the picture tells about the life of an ordinary guy and the history of his family. Nothing extravagant, extraordinary, intriguing before watching did not have to wait, and there will not be such things! This is just a film about what we are used to, what surrounds us, what we grew up with and coexisted with.
Cinema causes such nostalgia for childhood, adolescence, suggests some thoughts, even sometimes makes you sad. But that's what makes it so wonderful - 3 hours of screen time went by for me personally very quickly because it was kind of a return to my own youth. The picture allowed you to “look” into the life and problems of an ordinary American teenage child-young man, which were not alien to me myself, to trace the main stages of growing up, to see parents, friends, changes in them and in relations with them.
Of course, the film is made from the point of view of a typical American, a very great emphasis is placed on their culture, but it is not alien to us (the famous “fever” of Harry Potter and Twilight, for example). Many times I caught myself thinking that this happened to me, tried to compare, to resurrect in memory how it was.
The directing and acting work is very good. If we talk about the resources involved, 12 years is long enough! The patience, painstakingness of the creators and their ability not to lose interest in the project and bring it to its logical conclusion is admirable, it is already worth a lot. It's a beautiful idea; many say it doesn't mean anything: everyone could have "stupidly filmed the years of a person's life," but nobody did it! And this is already innovation and some kind of diversity in cinema.
Overall, the film is worth watching. Especially it will appeal to the children of the “90s generation” and their parents, those who lived and grew up in this time, those who care about the memories of their childhood and cherish them in their hearts. For us!
The first thing that catches your eye is that the film was actually made for 12 years. This is a unique experiment we are given to watch.
The story revolves around the boy and his family, showing how the world and trends around him are changing. This is interesting to see.
I liked the fact that there are no platitudes in the film like ‘#39’, ‘first steps’, ‘first school’, ‘first kiss’... Because we've all seen it many times. Despite this, we are guided along the psychological line of the film. And it's not a problem if we missed something from the life of the main character, because it's not so important. What matters is how it will change, how the environment will affect it.
The picture gives a feeling of 'life', thanks to the fact that the actors remain the same and we see how they are transformed. If someone else did it, say, not in 12 years, but in four months, the effect would not be the same.
I just have to say ', thank you '. Richard Linklater, for this amazing project.
"Adolescence" was filmed by Richard Linklater, no less, twelve long years. This is a huge period of time during which a person can change a dozen jobs, move several times, get married and divorced, have children, plant and grow a tree. During this time, a person changes externally and internally. Think about what you can do in twelve years. - That's right, life.
Boyhood is a seemingly ordinary, unremarkable life story of Mason Evans and his family. Divorced parents and sisters are commonplace in our world. It seems that there is nothing surprising in this story - they just live. Mom changes husbands and works, dad continues to look for himself in life, children go to school, grow up.
The film is so sincere, simple and honest that it seems we are shown a family album with photos from 12 years or a video from the family archive.
The director’s decision to shoot the picture in real time gives realism to the fictional fate of the characters. Spitting on the huge risks (and what if something happens to one of the actors or the director himself?), Richard Linklater in 2002 began shooting Boyhood with the same actors. It is impossible not to mention the actors who with patience and dedication played these roles for 12 years. Moreover, the script of the film was written each year, continuing the story of the life of Mason and his family. It is this, for any sane filmmaker crazy concept and makes what is happening on the screen so real.
I think the main task of this film is to return the viewer to his own childhood, to remember him, to smile for a moment or to be sad and say to himself: “This is my life.”
So I'm graduating from high school this year, and I'm turning 18, and I'm thinking about my future. Watching "Adolescence," I remember everything that happened to me from first grade to the present day. That’s the way it is: the experiences, the emotions, the feelings that are shown in the film have been with me over the years. “Adolescence” is not just about Mason’s life, it’s about my life and everyone else’s. This movie is true, it opens our eyes to what is happening to us during this period of time.
"Adolescence" - one of the most piercing films of 2014, which, with a high degree of probability, will not appear on the big screens in Russia. Now the film can be viewed legally or not only on the Internet. The only possibility of Richard Linklater’s film appearing in cinemas in Russia is the Oscar hype. If Boyhood still receives the main Oscar in the Best Picture category, you can count on small rentals in selected theaters. But for such a film, such condescension is simply humiliating.
8.5 out of 10
There was a lot of talk about the film “Boyhood” even before its appearance on screens and festivals, the director shot this work for about 11 years, yet unconventional for modern cinema with its pace, timing, sagas, which rather last for years, and are filmed in months. Therefore, the work aroused interest among the public and professionals. And as soon as I got to the film festivals, I immediately began to receive positive reviews and awards. The film already has a Silver Bear for Best Director, and the Hollywood award is a Golden Globe for Best Film in the Drama category, and now there are several Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. This could not leave me out of this movie.
And so I looked at ...
Unfortunately, the picture did not inspire me, left me absolutely indifferent, no discovery occurred. The film is quite simple and cute, the story tells the growing up of the boy, the development of his relationship with parents and friends over the course of 11 years, that’s all that can be said about the film. No drama, no problems the picture does not raise. At the end, I had a lot of questions for the director, like, why is this particular story, this particular boy and not the neighbor, so unique? And it seems, like nothing, even, most likely, that is why this kid is chosen the hero of the picture, so ordinary as each of us, in his story everyone can find a reflection of himself. Apparently, this idea was the authors of this work. Well, nice. Lovely is perhaps the main characteristic of my film. The kid's cute, it's cute, it's a nice story. Acting work is quite interesting, I liked the work of Ellar Coltrane and Ethan Hawk. But Patricia Arquette, alas, did not shake me with her performance, so her nominations in comparison with other actresses of this year are surprising and misunderstanding for me. Emma Stone, Meryl Streep, and even so unloved by me Keira Knightley in The Imitation Game much more convincing this year. But as they say, tastes are not disputed, and the evaluation criteria for everyone are apparently different.
As a conclusion, it is too overrated film. The film is not bad, but I would not put it in the category of films that put it in a row with the classics of cinema. Apparently, the highlight of the work is just in the method of shooting, it is a pity that only this.
7 out of 10
For the idea, for the acting skills of the main character
Remember how in “The Island” (not in the one that Lungina, but in the one in which the charming Scarlett Johansson runs) the heroes were implanted with fake memories of their lives? Watching "Boyhood" has a similar effect: it's like you've been planted with new personal memories of Mason, a boy you've known since childhood. Melancholic with a penchant for philosophizing and a love of the art of photography. A child from an average family with average problems.
The English word "boyhood" somehow more juicy and more accurately conveys the period about which the film was made. This is both childhood and adolescence in stages and certainly this is a “boy”. This is a story about a boy and a young man and his recognizable growing up. Hyperrealism in action, unspeakably charming in its chilling believability.
In terms of directorial experiment, Richard Linklater’s film is unique and striking. No evasions in the style of titles in a cute font: “two years have passed”, no makeup and deliberately changed hairstyle, if only it became convincing. And for sure, an unknown child - a novice actor - does not turn into, say, Brad Pitt. Nothing like that. Just patience. Fantastic and applaudable standing patience.
This technique - a real maturation of Mason in the frame - allowed the director to achieve a whole new level of empathy. It is difficult to associate yourself with the hero in the usual way, merging with the character. It's too bulging and real. Looks like you're gonna get into the address book, and there's Mason's phone. We should call him, see how he's doing. We haven't seen each other since he went to college. The whole film is reminiscent of such encounters with Mason in different periods of his growing up. You always arrive just in time to catch his big changes. He is the same and a little changed at the same time. He's growing up, looking for himself. And you care about him.
"Booyhood" takes its simplicity. Ordinary people, known problems: all the things that life is full of and that, in fact, are so difficult to bring to the screen. This film is about the best period of my life. A time when you can look for yourself fearlessly. A time when it’s scary to be yourself. About moments that fill our past: we do not remember everything. Just fragments. The most important or somehow sunk into the soul; what most often thought over for years - laminated memories.
There is one scene in the film: Mason's mother - in a brilliant performance by Patricia Arquette - laments her flying life. Wedding, children, divorce, unsuccessful choice of partners, work, and what is ahead? A funeral? “I just thought there was going to be something else,” she laments in tears. “Boyhood” is a story about the fact that there is always something else. Every life is ridiculous and boring in the form of dry biographical facts, suitable only for an obituary. It's all about moments. They make up life. And from them is woven this amazing film by Richard Linklater.
8 out of 10
"Adolescence" is the story of the growing up of a simple American boy Mason. The first divorce of the mother, school, friends, hurtful older sister, Sunday meetings with the father, new stepfather, foster brother and sister, humiliation at school, second divorce of the mother, first love and so on until graduation and admission to college.
In case someone does not know, the introductory information on the film “Boyhood” looks like this: director and screenwriter Richard Linklater shot this film for 12 years, although the shooting days were only 45. With this move, he achieved that the four main actors mature and age with their characters, without the help of makeup or replacement of the cast. According to rumors, Linklater even hedged against his own death: in this case, the film would have been shot by Ethan Hawke, the performer of the role of Mason’s father. In fact, “Boyhood” is a unique film experiment that impresses with its idea. It is quite unusual to feel when you look at the screen and realize that seven-year-old and eighteen-year-old Mason is still the same Allar Coltrane.
However, in order to become a truly strong film and be remembered for centuries, in my personal opinion, it is not enough that the creators approached the process of shooting in such an extravagant way, it is also necessary that the plot does not sag and contains at least some nerve, at least something beyond the dimensional course of the life of an ordinary, American teenager with his life joys and adversity. This was not enough for me in the movie “Boyhood”, and very tangible. Let’s forget about how much and how this film was shot and evaluate the plot. It will immediately turn out that there is nothing special here, and that there was no urgent need to spend as much as three hours of timekeeping.
In general, I watched this film before the announcement of the nominees for the Oscars and getting it into the category “Best Screenplay” I did not expect. I think the script is the weakest part of the film. And there is an explanation for this: it is difficult to write a coherent plot without knowing exactly what will happen to the country and the world in 5 or 10 years, not to mention the physical and moral state of each of the four “through” actors (by the way, Linklater almost failed his own daughter, who suddenly lost interest in the project, but eventually after persuasion agreed to finish it). I don’t think it’s a big mistake that Linklater didn’t have a script on his hands at all, and he wrote it before each of his 45 days. So what could have happened in the end? Only here is such an existential tape as “Adolescence”, the main idea of which is the banal “life is a moment between the past and the future.”
In short, I don’t think “Boyhood” is a milestone in cinema and a work of art. All the more surprising for me is the recognition of the film as one of the main favorites for the Oscars. Directing, yes, maybe. Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette? Well, with a stretch, although there are no special claims to them, they played well, firmly. But the script and actually "Best film" - very strange, very.
Summing up: “Adolescence” is a good, good, as it is customary to say now, indie film, of course, an interesting cinematic experiment and just a very pleasant and fascinating spectacle. I advise you to watch it anyway, even if you do not care about the scattering of American awards, which I personally would not give this film.
8 out of 10
Often, films that flaunt some kind of super-effort in the creation are deplorably mediocre from the artistic side. Well, there is no way that the idea of 15 years ago remains fresh. Or rather, it happens, but then it should not be just a narrative, but something eternal, deep.
Indeed, it is curious to watch the boy and his family grow up, but this is perhaps the only pleasure of the 3-hour tape. We will not see any sharpness, meaning or subtext. Dreary, methodical transfusion from empty to empty. Mothers are replaced by hahali, but they are all drunkards and idiots. It is time for American patriots to demand a ban on the film:
Actors? Ha! I imagine the disappointment of the director, when a sweet boy grew up in a lanky phlegmatic, on whose face only the eyebrows live. And his “sister” turned into a hairy girl without any hint of acting talent. It's scary to watch.
But the typical American story, another variation of last year's Nebraska, can traditionally derail one of the 6 Oscars it's nominated for. That's what matters, right? Overpower is in the right direction. The result seems to be secondary.
Boyhood is innovation. Films with such a scale do not pass by the dithyrambs of film critics. Forgive me, of course, but 12 years to make a movie about the growing up of an American teenager with a vivid description of their life, foundations, norms of behavior is an application for a statuette for the best film. And the application is well-founded - the probability of receiving the latter I estimate at 90% or so. But what about the movie itself?
The deep thought that actions and life credo are the result of the environment. The idea that even as a child, your life will change as circumstances require. The idea that parents are the most important people to anyone. The thought that debauchery, lust, alcohol and other interesting things in this country will accompany you from the age of 10-12 years. The idea that girls and women are fickle in almost everything is like a thermometer. The idea of living for pleasure. Lots of thoughts, no. This problem causes the viewer to forget why this film is needed at all, decomposing it and turning it into a bunch of small stories that are also sometimes almost completely identical. Yes, we are told about one hero, but events change each other, the hero grows up, and we sit at the screens and experience constant déjà vu: fragments repeat not only each other, but also other standard American films. And watching it in places is very difficult.
Boyhood is likely to take its two statuettes (for directing and best film). Scope is his main bargaining chip. But the point, so clear for the film critic of the American Academy, for the layman is not clear. And in general, I do not know the details of the shooting, you can quite ask: ' For what?'
Life is a truly amazing thing that fills absolutely everything that surrounds us, including ourselves. It is impossible to know how to live properly and no one will ever teach it. After all, everyone comes to this himself and the main teacher in such moments is always time. A time that passes so quickly and is not noticeable that sometimes you do not even notice how your whole life goes before your eyes. Yesterday you were a child who enjoyed life and ate all its sweets without any notion of responsibility, and today you can feel yourself in the body of an aging yourself, being almost at the end of your life path.
This is what can be felt in this film by director Richard Linklater. Linklater has long earned the fame of a truly brilliant director who is able to shoot absolutely everything and every time he manages to shoot something strong and perhaps even great. Creativity of the director is rich in a huge number of paintings, but each director has a “swan song” of his whole life and it is this masterpiece that this film of the director turns out to be, to the implementation and completion of which he went for a long 12 years.
Few directors are able to implement their idea in pieces for a long 12 years and it is the decision of the director of the picture Richard Linklater to go this way and gives the opportunity to respect him even more. Since it is here that he demonstrates himself most powerfully and as not only a brilliant director of reverent cinema as an art, but also a storyteller who tells with special passion 12 years from the life of an ordinary ordinary family.
The main characters are no different from each of us and in many ways similar to us and this picture of the director Richard Linklater allows you to observe the truly brightest and most memorable moments of growing up of the two main characters. Linklater does not try to cover such pages of life as the first kiss, deprivation of virginity and even the first prank, but digs deeper and reflects all this on the edge of the psychological metamarphosis of the main characters. Allowing not only to observe changes in the life, characters, consciousness and behavior of the main characters, but also observing many moments of his life on the example of the lives of the main characters.
The main value of life is that we do not have the opportunity to go back in time and relive our favorite and memorable moments again. That allows you to fix the uniqueness and irrevocability of life. But this film directed by Richard Linklater allows you to feel these moments and emotions evoked from them again and perhaps this is the main advantage of this picture.
Of course, as this advantage is truly impressive work done by absolutely all the actors who starred in the picture. After all, unlike most other films in which the growing up of the characters is reflected by the play of more and more different actors, Linklater approaches the task more straightforwardly. So we see the same actors growing up from age 6 to 18 over 12 long years. So the performers of the main roles Ellar Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater are truly impressive by how much their play looks throughout the film and how much they manage to imbue the actors’ growing up literally before our eyes.
But Linklater gives a real "carte blanche" not only to young actors. Completely starring in second-rate films and television series, Patricia Arquette definitely played the best role in her career. Observing it, we see a game that is absolutely even in strength, which, despite this, systematically demonstrates constant metamorphosis associated with the Arckett itself. Not only in terms of changing her physique and even hairstyles, but also psychological and that is what makes getting the coveted Golden Globe truly deserved. No less powerful impression was made by Ethan Hawke, whose game is so impossible to add in any volume of words.
10 out of 10
Boyhood is a real “swan song” in the work of director Richard Linklater and truly the main masterpiece of his life, which elevates the already impressive status of the director to completely new heights. After all, this is not just a film, but 12 years of the life of ordinary ordinary characters, leading actors, the director himself and America itself. What is shown to us for almost three hours of screen time and without any desire to break away from what is happening on the screen. Definitely one of the best films I’ve ever seen that deserves all sorts of awards and honors.
“I think the opposite is true ... The moment catches us.
I finally got to see Richard Linklater's The Boyhood. To be honest, I have never seen a single film from this amazing director before. I came across this quite by accident, looking at one good article in the bowels of the Internet. I was interested in what many people who wrote a review or just talked about this film are paying attention to. Of course, that's what it's been filmed for 12 hell years. And it's not a short time. I think it's a pretty interesting idea that we can see is productively engaging the viewer.
The story revolves around a guy named Mason. We look at him, realizing that in principle, the way he lives is not much different from our lives. This parting with friends, and swearing on the part of the stepfather, who forces the protagonist to clean the lawn, which he loves so much, and the first bottle of beer, and lies about the first sex, first love, experiments in his own image, graduation from school and so on.
12 years flew by for us, the audience, in just 2 hours and 40 minutes. We saw how the main character changed during this time. Not only morally, but also physically. This is impressive.
In general, I think this film is a great opportunity to look at life from the outside. The way things really are. If you are interested in this and you want to relax, relax, then I highly recommend watching this wonderful movie.
I watched Childhood, probably the most overrated film I have ever seen. Yes, he was shooting for 12 years (but the total shooting days were 45, which is not particularly impressive). It was a daring, dangerous undertaking - for that plus. To see the growing up of a person, what and how he influenced - cool and interesting - for this plus.
And now about the minuses - the film is terribly long - a lot of babbling (it's just babbling, not cool interesting and clever dialogues (they also exist, but there are few of them), but just babbling), doing nothing. There is no emotional content, it was possible to show the brightest moments in life, what people’s lives are remembered for, to come up with something interesting once this is a movie completely according to the script, and not a documentary. But none of this, there is a usual household level of third-rate drama. If it was a documentary – this could be forgiven – they say life as it is, but this is a script movie, only the script is not visible. And you could show this household somehow emotionally colored! But there is no - everything is fresh and fast, only some moments with the father and the ending with the mother - really good, interesting scenes where the characters experience emotions, and not "OK, we will squander a year."
And the most important disadvantage is purely American cinema, it should cause nostalgia, but their memories of September 11, Bush, Iraq and Obama are absolutely indifferent to me and boring, to me as not an American viewer – it is alien and not interesting. Thus, one of the main features is a reflection of the era for a non-American viewer drained into the toilet.
And that is definitely not a bad film, it is worth watching, even despite the protracted, bold, dangerous idea, sometimes curious implementation. A normal movie, nothing more. I do not understand this enthusiastic hysteria and almost 100% positive reviews of critics. Honestly, I was shocked, I was waiting for some revelation, a masterpiece, and got a boring household with an excellent initial idea and places good dialogue, but only in places, as a result, my personal imho:
7 out of 10
And yes, this is not a unique movie.
The cycle “Born in the USSR” is much cooler. Since it is a documentary and it is very close to us, as it is about us (even surprised that the UK made it)
Richard Linklater created a unique project that deserves to become a significant milestone in the history of cinema.
The film took over 11 years. Perhaps this is the only way to truly convey the spirit of the time. Who now remembers that somewhere in the early 2000s was so popular single “Oops!” Britney Spears and many girls imitated the favorite singer? And what was the popular love for Obama, how did Americans assess the new candidate? Or talk about whether there will be a sequel to Star Wars? What about Iraq? How did Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince premiere? Of course, the director concentrates more on the growing up of the main character, so there are not so many such nuances, but they also allow you to go back in time and remember - yes, it was so!
The actor, who plays the main character, at the time of the start of filming was 7 years old, and at the end - 18. "Children are awesome entertainment for the next 18 years." First, it is a great projectile for strength exercises, which every year becomes heavier. Secondly, you acquire a lot of knowledge and skills from medicine, rescue, tailoring, security, cooking, pedagogy, etc. Thirdly, and this is the most fun, it is interesting to see what kind of face it will have. It is difficult to recognize a blond baby in an angular teenager from the very beginning. Throughout the film, we see the growth of the main character and how his attitude to life is formed, views are formed, as well as those moments or those people who could have influenced him. Of course, the factors were much more, and since it is impossible to reshoot scenes with a younger hero, later it was necessary to simply mention something that could affect the main character. I think that because the filming is so spaced in time, more than once I had to adjust and change the original script.
Along with the main character, the people around him also change. Father and mother grow old, sister turns into a pretty girl. All people elusively change with age - such nuances would be very difficult to display only with the help of makeup. It's amazing to see a person change over ten years in a few hours.
The movie is almost three hours long. But even this is not enough to accommodate the whole life of the hero, and at the same time, we get too much information to comprehend. Yes, such a movie should be watched more than once to understand all the subtle moments and changes in the lives of the characters. Just like that, with a jump, to analyze the formation of a person will not work.
The main characters do not just play, but really live a lifetime on the screen. So, Patricia Arquette really survived two divorces, and Ethan Hawke married for the second time (in each marriage he has two children). Both actors deserve the highest praise. Mother played by Arquette, despite all the difficulties and personal tragedies, was able to adequately raise their children. From the last scene with her participation, it becomes a lump in the throat - how many parents ultimately feel the same? The father, played by Hawk, came out caring and loving. It is hoped that many moments from communication with children Hawk took from his life.
This is an amazing movie about our real life. As the first swallow, it is not without its roughness. However, I really hope that some of the directors will be interested in this direction, take into account the experience of Linklater and we will see more than one film in a decade.
It's not easy to start writing when it comes to a movie like "Adolescence." This is a long, harmonious and unique film, about which I want to say a lot of things, but do not know what to take up first.
I think, first of all, I should say a few words about the initiator of the grand project, Richard Linklater. The filmography of this director has about two dozen films, of which I have seen about one-third. All of them are original and inimitable - the manner of shooting Linklater is not difficult to learn after a couple of films. The characters of his characters do not seem imposed, talking and pretentious. On the one hand, the most ordinary people wander around the streets, talk like all sorts of nonsense and do nothing special (Slacker>). On the other hand, they feel their loneliness and isolation in this world and try to find among indifferent persons at least one close and kindred in spirit, a person with whom you can discuss everything that has accumulated, all important topics that arise in the form of a large and insoluble issue, whether it is the love or relationship of parents to children ( "Before Sunrise", "Before Sunset", "Before Midnight"). But we cannot say that Linklater is a moralist. The actions of his characters hardly fit into some familiar to the viewer "site", that is, something that focuses attention, something that happens not as in our ordinary life. Linklater’s characters do just such things, imperceptible and obvious, and his films are like a mode of their image, close to reality. But he does not just show us life - he catches it by the tail, catches every insignificant moment, banal and boring, which turns out on the screen so natural, truthful and beautiful.
The same can be said about the movie "Boyhood". Linklater does not depart from his principles, and the picture again turns out to be “living”. After watching it, it becomes clear that “Boyhood” was a long and incredible, unusual and risky project, because the director for 12 years filmed his friends and his daughter, not knowing what could happen to them next. What if one of them left forever, or worse, died? And what perseverance and faith it took to keep shooting for so long, because 12 years is a huge time! So you can see how important and serious this project was. Only another key work of his life can be compared with him – a trilogy about Jesse and Celine, which was shot for 18 years and remained the same age as actors whose years of life flowed on the screen almost as they did in reality. So here we have to admit that Linklater was and remains a great original. But I'm serious about it.
I can’t imagine what can be said about the film without going into detail and looking at almost every episode. At the very end of the film, one of the heroines (clearly a potential girlfriend of Mason), trying to make up for the awkwardness at the first meeting, very appropriately notes: it often happens that we catch the moment, or rather, even he catches and subjugates us. So the whole film is a sequence of captured and captured by the director moments that make up a fragmentary but holistic picture of the life of Mason - a child who has become before our eyes an almost adult person with formed aspirations and plans for the future. What is remarkable, the first part of the film you watch, as if not understanding what is happening here special, why it is worth seeing. There's no plot here. We see a strange child who does but does not give up his homework and loves to look out the window; we notice how he has his first bicycle, grows hair, beard and mustache, and the passion for games is just as quickly replaced by a passion for photography, as the faces of his schoolmates change because of constant migrations; we sympathize with the mother of two children who is forced to study and work, because she has no time for herself, because constant accounts require reading and payment; periodically we observe the stage of the father who has not lived with them for a long time, as no one is trying to get his life because of small people, and finally realize that they do not want to get by her first time, and that they do not only to get by her small ones who are so seriously, and do it, and do not know them, that they do so well, that they do not want to get by her first time, and finally, and that they do not know them, that they do it, and finally they do not know them, that they do not know what they do not want to get by their own life, and do it, but they do it, and that they do not Therefore, only in the second half you begin to feel a strange tension and anxiety, as if you guess that Mason’s path is getting closer and more inevitable to the turning point, at which, although life does not end, but the director puts an end. You can guess what will happen next, but already said a lot.
The actors deserve special attention. I can’t imagine a Linklater movie without Ethan Hawke, which is how much he got into the role of Jesse for me. But for the role of Mason Senior, he fits the best, combining external carelessness with an old love of trying to speculate about life and share his experience. I had never seen Patricia Arquette in a movie before, but the role of a single mother came to her face, she looked convincing and sometimes very touching. The daughter of Linklater himself amused, in whose face he very successfully and accurately demonstrated the appearance of a typical American girl (which she, apparently, was). As for Ellar Coltrane, his story, his changing appearance, habits and interests, made me feel a special sympathy for him, perhaps because he reminded me of himself many times in such situations; I do not know how much he was in him and how many Linklater were in him, but the image turned out to be “real”, vivid and memorable.
Since I still can not demonstrate the talent of Linklater on a concrete example, or rather, I do not have the right, I just want to advise you to see it with your own eyes. I don’t doubt, “Boyhood” is a long and sometimes seeming long film, which most will seem boring and slurred. But try to want to see and realize what you saw – it’s worth it. I can only add that Richard Linklater is one of the few modern directors who so correctly guesses the mood of the era, conveys the details and characters of people, especially native Americans. Therefore, many of his paintings deserve attention, and most importantly, understanding.
10 out of 10
Richard Linklater gave us a unique opportunity to witness how life develops for 12 years in one family.
“Adolescence” is one of the most interesting film projects in my opinion. The idea of making a film for 12 years, but with the same actors, to make the story truly authentic, is worth considering.
The duration of the film is almost 3 hours, but even this, you will agree, is not enough to tell about 12 years of a person’s life. In the center of the story, a boy named Mason. We will learn about his most important years in life. Together with him, we will survive quarrels with his sister, mother, stepfather, first love, difficulties at school / college. Everything that happened to us before we went to college. The story is close to everyone.
The most interesting thing is that watching the film, the director managed to mention many moments that happened in our lives. In other words, all the events in the life of the main character, we experienced. Here you and the premiere of one of the parts of “Harry Potter”, will not do without a scoff at the Saga “Twilight”, and of course, without “Star Wars” anywhere. As for musical tastes, we will remember about many, probably forgotten emo. The music in “Boyhood” occupies one of the important places in the picture, although the main hobby in the life of the boy is quite different.
The film does not claim to be the most philosophical, complex and serious film. Nope. It lacks ordinary drama. But it's real. Affordable. The main conclusion to be drawn is to always support your loved ones, stand up for your relatives and do not give anyone offense. Stand behind them on the mountain and never forget them.
Even though it is long, it looks easy. The viewer is immersed in the story, waiting for what will happen after. We've been living these 12 years with Mason and his family, excitedly noticing and appreciating every single change in appearance, in the style of clothes, in the music that plays to determine what year or so is being described.
If, of course, to celebrate any of the actors separately, then you should praise Allar Coltrane, Ethan Hawke. Acting is not bad. Lorelei Linklater was not quite sure of the game. Maybe it's because she's Richard Linklater's daughter, and it somehow reverberated. There was a lot of effort behind it.
Special thanks to the director / screenwriter for the lack of that dirt and lust, swearing, which saturated the films released recently. The movie is really decent. The task was difficult, for someone and impossible. The actors and the whole crew did it. Good work.
You can draw an analogy with the film released a year ago, which, like “Boyhood” was one of the main contenders for the main awards “Oscar” and “Golden Globe”. And the point is not so much that director Richard Linklater shot his brainchild for 12 years (after all, the filming process was only 45 days), but that the main components of success (a strong dramatic component, the play of supporting actors) are identical in both films. But if Steve McQueen ("12 years of slavery) shows the time span of the mid-nineteenth century, Linklater took the time closest to us, which is why we can most fully associate the characters of the film with themselves.
It begs for another comparison with another painting by Robert Zemeckis. And if “Forrest Gump”, despite its depth, is still closer to the older generation, then “Boyhood” unites both, as if an editor combines disparate fragments into a single work. There will be not only reading the popular Harry Potter book, talking about Bush, the emergence of new phone models, but also the music of The Beatles, the best compositions of which were selected personally by Ethan Hawke.
The main purpose of the picture is to observe the inner and outer maturation of the boy Mason (Ellar Coltrane) and, therefore, his environment. In this "observation," "Boyhood" is closest to "The Truman Show." If the hero of Jim Carrey was watched around the clock by the whole world, watching him on television, then Richard Linklater himself watched Mason, a kind of Christophe played by Edd Harris.
There is no central conflict in the film, just the story of an average family. Therefore, Linklater does not focus on something specific, for him everyday things have the greatest value, people’s relationships are most interesting, and life, in its routine, everyday component, the highest beauty. With his simple rhythm of uncomplicated narrative, the director seems to spread the wings of the imagination in order to dive and return us to earth.
Richard Linklater is an independent American director who has gained fame and is popular among his narrow circle of cinema fans. People who look at the world and see it the same way as the director of the film “Boyhood”. People with whom he lives every character in his films. Richard has long developed his own style and works only for his audience. His films are as viscous as toffee and are devoted to one or another aspect of the human soul. His films are about people, and he shows them as he sees and feels them. It doesn’t divide people into good and bad, it just keeps an eye on them and gives the viewer the right to separate their characters. Richard Linklater never shoots for awards, never changes his style to attract people who are not interested in the real Linklater. And all this is incredibly important to know and understand, if you decide to watch the film “Boyhood” cherished by critics and awards. Yeah, yeah, baby, Linklater didn't make this movie for you and the fat "recognized" guys at the Academy. “Boyhood” is filmed and staged for those people who have come this long way with him from the guy who worked on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico to the frontrunner of the Oscar ceremony. "Boyhood" is a film for "not like everyone else" and Linklater makes that clear throughout the film's timeline, and it's very big for a film where the narrative is initially very limited in action. I am not like everyone else; my hero is not like everyone else; my viewer is not like everyone else (as the viewer himself wants to think); which means that you must accept my rules of the game and follow them. It is too difficult for people who will watch this film “for a tick”, and there will certainly be many of them if “Boyhood” becomes the winner of the ceremony. People who are different from the average Linklater viewer. People for whom he did not make this movie.
Yes, all this long opus was supposed to lead the reader to the fact that if we remove the chic wrapper of the film, we get nothing extraordinary. No, "Boyhood" is a magnificent, powerful movie that lives by its main trump card - the characters. The whole picture we are watching the young years of the boy Mason, from his first conscious "lookers" in the catalogs of women's underwear and ending with his admission to college. Mason is Linklater. With a different way of life, different taste and style. But they are people of the same wave, people who were unlucky not to meet people like them in their early youth. Around Mason, the whole film is next to a lot of people: family, mothers, friends and girls who succeed each other. All these people love the main character with a piece of their heart - some more, some less, but none of them is "his" person. The sister is always in gossip, girlfriends and guys; The father is an aging, self-seeking rock-n role-player who tries to do everything he can for his son and adjust him to his interests, but in his heart he understands that he is different; friends are drunks and party-goers; the mother tries to do everything she can for her children, while not forgetting to arrange her personal life, home, work, etc., to escape the realization of the fact that she is godlessly aging. All this forces Mason to look for the very person who will understand and accept his tender nature. One of the first scenes of the film is the loss of a friend by a child after moving to another city. Until the very last scene, the main character is trying to find someone who would be as close to him and now, sitting in the canyon, he finds peace and finds “his” person, thereby flipping the chapter of adolescence and throwing the most sincere, albeit the most discreet, smile for the whole film.
Naturally, it would be almost impossible to pull out the whole film on the main character alone and his mental anguish within the stated timekeeping, and to follow the boy, who from year to year became more and more wooden, the viewer would get tired by the age of 10 Mason. Here Linklater comes to the rescue of secondary lines and images that are full and candid as never before. Ethan Hawke is incredibly convincing in the image of a father who is forced to spend little time with his children, and along the way produces one of the best performances of this year. His Mason Sr. could be a separate spin-off, which is likely given the close collaboration between Linklater and Hawke. Ethan's hero has been growing up before our eyes for the past 12 years. If Mason lives in adolescence, then Mason is the eldest trying to go beyond his youth. Cool car, permissiveness, their own rock band and early unplanned children. Linklater creates an image of a typical rock and roller who begins to suffer from himself. During the film, Hawke's character becomes wiser and more mature, has a family and children, along the way being the best man in Olivia's life, despite his sloppyness and the wind in his head. And if the Masons in the film represent fire in the eyes and youth, the character of Patricia Arquette throughout the film withers. She realizes that she loses her youth and beauty, but tries to fight for her happiness, stepping on the same cones, forced to drag her two jackasses upstairs alone and simultaneously receiving blows from fate and drunks - husbands. Some in the heart and soul, and the second very real - in the stomach and face. Linklater says goodbye to the heroine Arquette tears full of awareness of the meaninglessness and omission of his life. And in response, she receives only a misunderstanding from her son, which she has not been able to overcome in 12 years. This final chord of Patricia is one of the strongest moments of the film, for which she will definitely receive a statuette this year. In her tears the tears of her mother are born, and such emotions can not be deceived.
"Adolescence" will cause a lot of controversy, fair and unfair criticism. One thing is for sure, “Adolescence” is not without disadvantages and absolutely does not hide them. I'd even say it sticks out. “Yes, we have this and this aspect sagging...” So what?, but at the same time it is a good and strong movie. This movie is not about 12 years of filming and living those 12 years of life. No, no, it's a movie about the moment. A movie about growing up and your place in the world. A movie about "his" man. Linklater found thousands of these people all over the world. Mason in the finale of the film found one. Do you have one?
This is my first review of the film. So don't judge harshly.
Second, a little bit about the author. Before Boyhood, I hadn’t seen a single movie by Richard Linklater, who won two Oscar nominations and two Golden Globe nominations, won the Berlin Film Festival five times and the Venice Film Festival twice. It’s an impressive list, isn’t it?
Thirdly, “Boyhood” is an independent film (art house) with a budget of only $ 4 million, which has collected 10 times more than these millions around the world. Impressive.
Fourth, I wouldn’t have seen this film if it wasn’t for the media hype, the number of nominations and awards. Rotten Tomatoes is 98 percent, Metacritic is 100 percent. All of this greatly overstated my expectations. This is what really happened.
It's the first time I've seen this concept of making a film -- shooting the same actors for 12 years in a row to show people getting older or getting older. The grand scale of time. After all, you can remember how in Benjamin Button Brad Pitt makeup without respite and even replaced by other actors, then superimposing his facial features with the help of a computer. Everything seems real and natural, and it’s very exciting. In addition, during the whole film you do not even notice the change of equipment - did the author use the same cameras for 12 years?
Directing and Script. Most likely, this story is typical for modern America, because all the canons are observed, including the “expulsion” of children from their parents’ home after school. Yes, the details of the film are beautiful - scenes, dialogue, footage. However, there are no special, unexpected plot reversals here. The production and scenes are pleasant and even good, although sometimes in the course of the action you are surprised by what is happening, because the author can unexpectedly add new actors directly to the epicenter of events in a completely unexpected role (about the middle of the film you already get used to these “tricks”).
Some words are worth acter composition. Of all the “players” I had previously known only Ethan Hawke, the winner of two Oscar nominations. The main character played by Allar Coltrane is a boy who grew up in a young man before our eyes. Sometimes it seems that he did not get used to the role, but she got used to it herself. Throughout the film, we watched the life and development of the actors themselves – after all, over 12 years their game could change enormously, but I did not notice any “inconsistencies”.
For me, the soundtrack and voiceover have always been of great importance. The author very accurately selected the music for the background - each song corresponded to that small era of the two thousandth, year after year. Great.
In general, the verdict is this: if you want to plunge into the life of a modern American family and quickly run through all the stages of growing up a boy, then Velka, this film is for you.
8 out of 10
Richard Linklater is definitely not making blockbusters. His trilogy “Before...” is essentially one big dialogue between two people, which is nothing but the ordinary life of ordinary people. “Adolescence” is a kind of quintessence of these dialogues, stretching over 12 years.
In his film, Linklater showed the simple life of a boy named Mason who grows up, goes to school, then goes to college, and there is nothing unusual about this film. This could or has already happened to many people and families on the planet.
Of the entire cast, perhaps three stand out. Allar Coltrane brilliantly played a simple boy with his problems, achievements, family relationships that look very natural. Ethan Hawke is always great. He was very good in the trilogy, but here he clearly played amazing. His image of a father is very natural - he develops over the years only for the better, which is how a real father should be. Patricia Arquette also changed character, appearance and duties throughout the film. This trio embodied on the screen insanely interesting family, which contributed to the Director.
The atmosphere of the film is so warm and soulful that it is impossible to get bored for all 165 minutes. The film is unique in the length of its filming and the fact that the actors in between played in other films, but still all 100 returned to their roles. Bravo Linklater, one of the most unique directors of our time.
10 out of 10
P.S. What is the director's next project? Ah yes - "Dained and Confused 2." Definitely waiting.
Raise me from childhood, an era of twists and turns!
Fact: The most critical situations happen to a person in childhood, when he obeys his parents, falls asleep in his room, goes to school and meets his first love. It is in the period between these fascinating and difficult actions that what might be called the festering of the personality occurs, that is, that the external negatively affects the psyche, thereby overshadowing the bright and pleasant events. Such can be, if you put in contrast to the above normal actions - divorce parents, moving and overnight in another room, and even in a large (possibly even orphan) house, truancy or idleness in school, dislike of others or fear of approaching a peer and talking to him. Some will think: it is not true, this can not yet happen in childhood, probably a little later, closer to adulthood. Sometimes after he's gone. And really, if you don't have to, something might not happen so soon or not at all. In any case, no matter how and when a person is not influenced by an external factor, he still remains in the soul a child who is just getting acquainted with society, with all that science and nature gave. And then, as it happens, where will his fate wrapped and what door will he enter after. .
Richard Linklater, who presented at the Berlinale in February 2014, his 12-year-old teenager with the noble name “Boyhood”, risked the most appropriate way with his sharp step to cool the modern audience with his incredible history.
The main character, which will be discussed during the “parental” project Linklater, is a boy Mason (Ellar Coltrane), who grows up in an environment of ethical cataclysms: with his mother, sister, classmates and friends. Sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater) taunts him and provokes him into a fight, his mother (Patricia Arquette) tries to forge a personal life in the absence of an irresponsible husband (Ethan Hawke), who longs to see his children after traveling north. During his growing up, Mason got used to what happened to him - scandals, moves, threats - but he believed that things would go differently, that all these are unnecessary pages that can be ripped out and given the narrative a different continuation. So how did it really happen? And how did the relationship develop in the future with the external light and its changeable appearance?
Linklater’s film will tell the viewer a lot that was plucked, fortunately or not, everyone in life who did not see it, did not feel it, did not think about it. These may be ordinary familiar stories that will not present something supernatural and outlandish, but they will be presented so believably that they may seem like a kind of life capture, a video shot hidden from everyone. These videos can evoke conflicting emotions, even seeming like a certain kind of prank, shown specifically as an aesthetic element. But the director does not want to joke about what is happening, he does not even introduce humor as a drug that saves the situation. It is replaced only by a heartfelt smiling mine, depicting the pleasure of staying with relatives or friends from the next house who found fun in sports or reading fascinating magazines. Humor already finds his position, no matter how profitable it is for him.
For Coltrane’s character, it can be funny what has its own position in space and what can be recorded on a camera, to which he has an interest in the process of cognition of the world. Although the young actor portrayed almost the entire film with an insecure melancholy attitude, his hero did not suffer from this and every year he got to one or another platform of change in the light of literature, cinema, music with one thought in his head - how to try both as an experience. And he enjoyed studying these arts while changing his worldview.
His parents could have helped him. More impressive was the role of the father, played by Ethan Hawke. There is nothing else like a modest “bravo!” to express no urine, because the play of this actor should be watched in this film with special attention, because his character trumpets with the voice of the decade, the one who could vote or perform this or that rock composition. And it seems that his voice could change his opinion, but at the same time he does not shut up, and speaks boldly about what revolves around him.
Linklater’s project is not a psychological experiment that teaches people to be closer and more intelligent. It’s not even the kind of social drama from which you can draw all the troubles of young families and the first sexual experience. Even that which is ascribed to “Adolescence” as the truth that actually exists is not an appropriate description. In fact, this is a well-veiled collection of sketches on free subjects, even with a share of banal phantasmagoria. In each of these sketches, there is a certain image, hooked by circumstances and time, through which he gets to the expected ending, where a symbolic morality will sound, and then he will score the final orchestra from a series of intermittent author’s calls. After each scene of the film, you want to express your indignation or love for what is happening, to engage in battle with this screen form, which varies from color to color, from quality to quality, which makes it possible to look at your age with different eyes, from a different angle.
There is no doubt that the film “Boyhood” is an artfully created work of one man – Richard Linklater, and it is he who should shed all the burden of gratitude and praise for what he ousted and squeezed from a certain year, putting it in his film. In his small reserve, one family developed, which the director fed various kinds of spiritual food, and changed the living conditions, in which they, in fact, found the essence of resolving all disputes, turns and upheavals, into which they were thrown by chance!
And if the director had not saturated his 12-year-old son with joyful laughter, and tastes of the decade, and a mental attitude to reality, his pupil would not have appeared on the stage of the Berlin Film Festival, and so would not have excited the audience.
Is it worth thinking about what brought us up - an era of twists and turns? And whether it becomes a fact for us later or sooner. .?!
Do you think you could do the same thing for 12 years? If you like this, of course you will respond positively. But remember, 12 years is a long time. I have no doubt that some films can make longer, but today I will tell you about a real breakthrough in the world of cinema. I present you the drama of Richard Linklater "Boyhood".
Plot:
The plot is based on the life of Mason. From his early years, we will follow his difficult and dramatic life, experiencing all the changes that will happen to him, as well as to the people around him - friends, relatives, acquaintances, etc. Together with Mason we will live a part of his life.
The director and his team
Screenwriter and director
Undoubtedly, Richard Linklater will leave a huge mark on the film industry, creating such a long-term, unusual and interesting project. I can't even imagine what it's like to make a movie for 12 years! It's amazing. The film turned out simply incredible, completely immersing the viewer in the world of Mason, making us a kind of “family member”, who experiences with the hero both positive and negative moments, experiencing joy and bitterness. Everyone will have different thoughts about this movie after watching it, but I really liked the scene near the end of the film, when an adult Mason is driving a car on the highway - I somehow got an association that life is a road that you go on all the time, sometimes stopping or turning in different directions. The film caused me only positive emotions and I watched it in one breath, completely immersed in what was happening. Bravo Richard! Bravo!
Operational work
Great work was shown by Lee Daniel and Shane Kelly. The film is so pleasant and vital that the viewer completely goes into this film. A great picture gives even more pleasure to view this creation. Excellent work!
Composer
It’s not there, but that doesn’t mean there’s no music in the movie. On the contrary, there is a lot of it and it sounds different – in the car, on the street, in the bar, etc. As for the genre, it is also different and appears in different ways, for example, Mason’s father loves old songs and prefers country, as well as the Beatles, but not in a full team, but separately. Why? You'll know by watching the movie. Great music!
The director and the team worked just amazingly and the film leaves only positive emotions, forcing us to think about some aspects of our lives. This is a wonderful movie!
Activity
I will not single out anyone, and praise the entire cast from small to great. The play of the actors is simply wonderful and they betray the film a great naturalness and vitality, further immersing us in the film. Of the famous actors here are Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette, which true fans have already waited. I really liked Ethan's game and want to see him change again. He got into the role so much that he probably spit on the script and improvised himself, developing his skills. With the main character, we see how his relatives change – how they age, change their point of view on a particular issue. Simply put, the actors here are wonderful and their play is the same.
Rewards:
The film became a sensation and many already call it “Film of the Year”, and “Golden Globe nominated the film as much as 5 categories (" Best Film” (drama), “Best Supporting Actor” (Ethan Hawke), “Best Supporting Actress” (Patricia Arquette) “Best Director” (Richard Linklater) and “Best Screenplay”. The Berlin Film Festival awarded the film 3 awards (out of 4 possible) in the category “Silver Bear for Best Director” (Richard Linklater), “Prize of the German Art House Guild”, “Prize of the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper”, and also nominated the film for “Golden Bear”. And finally, at San Sebastian, the film won the FIPRESCI Prize for Best Film of the Year. Looking forward to the Oscars.
Total:
"Adolescence" is not just a movie, it's a whole life. 12 years of work on this already say that this film is mandatory to watch. Before I just started watching this film, I thought about why everyone sings praises to this film, but after watching it, I began to sing praises to the film. Believe me, the film is worth watching and it doesn’t matter that the film is almost 3 hours, it’s not that. Just sit comfortably in a chair, turn on the “adolescence” and watch. You must see it. Thank you to everyone who worked on this great project!
Thank you for your attention and pleasant viewing!
I am amazed that director Richard Linklater has been making this film for 12 years. Other directors could have just invited the actors to these roles, but in this film, writer and director Linklater thought it was right that the characters “live” in the film. Undoubtedly, this is the strength of the thought of the creator of this picture. The role of Patricia Arquette, which I loved since the movie “Nightmare on Elm Street 3” is simply brilliant, of course, I am 99% sure that the Golden Globes and Oscars will go to her. Because you can’t ignore the character, and Patricia plays a divorced wife with two children left with her, who fights for their moral qualities, for their freedom and place in life, for their morals and dreams! All the actors are well selected and 100% live in the picture. It’s really interesting to see the same actors change over time and over time. How well shown are the moments when a father talks to his son and tries to present, albeit not from the best side, but nevertheless in the way he knows from his life. This is exactly the strong moments of the plot of the film, that Linklater really felt the life of his heroes.
The picture deserves attention, it is strong and “useful” for cinema.
“Boyhood” is a truly monumental work of director Richard Linklater. This is the film he made for 12 years. Today, few people in the film industry do that, and certainly not many people agree to produce one picture for 12 years. Well, fortunately, there are still people who make films for us that are not at all like the others. And that’s why they should be respected and, of course, watched.
The main effect of the film is time. All the actors we see as children played their roles throughout the filming. And that's one of the themes of the painting.
There is nothing in this movie that we are used to in movies about growing up: the first fight, the school fights, the first kiss, all of which are given very little attention in the film. This movie is a little different.
Alfred Hitchcock once said, “Cinema is a life out of which all the boring things have been cut.” So Linklater moves in the opposite direction, emphasizing that there is nothing in common between the life and cinema of antiquity. For the most part, the film is subordinated to the prose of life, to what happens between the most important, the most exciting.
The director placed in three hours of timekeeping such periods of life as childhood, adolescence, youth. Along with the main character, his environment changes, and in a sense, this is a film about the growing up of America. Conversations with his father at the campfire about “Star Wars”, giant queues for the next volume of “Harry Potter”, the presidential election, in which it is clear who will win – there are a lot of such episodes, and it is felt that in this way the film becomes more personal and open to everyone.
Summing up, we can say that “Boyhood” is one of the best films of this year. The finale of the picture symbolizes the awareness of the moment "here and now", growing up behind, in front - a whole life.
10 out of 10
Live today and tomorrow Sometimes you read positive reviews of critics and start waiting for the supernatural. There. If you don’t expect anything supernatural from this movie, the movie is wonderful. It leaves good feelings. It's an experimental arthouse. The experiment is that the film was shot for 12 years, and the actors grew up with the film literally. The main character swung from a little boy to a college student. There is no straight heart-wrenching drama and too unexpected turns, everything is basically as it happens in life. This is a film about the family and teenagers, well, about the relevant problems: divorce (mild, and then not very), a punching mother-workaholic, moving, first love, infidelity, conflict of fathers and children. Absolutely realistic growing up of not only the main character, but also the people around (and here we are talking not only about growing up, but also about aging), acutely demonstrates how transient life is, and how it sinks in everyday things. An insecure boy without purpose and a punchy self-made mother, seemingly successful, but dissatisfied. With one wise phrase, she directed a Mexican worker unknown to her in the direction of life success. But it is not at all obvious whether her many phrases will help her son not remain a copy of his frivolous father. It seems that this movie teaches to live not only tomorrow, but also today. And vice versa. 8 out of 10 Original
"Boyhood" a subtle and experimental film Richard Linklater. Director of non-profit, diverse and talented. A director with his style, his language and his world. One of the most interesting films in recent years. A huge, unbearable work was done by the entire film crew, who worked on enthusiasm and obsession, love for their work. It's hard to imagine what else drove them. Who will go to a three-hour movie without action, without any sharpness, without invented pretentious plot moves. The film collected a huge box office for its genre, that’s what critics and media in America do.
Thoughtfulness, melancholy and detachment - all this mixes well and coexists in the film. This is more than a film, it is a piece of life, life and the spirit of time. It is the spirit of the time, its essence and understanding. The most difficult thing is to capture time as it is on film. It attracts and repels, it interests and excites. It rarely succeeds, but is always remembered and remains for centuries.
Growing up a boy, the vicissitudes and events of his family and everything that surrounds him. The formation of the personality and how it affects the family, the environment, society and the whole world. Ordinary and realism. Finding yourself in this complex and difficult world. The need to make decisions, the need to take responsibility for their actions, the inevitability to take their fate into their own hands. To change it at your discretion, to be the creator of your future, and not a passenger in a canoe, smoothly descending on a shallow river in a calm and carefree current.
The whole film is surrounded by such simple and true thoughts and values that it becomes incredibly exciting, scary, confusing, boring, uninteresting. In some moments, you do not understand why this is so, and not otherwise, because everything is simple, but this rather speaks about my own, subjective in me. It's great that there are films that evoke the most controversial, personal, intimate moments. There is no escape from them, no escape from them.
All this makes the film really alive and real, almost documentary, although all events are fictional, even if based on real facts, still invented and invented. Richard Linklater takes the flow of time in his own hands, feels it, does not mix and is not distorted by innovations, abstractions. He is honest, honest and honest with himself and his audience.
It’s hard to write a lot about this movie, and probably unnecessary. It makes no sense, you can only warmly recommend carving out invaluable time and watching this wonderful film. Just as it is impossible to transfer works of literature to the screen completely, in this case it is impossible to transfer the film to another art form. It is boundless in its form and completely closed in another format.
Actors don’t play their roles, it’s more than that, they’re left to themselves, they live this reality, they age with it, they change throughout their lives, both physically and spiritually. The unbreakable cycle of life, over it is not extinguished, it is not disturbed, it is exalted and protected.
Excellent soundtrack, a collection of songs "chum" for all time. Bob, Paul, Goth and many other great performers. You can buy separately and enjoy beautiful music, even watching the movie.
A film that has nothing to do with Hollywood cinema is absolutely not commercial. A film made by the call of the heart, soul, with love and mad desire. Something new incomparable, not to tolerate interruption and chewing of any harmful tasty food, honest and truthful.
Great, big, but modest movie. Realism and innovation. Long in timekeeping, and even longer in duration of the period covered in the film.
The life you can't run away from, the movie that will stay.
Already in the process of familiarizing myself with the cult three-volume book about love - Before dawn (1995), Before sunset (2004) and Before midnight (2013) - I thought about how well the director understands the essence of life (not to be confused with "meaning"), which is all in insignificant, minute details, like an inadvertently dropped word, a tender look, a soft touch, a fleeting resentment, stuck in the heart, like strong feelings smold in the soul for years. After watching "Boyhoods" I finally became convinced that we all live in the same time with the great writer, whose name is Richard Linklater.
I know a lot of people are scared off by almost three hours of screen time. I had concerns, too. I even adore the directorial versions of Peter Jackson’s films about Middle-earth sometimes stop to make a seagull, bring delicious cupcakes into the room. In the case of “Boyhood,” I was not distracted, afraid to miss something important, something that the director broadcasts to me through his characters. In my life, most of the stories that the heroes of “Boyhood” experience at one time or another have never happened, and yet this is a movie about Me, because this is a movie about Everyone.
Baby bumpers! There will be no bumpers in life.
Man is amazing and complex. Linklater shows the viewer a man in all his glory and with all his shortcomings in the most difficult and perhaps the most defining period of life. It shows a person growing up. A boy. But he doesn't do it like everyone else. The director of the conscious withdraws from deliberate moralization. He does not teach how to and how not to (he gives a little advice to the viewer only at the end of a three-hour lecture on the topic “Life as it is”); he simply shows how this happens to thousands and millions of boys and girls, with all of us.
For example, divorced parents, new mom’s friends, drunken idiots who love to teach, instruct, order, subdue, are, fortunately, not everyone, but these are only not the most mandatory input parameters. More important is the string of events, thoughts, actions that accompany a person on the way from a puppy carefree childhood to an acute and problematic youth, leaving its burns on a thin soul, not yet covered with the armor of adulthood. As a rule, all of us, regardless of the given parameters, go the same way. Richard Linklater fixes it.
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 the viewer a date with the characters with a difference of about 10 years, then in “Boyhood”, 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 into 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 “great” for several months.
You know what they say: seize the moment.
- I think it's the opposite - it catches us.
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.
Surprisingly, in the final credits, I felt pretty lousy, letting my age-old depression friend show off the claws. I thought that life was passing, that there was already a garden, a school, and even a university, and most importantly, everything would not start. Now, talking about this film, for some reason, I think that the main thing in my life will still happen. This is probably some special Linkleiter magic - his films can cause a variety of feelings in us.
10 out of 10
P.S. I understand that I haven’t watched a movie in my lifetime, but I think this one will remain for me one of the most unusual and truthful.
Everyone in the room probably has a picture where he is captured at a young age in some ridiculous pose, caught by his parents at the most inopportune moment. Of course, such a reminder from time to time leads the dusty internal motor into another short-term movement, melting some hardened internal organs. But what if you had on your hands not some individual memories recorded on matte paper, and thousands of hours of continuous shooting?
Boyhood is too painstaking and time-consuming a film to have any negative attitude towards it. Everyone already knows for sure that the picture has been in development for 12 years, since 2002. He took on such a risky and dangerous project director Richard Linklater. Of course, without fixating on a single "Boyhood", Linklater created side paintings like "The School of Rock" or the "Before" trilogy with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. It was necessary to engage in any shooting, while somewhere in the bowels of Texas is maturing the main film of 2014. And you need to have strong endurance in order not to throw such a work halfway to the greatest success. And he came immediately. Caressed and kissed, "Boyhood" reaps the fruits of its creation on the top line of the unit "Rotten Tomatoes" and awaits all sorts of awards at the future "Oscar - 2015".
But was the sheepskin worth making? Is the time spent on the painting justified? Leave all doubts in your baggage of mistrust. Boyhood, to put it bluntly, is a teenage drama featuring a certain span of time for a boy named Mason, also capturing the lifelines of his parents and sister. At first, it's a non-catchy surface synopsis. But the further into the forest, the more wood. I don’t know what kind of black magic the movie has, but somehow watching a normal kid Mason is pretty damn exciting. In fact, Linklater forces us to look long and carefully into the imaginary mirror, looking for similar facts with his life experience. There are times when you just don’t recognize yourself. You know, watching the tape gives you the opportunity to live again those very interesting years of your life: childhood, adolescence, youth, youth. Yes, that first love, or the divorce of parents. Or maybe a nice memory of your first job or a moment when you realize what you want to do in life. Oh, and that awkward conversation about contraceptives. There are all kinds of options, and each of them is individual. But even without these comparisons, watching Mason grow up is not without interest. How his character changes and how his worldview changes. How does the situation in his family affect him? How does he feel about it? It’s just that it’s all shown too truly... Too realistic.
Boyhood could be the shelf photo for actor Allar Coltrane, who grew up with the film. A kind of biography of the unknown image of Coltrane, which warmed up the same motor of all spectators for an indefinitely long time interval.
A couple of years ago, probably watching another film, covering a long period of the lives of heroes with the change of different actors, I thought: '. But who is going to do this - to stretch the shooting for several years?' And just the other day I came across the description 'Boys' and realized that someone dared to do it!
Of course I went to watch.
It turned out, despite the grandeur of the idea, the picture turned out to be simply a blank – a kind of pseudo-documentary about the life of one family.
The film doesn’t carry any idea, doesn’t solve any problem, doesn’t even ask questions. Even the main character has no problems - and he learns like nothing, but not a genius, he has no problems with alcohol / drugs / in the family, but he is not the top of diligence. Not ' cool' he, but not a victim of teenage aggression. He's so average, gray. Even the aspirations and interests of the young man to the last half hour of the film is not.
There is nothing wrong with this, but the heroes of films do not become such: watch one boredom.
As for the cast, the lead actor either got used to the role of a gray half-ghost, or the actor did not come out of it. The girl decided not to lag behind him - you can not reproach her with persuasiveness. Although, of course, child actors in long-term projects - it is always a lottery (from Emma Watson so nothing worthwhile and did not come out).
The only scenes that somehow diluted the anguish were the scenes with Ethan Hawke: he got a living character who, moreover, somehow develops: he grows up, realizes his responsibility, finds a normal job and builds his life. I wanted to have more scenes with him.
It’s great that the director and the actors went to such an experiment, and it’s a pity that it made so little sense that the slogan of the film was a phrase about 12 years of work on the film. That's it. There is nothing more to show for the picture.
I decided to watch this film, because it was nominated for the Globe, there were many free hours. In general, I am very attracted to films about teenagers, because it is incredibly sad that now in our country there are practically no good series and feature films about young people, or they are, but so remote from reality that I do not want to watch at all. Of course, it also attracted the fact that the shooting took place since 2002.
165 minutes were quite interesting, meaningful, at the same time feelings of detachment and immersion in the world of the picture failed to comprehend. Perhaps this is due to the fact that there was no sympathy for the heroes. Another thing that I will associate with this film in the future is the inconsistency with the real life of teenagers. But in this case, I wouldn’t dare say that I’m absolutely sure of that, because I don’t know American life from the inside out. But still there is a similarity with the movie “The Fault of the Stars”: emotions and phrases are shown completely implausibly. For example (not from the movie), "Mommy, you called me." What did you want? the daughter asks. Her mother replied, “My beloved daughter, I want to give you a phone.” “Oh my God, I’m the happiest, thank you for everything, you’re the best mother, I have everything.” In parallel with these words, the daughter jumps from happiness, jumps on the bed and dances. I'll exaggerate a bit, of course. In "Adolescence," it wasn't the same, but pretty close in improbability. I didn't like the ending. It seemed that I was not brought to her, not prepared.
Of the positive aspects, I would like to note the simplicity of people’s lives: everyday problems, celebration of important events are very romantic and realistically shown. Purely visually shows those States that were forgotten, giving preference to skyscrapers, offices, etc. That's how I like America. Hawk and Arquette pulled the film, so I was not surprised to see them among the nominees for the Golden Globes.
I don’t understand why “Boyhood” should be considered a masterpiece, even a great film. This is not the pride of American cinema, not the best picture of the year, although the other applicants have yet to be seen, but I come from the middle level. "Adolescence" is just another good drama.
After such a huge success of “Boyhood”, both commercial and, in fact, creative, only the lazy would not go to see what kind of masterpiece is hidden there. Screaming critics call it one of the best films of all time, the rating of the Metactitic website holds back a stable 100 points, which few can boast of, and movie aesthetes lift their noses higher and instantly forget about everything else. But does Richard Linkater’s painting deserve such attention? It is not difficult to say, you just need to dig deep enough to see all the “finds”.
One way or another, in his paintings, the director tries to convey to the viewer his vision of something. And in this film, Richard shows long-awaited events: frequent moves, quarrels between parents, divorces, bullies at school and acquaintance with the opposite sex. Unfortunately, all this reduces the film to the simplest banality, and the script, it is worth saying, fails. For many, this is familiar not only in the cinema - for someone it is a whole segment of their own life. And that's where the movie's success lies: people have found something for themselves. Everyone was kind of a little wanderer in such a huge world, but it's harder to say that about Mason. Most of the timekeeping, the main character does not develop, but only grows physically, but not mentally. He doesn’t seem thoughtful, intelligent, stupid, inept, dexterous or anything. The saddest thing is that the tape, designed to tell about the development of the boy, does not cope with the task, showing only everyday routine on the screen. In one of the scenes, Mason, who has grown up, says that he does not want to be part of “normality”, wants to do what he loves and not count papers for old age, but, paradoxically, Boyhood suffers from this very “normality”.
The guy grows up, but you can only see it externally, and alcohol, smoke and girls - it's so that everyone sees what a big boy he is. And I can understand that this is all real. The character is real, the world is real. But neither one nor the other wants to change. At least on camera. The director, in a strange way, in 12 years of filming, could not catch anything that went beyond the physical shell, which could be silent, but understandable to everyone and everyone. Sorry.
Richard Linkater doesn't want to be scolded. He did nothing wrong, but the too hasty conclusions about the picture for many became an excuse for all the mistakes that many chose not to notice. A great idea with a frankly mediocre implementation - here's the masterpiece. There are good sides to the film: the actors’ play, a rich picture, good camera work and some good ideas, but all this is drowning under the weight of one-layeredness, self-contradiction and everyday life. This picture had a lot of chances to become something irreplaceable, but, unfortunately, for this you need to penetrate the inner world of Mason, which seems to have been forgotten.