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.
The most overrated movie I've ever seen. It seems that everything is good: the shooting, and the musical design, and the acting, but where the hell is the film? The magnificent idea to film the growing up of one child for 12 years turned into a boring alternation of scenes-clichés. For example, ' Tree of Life' for all its pretentiousness and dampness was filled with philosophical overtones and constant metaphors, it contained a message for the viewer, in ' Adolescence' - there is nothing like that, it is empty, cold and, unfortunately, meaningless likeness of a film.
Perhaps Linklater played genius and forgot about the most important thing - the script. There are so many empty scenes - forced plugs - created more to artificially increase timekeeping, I do not remember in any film. The story, conceived as an ode to life, in fact came out absolutely empty and, oddly enough, lifeless. Maybe it’s all about the way of life – maybe a Russian person is not so interested in watching the life of an American family? But in the end, there are dozens of movies about American villages that really touch the living. For example, 'What is eating Gilbert Grape?' But this is not the case.
Yasen stump, this movie throws Globes and Oscars. Had Linklater not dared to make a film for 12 years, there would not have been half the hype that now reigns around '. But Linklater decided and now in the ladies.
How do you put 12 years of life into three hours? Richard Linklater knows how. Indeed, although the key points, we see the maturation and formation of the personality of the two children of the main character.
Many people already knew that this film was shot for 12 years with only one actor. I found it interesting and a little incredible, I was eager to see this project with my own eyes.
So I started watching. My first feeling is that I'm a ghost, an invisible ghost, who keeps an eye on an ordinary-looking American family.
It is true that such a family can live with us on the same landing, such as my family, in a way. That’s what made this movie so close to me.
The parent-child relationship, so natural, so not fake. Awkward themes for conversation, everyday quarrels and pleasant moments, everything in this film is shown as if we were watching it, say in the slightly opened door of the wardrobe. It seems so real and immediate what is happening on the screen.
I watched the changes of the actors with interest. The first juvenile pimples, the first wrinkles of the mother. Everything flows, everything changes. It's life, and it doesn't stand still. The strong scene at the end, performed by Patricia Arquette, makes me think about this.
Have time to grab your moments or let them grab you.
9 out of 10
Ambitious and wildly popular with critics project, the main “trick” of which is that the director and screenwriter Richard Linklater decided to follow the fate of the characters of the film in real time – from 2002 to 2014. the movie was shot a little, showing the age changes of the characters. All this, of course, is very interesting, and helps to some extent to feel the credibility of what is happening. But for me personally, the experiment itself is not enough, in addition to the form you want content, and it is here for a very large amateur. In addition, I will honestly say that I have a biased and controversial attitude to everyday language, since very often film projects shot in this format acquire realism, but lose the so-called “magic of cinema” – so it was with me with “Hope Will Not Extinguish” and “Two Days, One Night”. After all, in order to create a sense of real life, cinema is deprived of all the magical moments - there are no strong scenes, interesting dialogues, etc. What are we doing in life, and what are we doing in life? Nothing, just standard, banal things, just walking, talking, doing things that are of interest only to us and no one else. But then the question arises - is it worth watching this movie when you can just watch neighbors or relatives in the kitchen?
The same happened with this picture - the creators managed to achieve plausibility and a sense of view from the outside of someone else's life, but this life was absolutely unremarkable. Putting aside the 12-year stage of filming, we are left with the following: for almost three hours we are shown how a little boy grows and goes through his life stages, turning into a low-level and extremely trivial teenager, while the mother can not choose a normal man. The characters talk about something of their own, go to stores, find out relationships, talk about sex, the first cigarettes, drinking, etc., until it’s time to go to college, and all this on an extremely everyday, dry and detached note, in which the actors do not need to show their talents and capabilities, and my beloved Patricia Arquette, having stopped playing hookers and bums and switching to the role of mothers, simply transferred the image here from the series “Medium” one to one. No depth, attempts to understand the characters, to dig deeper than the observation of everyday life, the authors do not even try, just filming someone else’s life, not focusing on anything, not creating characters, conflicts, nostalgia for childhood, youth, do not ask for sympathy and empathy, because there is simply nothing. Perhaps the conceived experiment was successful, and the authors were able to simply recreate the growth stage of a boring average teenager who grew up on the screen, but it is not clear who grew up in, and this is not interesting to the director, not to mention the fact that if the main character in childhood was played by another actor, nothing would absolutely change in the perception of the material for me. Nevertheless, all lovers of conversational household stories may well like the film, and whether this experiment has some artistic value is also a matter of personal taste. For me, this story remained only an innovation, and nothing more, for him and an extra point.
7 out of 10
It is very important that the very idea, the concept of the film works surprisingly well to identify the main idea, quite life-affirming and wise, but unobtrusive in this case and transmitted in an easy form. We watch the characters grow up and change with the actors on a par for twelve years, and due to the fact that this period was accommodated in a three-hour timekeeping with proper consistency and bundle, there is a slightly eerie sense of the transience of time. From this now moment, our present can shine in an even more precious light. But everything in the film says not to catch the moment, but only not to be attached to the past, then the moment itself catches you and will help open up to the future in full.
The most interesting thing is that the story of the family of the protagonist is quite simple, this is an ordinary American family with familiar problems, and the main character is not some Forrest Gump, but a completely ordinary boy. This makes it easier to associate yourself with heroes and, as a result, to be imbued with the idea, essence. But the simplicity and excessive liveliness of the plot and characters do not make the film empty and uninteresting. Here worked competent directing – involving, focusing on the necessary details, many of which have some translucent, unobtrusive artistic expressiveness, a certain glue that makes the story whole and meaningful, and not a simple chronicle. The director and screenwriter wrote and directed the story so that we could love that simplicity and mundaneness as much as we could love it in our own lives.
Of course, it is impossible not to note the courage, patience and perseverance of the director. The idea is ingenious in many ways not even in its concept, but in how many risk factors it contains. But the film crew worked together, as the result showed, successfully and without any serious surprises that could present twelve years and disrupt the project. Changes during the filming period only benefited the film itself, emphasizing the changes in the characters' characters relative to their habitat.
The originality of the film still lies in the absence of pathos and strong dramatization, which is inherent in paintings describing the course of someone’s life. There is something beautiful about being aware of what is happening on the screen, especially at the end. It is even possible to experience a slight catharsis, to which the idea leads with due attention to history.
8 out of 10
The film made a splash online. At the time of writing this review was 89.5% positive on this site. Many consider the painting almost a masterpiece! But is that true?
In my opinion, the film is a straightforward plot, in which there are no interesting twists or intriguing life situations. The life of a boy named Mason is monotonous and boring. A normal childhood, moving, going to school and going to college. The social issues we've seen have been raised in other movies. What they were served more colorfully and dynamically. Perhaps the only plus of the film will be its main advantage - the unique approach of the director. This film was shot for 12 years, showing us the natural course of events in Mason’s life. As for the actors, I can say that everything is at a pretty high level, except for some moments of the children’s play in the first half of the film, but for that they are children.
In the end evaluate primarily for the creative view of the creators, but not for a weak plot:
“Boyhood” is a film that was not initially noticed by me and most Russian viewers, our distributors “tried”. Initially, I did not know about this film or about the director Richard Linklater, so I will judge his work based on this beautiful film.
The filming process is 12 years long!
The fact that the filming of this masterpiece lasted 12 years just amazes me and amazes me with the dedication of his work, both actors and writers, director, composers, and the rest of the crew. For 12 years of filming, the film in the end did not turn out to be empty, uninteresting and stupid, it did not exhaust itself!
Richard Linklater is a master of his craft, he directed a film that is not comparable to other films of this genre, I call it a masterpiece not because it was made in 12 years! Nope, not at all. Having understood the film, I realized that everyone will find something of their own in this film, the film is multifaceted and therefore it is pleasant to review it several times!
There is an example of how a good father should behave after a divorce. Here is an example of how it is never too late to change your life. There is also a deep philosophical thought: “We do not catch the moment, but it catches us.” The moment is always the now, as Mason put it. In general, this film, I repeat, is multifaceted and you need to watch it several times to understand all the messages completely. For example, I get to watch it for the third time, it does not bother me!
In Mason, everyone can recognize himself - this is also one of the many advantages of the film. It’s great to see such a movie and such actors. The film is literally fascinating with its atmosphere! Not every director can do that. I want to celebrate actors like Ethan Hawke and Linklater's daughter Lorelei. I liked Hawke’s colorfulness at the beginning and his seriousness at the end. Notice how he changed when he rebuilt a new family, he even sold his car to buy a minivan for his family, it was he who conducted the necessary conversations with Mason Jr., not some professor who drank and almost beat children, not some warrior from Iraq who tried to control Mason Jr., namely Hawke (Mason Sr.) told his son how to behave with girls, what a man should be and how to communicate with people around you. This is another example of what a real father should be. Even after the divorce, he did not forget about his children and was able to raise them, although you can not understand this at first sight. Lorelei Linklater also did a great job with her role, although she was a secondary character, but watching this film I constantly looked at Lorelei when she appeared in the frame. I don’t think she’s a zombie, I think she’s beautiful, especially at the end of the movie, when she’s grown up, independent and serious. Naturally, Allar Coltrane played his part perfectly here and there is nothing to argue about.
In general, this film is above all praise, this film I will recommend to every person I know. For me, this film is one of the best, on par with Forrest Gump. It is good that I did not miss this creation and watched it, after such a film and die peacefully. I hope you think about it after watching this movie. Good to see you!
Seeing the excessively high ratings of critics, I was extremely surprised. What is this about Linklater? From his work, I was only familiar with the stunning production of "The Awakening of Life", which shocked me with its original presentation and semantic load. And when I learned that Boyhood had been filmed for 12 years and that the director was watching Mason's boy grow up in real time, the film immediately became my top priority for watching.
Of the cast, I only know Ethan Hawke. Despite the fact that the other actors are not at all famous and I have never seen them anywhere else before, they all coped perfectly with their roles.
Here seems to be a simple picture, telling about the growing up of an ordinary boy. Family is like family, with its own internal problems. But I looked at it as if I was fascinated and couldn’t get away to the final credits. Because there were moments when I saw myself on the screen. The picture turned out to be so vital and realistic that I felt like reliving some moments of my past. In the true story of a growing boy, you plunge into the head. From a psychological point of view, you follow the stages of growing up, changes in the character of both the main character and everyone else. It looks like a breath. Excellent work.
The timing of the film is surprisingly pleasant, smooth. It should be noted the quality of the operator.
There is little music in the film, but it is always in the theme. No soundtrack was written, the film just sound singles such artists as Coldplay, Family Of The Year, The Black Keys, etc., and all this wonderfully conveys the spirit of the time and plays on the atmosphere.
Anyway, you just have to watch it. Watch everyone. And someone is not even just watching and living. Because the film is very vital, very warm, family, touching. Makes you rethink something, think about something, remember something. And yet, the film is surprisingly simple. And that's brilliant.
And now the final scene ends, the credits go... and before my eyes, to the music of Arcade Fire, the whole childhood flashes through.
One of the most important films I have ever seen. A movie with a capital letter. Life-affirming. Look, live.
It is a rare case when the criticism and quality of the film differ so much.
Not only does 'Adolescence' offer nothing new, so it is also extremely empty in its content.
The main advantage of the film, according to all who praise this creation, is its truthfulness. Maybe this is true, but only on the most superficial level. ' Adolescence' teaches nothing, real life, according to Linklater, is a few years (in our case 12), for which literally nothing happens. Emptiness. There is no history, no memorable heroes, just ordinary moments from the supposedly real life. Of course, there are films in which the action is reduced to a minimum, but in such the main thing is the idea, the attempt to convey something to the viewer. What was Linklater trying to tell us? Yes, in general, nothing valuable - neither in content nor in visual expression of the author's thought. The high rating of the film is justified in many ways by the fact that people did not see the real art house, but after watching ' Adolescence', they take it for something great. Linklater skillfully pulled the dust in his eyes, including his perseverance, choosing a straightforward and devoid of creative idea decision to shoot a picture for 12 years.
Each film has two goals - to make the viewer think or just entertain. 'Adolescence' is Linklater's spit in both camps, as the film is empty both in content and form.
This film can hardly be called a drama. Rather, a collection of meaningless scenes designed to awaken the viewer’s sense of déjà vu, they say, all this happened to me! But the point is that cinema should carry the viewer into its reality, offering something more than just aimless copying of life. With the same success, you can take a video camera and shoot your family for 12 years - but this will not be called a film as such, since it will not carry any semantic load and value for the viewer. The idea of showing a child growing up is interesting, but, unfortunately, Linklater’s idea remains an idea in 3 hours and does not transform into a full-fledged story. The plot, the development of the heroes - Linklater did not take care of this.
Mason, the main character of the film is nothing remarkable. It is difficult for the viewer to compare himself with him, to understand him. We do not fully understand his character, his goals, desires, aspirations. By the middle of the film, he begins to photograph - and that's all, no development.
The main drawback ' Boyhood' is that Linklater does not even try to dramatize the scenes, give them artistic expressiveness, as a result, we simply watch a kind of reality show.
Everyone can show real life, but not everyone can penetrate into the depths of things, get to their essence. ' Childhood' too superficial and that is why the language does not turn to call it a great film.
Yes, the film received rave reviews from critics, but after reading several reviews and reviews, I came to the conclusion that in fact not one positive review was attached to any argument. Just this film was shot for 12 years, and it must be ' a masterpiece' - this fact Linklater as if covered the lack of his film at least any artistic value.
It so happened that Richerd Linklater’s film “Boyhood” was not shown in Russian film distribution. Why? Because they were afraid not to make money. Because not everyone can sit for three hours watching someone's life. Yes, at first glance the film may seem boring, but after watching you realize that it is not.
The film shows us the growing up of an ordinary Mason guy. How he changes himself, how people around him change, how the world changes.
No matter what anyone says, American life is different from Russian life (not in material terms), so many of our compatriots do not understand this film. That doesn’t make it any worse.
Good acting, especially I want to highlight Patricia Arquette, she coped with her role 100%.
On the technical part, good installation and operator work can be noted. Also in the film a great selection of music that conveys the spirit of the time.
But there are drawbacks everywhere, this film is no exception. It has tough transitions, after which you do not understand everything. Some will say that it is impossible to put life in 2 hours and 45 minutes, but after 12 years of work on the film, you could explore the topic more deeply.
Result. It turned out to be a pretty high-quality movie. The director managed to show how the main character changes (and not only externally).
9 out of 10
Richard Linklater is quite an experimental and bold director. At one time, I decided to shoot a series of melodramas with an interval of 9 years with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpie, and especially the first part of Before Dawn was successful, for which Richard Linklater received the Silver Bear for the best directorial work. However, the director did not stop there, continuing to bring his original ideas to the screen. Filming of one of these ideas began in 2002 and continued for 12 years. The film gives a unique opportunity to observe the growing up of the child and his surrounding world as a whole.
Film critics of New York, Los Angeles and Boston call this film the best in 2014, and Richard Linkleiter predicts an Oscar for directing. Most likely, Linklater's "Adolescence" will be included in the list of the best films of the award Oscar and the chances of success are pretty good. The actors showed us a good game, staying in character for many years, especially I want to note the acting of Ethan Hawke, which is as always beautiful. It’s like he’s growing up with his characters. Initially introduced himself in the "Society of Dead Poets" some closed and verbose, then in the film "Before Dawn" became less shy, remaining the same brooding, and in "Adolescence" he appeared completely different, throwing away all the negative, becoming quite cheerful, cheerful and cheerful.
Directors usually prefer to replace actors with adults, but Richard Linklater decided to stand out for his work, perseverance and patience. We find ourselves in the world of the main character Mason, watching his growing up step by step. However, not only he grows up, but also his parents and sister. The faces of the actors age before their eyes, but they still manage to remain in character, as if days, not years, pass. Richard Linklater did not do without his favorite Ethan Hawke, calling his daughter Lorelei Linklater, Patricia Arquette and Ellar Coltrane, in fact, on whom the attention is focused. But the director understands that one originality does not succeed, you need a good plot, interesting development and Richard Linklater rather carefully and responsibly treats this, telling us the story of the life of an ordinary child and touching on the real problems of life that inevitably come with years. Actually, anyone can see himself in Mason, because the director touches on the problems inherent in all. The eternal problem of teenagers and parents is inevitable, but the director solves this rather calmly, making interesting dialogues.
It’s nice to know that with a budget of 4 million, you can make simple but decent films that cling to your soul. "Adolescence" can be safely considered one of the best films of Richard Linklater, which is not in vain deserved so much praise from critics, and the director for his work received an honorary award from the Berlin Film Festival. We take part in Mason’s life, watching his every move, as he gradually grows smarter, makes independent decisions, changes his character, views on life. In just 165 minutes, Richard Linklater gives us a chance to live a pretty important part of one person’s life. It feels like we’re in Peter Weir’s “The Truman Show” and holding our breath, enjoying the life of our hero, and by the end, he’s reluctant to say goodbye to us, as if to say, “I” In case I don't see you again - good afternoon, good evening and good night!
Bravo, Richard Linklater and thank you so much for your dedication and originality!
Looking ahead, it’s the best movie from the West in years, and it’s one of the best movies that’s changed me a bit as a person.
Family history: a woman is divorced, her children are daughter Samantha and son Manson, their life, their life, their desires. The difficult situation of a mother who, after the divorce, was left with two young children. They barely make ends meet, it makes them go back to their hometown to graduate from college, to get an education, to somehow improve their situation. Regularly on weekends, his father began to appear - this is still a failed young man who dreams of becoming a rock star, he takes children for the weekend. Although he is a bit windy man, he is a nice and kind person.
Some time passed, the mother is already teaching at school, she got married, the children have grown up, now they live in another house, under the same roof with the children of her stepfather. The children became teenagers, the mother became a respected teacher. Then there was more time...
A unique film in everything: in performance, in content, in the plot. In no other American film have I seen such an accessible, simple and believable portrait of an American family. You look at them and see that they are like all of us (people of another nation), with their difficulties, that they work on themselves, dream and love. I can already see a lot of people reading this saying, “We’ve seen hundreds of movies about the American family, we have a clear idea, and you just fell off the moon.” As Tolstoy once said, “All happy families are equally happy, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Yes, though... I can’t fully understand how I feel about watching the movie. There's something about it that hasn't been shown to us before, and it's something that's cleverly woven between the lines of the narrative, near in time. Time certainly plays a major role here, not only as the course of history throughout the film, but also as the cluster of identification.
In the film there are problems, and misfortunes, and other natural attendant, as usual, but here the characters do not go into depression, do not start to use drugs or drink, take a gun and shoot anything that moves. No, here the problems do not grow into movie clichés, here, you will not believe, they are just trying to solve. How untypical, human and easy it is. The truth and unobtrusive passage of time throughout the film. These two hours pass forty-five minutes, and you almost did not notice it, and now the credits have gone, and you want to continue.
As the film unfolds, we see children growing up. At the beginning of the film, we meet six-year-olds, and at the end of the film, we see adults in their twenties. The reception, of course, is not new, for example, in the film Citizen Kane, the effect of growing up is achieved by makeup, camera work, the opposite effect is rejuvenation, in the film about Benjamin Button, made using computer graphics. In the film "Boyhood" aging actors time, imagine this long-term construction - the filming lasted twelve years. I don’t remember any of the great examples in this movie, except for The Godfather, but I think it’s a completely different kind of movie, and people are all grown up. At the fortieth minute of the film, you begin to catch yourself thinking that the actors then grew up, all this imperceptibly happened due to the harmonious flow of the film, the scenes flow smoothly from one another, there are no boundaries where it would indicate “two years have passed”, “after some time”.
Director Richard Linklater, my subjective opinion, made many films, and dived from genre to genre. Already on the film, which I love, "School of Rock", sensitive viewers noticed that this is not just a comedy about a rock fan, on the surface there is also love, devotion, friendship, and if you dig deeper into this film about something larger, in form similar to a dream. And with the film “Obsurrection” struck with his genius, in which he collected an incredible cast (Robert Downey Jr.; Vainona Ryder; Keanu Reeves; Woody Harrelson), shot in a peculiar style, and you do not immediately understand this cartoon or the film, some still say that this is a cartoon. And somewhere during the work on "School of Rock" in 2002, Linklater plans to shoot his main film, at least for today - "Boyhood", because with each film his genius manifests itself more and more.
The film "Boyhood" is likely to be in the favorites for the Oscars, and will likely receive many other prizes festivals, although in the fourteenth year there were other worthy competitors. Like I said, this movie is the best in years. Yeah, and the soundtrack is top-notch.
Even without the slightest idea that the process of filming took 12 years, absolutely satisfied with what he saw. After reading this fact, an invisible tick settled into consciousness, opposite the film. I want to say a lot of flattering words to the director, who managed to translate a great idea into a wonderful picture. After watching it, it feels like reading a good novel.
The film tells about growing up, about the most important stage in the life of each person. About how character is laid, how much the environment and circumstances affect. Changes that occur in the life of everyone, someone more, someone less.
I remember when I was 6 years old, you were fighting with your mother all the time, you screamed loudly and your mother cried.
- Is that what you remember?
- Yes.
- So you don't remember going to Galveston, going to Big Ben?
The film stands out from the others, first of all, excellent dialogue, clever thoughts that please throughout the film. They want to learn and tell someone.
You don't understand, there can't be a Beatle favourite, it's all about the balance between them, that's what made them the greatest rock band ever!
Also great music that I noted for myself that usually after the movies, I find some songs for myself, and then there was a rather funny incident for me, already familiar to me songs were in the film, and once again warmed the soul, while these songs are not all known classics, but just such a cute coincidence.
Film analysis, a look into the past, from an interesting angle, here you will not see complex plot interweavings, intrigues and further down the list. Here you will be told about simple life, ordinary people, absolutely the same as you, without unnecessary falsehood. I wonder why you should watch a movie like this when it’s everywhere. The question immediately comes up, why are you looking in the mirror? You like that!
Richard Linklater is a rather prolific director: since his full-fledged debut in the form of the comedy film “The Bezzler” (1991), he has released no more than sixteen feature films. And, starting in 2002, in his spare time, he shot an ordinary American boy to trace his life from childhood to college. This project was one of the most successful in the whole work of Licklater, although he spent on it on average only two weeks a year.
Making a film about growing up using real time instead of makeup is an unusual solution. This can only be seen in documentary films. However, the uniqueness of “Boyhood” lies not only in this: the story of an ordinary teenager is conveyed with incredible authenticity. There is nothing surprising if the viewer forgets that he is watching a feature film, and perceives it as a family chronicle. The central character is Mason Evans Jr., a seven-year-old boy from an average American family. The relationship of his parents did not work out, and he stayed with his mother with his older sister. Throughout the film, we see some episodes of his life. They are practically not connected with each other, as well as individual moments in the life of each of us. I think Mason was just a kid, and ten minutes later, he's grown up and changed.
After reading a lot of audience reviews and reviews, we can conclude that this is the main disadvantage of the picture. But the opposite is true. Linklater showed us more than just a template biopic - it goes much deeper. Each episode is a vivid recollection of Mason, so it may seem as if the story of growing up is taken out of context. But each of us, describing his life, remember only what was deposited in memory, and routine, boring everyday life, everyday situations will remain in the past, not occupying any place in our head. It is for this reason that we are not shown any exceptional, special cases - only the ordinary life of an ordinary teenager: with loving parents, school, children's friends, chatter about girls, first kisses, parties, going to college.
Linklater once again demonstrates the incredible ability to write a script: his characters say a lot, but always to the point. For almost three hours, not a single extra line was heard, despite the fact that the topics for conversation between the characters are completely different. Mason listened attentively to his parents, watched their lives, and thanks to his useful ability to deeply analyze everything around him (this trait is hidden behind his untalking nature), he was able to realize a lot. This is manifested, first of all, in an accurate view of the world and people (the choice of a photographer’s profession best emphasizes this advantage of his character), and he does not occupy life experience. Growing up, he became an interesting talented person, and the audience is confident that his life will be much more successful than his parents.
The main lesson Mason learned during his teenage years was the final dialogue. Here the director directly tells us through his character that life is chunks of moments; and the brightest of them consume us. They do not live in our memories, but we remain in them forever. Sometimes it is not clear why this or that event affected us more than others, although there was nothing remarkable about it. It does not matter what kind of life you live: the greatest genius or the most ordinary person. It is important to be able to build your story in such a way that colorful pictures turn out as much as possible. And in this case, everything depends on us. Our improvisation, imagination and creativity will create a whole mass of such pictures, and then the most memorable moments will not be able to fit even in a hundred-hour film!
“Adolescence” with its truth and accuracy surpassed even many biographical documentaries. This is a real, high-quality film, which should be attributed to the category of “life on the screen”. Why should we give high marks if not real life?
It is not clear why it was necessary to shoot for 12 years, if nothing remarkable was filmed. Yes, at first it seems quite interesting and the idea, and the implementation seems not so bad, but the older the hero becomes, the more banal the narrative becomes, which practically consists of scenes that in any other film would be just optional episodes to dilute the main narrative. Children's scenes, by the way, can recall the epic of Terrence Malick "Tree of Life", with the amendment that Malik has more life, and the pretentious voiceover text here is embedded in the lips of the characters, which makes it only worse. It should be added that the lead actor is not such a good actor, which is especially evident in more adult scenes, where he amorphously exists in the frame. Against this background, Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke look good. True, the second of the gas station rocker eventually becomes a boring lover of country and responsible (oh, how often this word sounds here) parishioner of the local church. And I, no secret, much closer to the liking of Miley Cyrus, which began in country went into a breakaway.
Lars von Trier once wanted to make a film where each scene was shot in different years. But he had a simple genre film conceived, where timelessness was supposed to be an experimental form, but it never worked out. In the case of Linklater, innovation has no artistic or narrative meaning. It is worth agreeing with the opinion that it is somewhat similar to the meaningless innovation of Alexander Sokurov’s Russian Ark.
The trilogy "Before ..." (further follows a certain time of day) pleased me. An interesting idea of how characters grow up, how their views on life change, how their fates intertwine. Minimum dynamics - only emotional conversations about the urgent.
But in "Adolescence," a worthwhile idea comes to the fore, as other factors have no obvious advantages. The main character with age becomes less cute not only outwardly - his character is not revealed in any way. The usual story of a boring family, no dramaturgical surpluses. And a documentary can not be called, although it directly runs into this. In my opinion, the characters of my appearance are too sharp, noticeable to the viewer. It divided the film into pieces, therefore, lost integrity.
In the finale, we are led to believe that life is a moment as evidenced by the previous three hours. But the picture did not cope with its task.
Do you like living? Do you like the caravan seasons every 365 days, not always on time? Do you enjoy creating every day, feeling your place and function in the world? Yes, it is to create, because every person is to some extent a creator, whether he carries newspapers or plows outer space. Do you feel the constant turmoil that is in the air? There's magic happening around every second, and maybe you'll get the chance to change the world. Now, today, in this moment. Do you feel like everyone close to you needs you? Yes, they may not tell you this as often as you would like, but try to predict the future day without yourself in the lead role – and how do you see it? Do you hear in your dreams the cries of those whose lives you have left, a day or an eternity ago? Are you happy with the little things that may seem small at first? Are you worried that this whole story could end in an instant? Will there be anything positive about the world after you take your last breath? Can't you believe they'll ask you? Maybe. Better to be prepared.
Richard Linklater is ready. Over the long years of his professional career, he was able to remove from his golden notebook some of the basic questions of being that were successfully raised in his previous projects. I decided to deal with the rest through one single film, over the shooting of which, however, I had to work harder than usual. Eric Roberts, for example, during the years of filming “Boyhood” managed to star in 177 films. What haunted the director’s mind when he embarked on this 12-year adventure is a priori one of the most interesting questions. You will be able to answer it only after watching - teasers or stories of acquaintances can not do here. Linklater did not aspire to be special, did not plan to make a unique movie and immortalize his name in the years. And he could have found makeup and computer effects masters, as well as guys who look like Allar Coltrane. But that's not his method. The film had to be exactly what it was. With a script that fits into a ninety-six sheet notebook, a simple edit, absolutely missing the original soundtrack and without a single twist. As if to spite the whole Hollywood party, the director unquestioningly deprives the film of all embellishment, leaving the main thing - the underside of the human soul. Those who don’t know much about this movie might well present it to their friends as “A new film by the creator of the ‘dawn-up’ trilogy with the same actor in the lead role,” but this is a terrible lie, because the central character here is one, and it’s not Ethan Hawke. In the beginning, we see him as a child, defenseless against the attacks of fate, and begin to live with him. At the end of the day, everyone will see themselves. Not one hundred percent, maybe one percent, but it will happen. The effect of growing up in the frame works on pure instincts, and it seems that all previous years Linklater prepared himself and his viewer for this project, which without a shadow of a doubt should become one of the main in the biography of the director. There is no feeling the problems of which will not be presented in less than three hours of narration. And even if for some strange reasons you do not feel the fate of the protagonist, the people around him will not leave you indifferent. Whether it’s bullies at school or an older friend who drank beer for the first time – appearing in the frame for a few seconds, each of them manages to leave an imprint on the heart. Perhaps someone thought that if this film was about some famous person, and not about a fictional boy named Mason, who like a character of a long-term series in all countries of the world had to be re-voiced by three actors of the dub, it would be more interesting and profitable, but even then I dare to destroy your doubts. The concept of the film is at odds with classical biopics, so to call this drama biographical language does not turn. Perhaps a film about a celebrity from a prescient American prepared for dessert, who knows.
Despite the fact that “Boyhood” does not have a composer, wherever our hero goes, music surrounds him everywhere. At home, at classes, in a diner or store - radios and tape recorders broadcast hits of this time interval, subtly hinting at music lovers what year is now in the plot. We won’t see any inscriptions like “It’s been 8 months” on the screen, because even this detail would break the strict foundation of the story. In addition to the evolution of the musical in the film there is a revolution of gadgets – standard Simens and Motorola in the hands of the actors at the end are changed to fashionable smartphones and iPhones. It would be foolish not to take advantage of all the global changes that have befallen the world in the last ten years. However, the director is not going to revel in the frame of the benefits of modern society and prove that life is now much easier than ever. Look at the disc his father gives Mason for his birthday, what car he drives, who his mother works, and who the family turns to during adversity, and it will immediately become clear that each time has its heroes and problems, most of which are natural and passed down from generation to generation. Thus, unwittingly, through small strokes placed here and there by the screenwriter, the film shows us the revolution of society. More specifically, her absence. Old Woland was right.
“Boyhood” is the brightest representative of high cinema, Art in all senses of the word. The real magic on the screen, and strives to blurt out: “Well, don’t end, please ...” I wish I could watch you forever, but all the stories are over. In the notebook, signed with the initials R.L., crossed out the last lines, the film crew went home and now gather only at the call of Neil Patrick Harris, and the audience, without chewing popcorn, wander around their shacks in search of the meaning of life. So the story, as if sliced from the life of your close friend, becomes a classic, and the theorem that “to make a good film, you don’t need a big budget” is not proved against the contrary. We cannot see the future, but we can enjoy the present. And this moment, please stop.
And yet... Do you like living?
Dedicated to the best clan on earth. Sherlocked one love/
A sad, uninteresting, meaningless picture of a boy growing up. Maybe if you could actually make a documentary about a homeless child in Africa, it would be more interesting. Why are people shocked by this movie? The answer is simple: there are very few such films and such a picture is simply surprising, unlike everything else in the world of cinema. The movie doesn’t go as much as it seems. I don't rule out that I just didn't understand. But most likely – it’s just a boring movie, which was shot for more than 10 years and the viewer was struck by the fact that he saw a child at the beginning of the film and a teenager at the end. Where is something? His years just went along and nothing happened in the movie. The plus is that someone shoots new Transformers in order to make money, and such people Richard Linklater, although not coming up with something interesting in this film, shoot pictures for people. I watched this movie as soon as I got the chance, but I would rather jump into the vent of a volcano than sit down again, staring at more than 2 hours of what a boring life this family has. However, you can watch this film, if you have absolutely nothing to do, and you do not really want to watch movies, then you can put this picture, sit more comfortably and pointlessly, wasting time, watch until the end, if of course you do not fall asleep. The most ridiculous thing for me would be if "Boyhood" wins an Oscar.
Appreciating it as an idea is brilliant. Appreciating it as a movie is terribly boring. The only thing that pleased me was the appearance in the film Ethan Hawke.
6 out of 10
It's not just a movie. This is a grandiose project, where the main scenery and the main character is time. For 12 whole years... During this time, we ourselves seem to grow up again, remember details, meetings, pleasant and not very events. All of this has made us and stayed quietly in the past.
There is something very sad about this movie... All the characters play according to a pre-written script (this is not a screenplay, but a real-life script). After all, not only the main character Mason grows up, everything and everything grows up. We see how wrinkles and gray hair gradually appear in the older generation, how the attributes of the modern world arise for granted in the frame, we notice how the style of shooting itself changes throughout the film. And when Mason grows up, he constantly asks himself and his loved ones the question “what’s the point?” What is the point of doing something, perceiving it as just a new stage, what is the point in this stage? The sad thing is that there is no correct answer to this question, and there is no definite meaning in everything that is happening. We ourselves are in a perpetual search, and hopefully we end up finding something for ourselves, something more important than all this nonsense.
What kind of movie is called “massive”? As a rule, we immediately present an expensive Hollywood film in which the credits alone have the volume of a small novel. The scale of “Boyhood” is measured not by a multimillion budget, but by the most expensive and terrible word for each person – time.
A time of 12 years might seem like the main reason why you’ll love the movie “Boyhood” before you even see it. How do you feel about a project that took so long to shoot? It's going to be blasphemous. In fact, Linklater doesn’t advertise his film as “a movie that’s been shot for 12 years and is therefore unique and unique.” After all, even if we abstract from the incredible fact that forces blindly put “Boyhood” ten, the film deserves the highest ratings.
In my opinion, the quintessence of the movie lies in the phrase said by the mother of the main character Trevor. "I just thought there was going to be something else," she says, and that thought makes you pause and think. She looks back on her life and realizes that there was never a cherished “something” in her. Uncertain, unhappening happiness is a heavy burden on everyone, and Linklater's film is the first to voice it aloud. Trevor hints to her mother that she is not too old to think about missed opportunities. This sometimes confirms the fact that any person, regardless of his age, has the right to regret the events that did not happen in his short / long life.
In "Boyhood" there are many references to films and music zero. This nostalgic, and therefore very attractive technique, at the same time allows you to follow the passage of time in the film. Several times I had to interrupt the viewing to determine the year of the release of “Pineapple Express” or the video of Lady Gaga. Such pleasant little things undoubtedly color the film, and allow you to get even more pleasure from watching.
My first thought after Boyhood was, what if Richard Linklater went further? Knowing his filmography, it will not be at all surprising if in a couple of decades we will see “Growing up”, and then “Old Age” (God forbid many years for actors and directors). Of course, this is just a silly fantasy, “Boyhood” looks like a finished film and does not require any sequel. Another outstanding film from the most honest director of our time.
If you decide to watch a film about the fascinating events that occur during the life of the hero, then this will not be here. This film is not about the sorrows, not about the vices of society, not about the iconic events of life - all this is to some extent shown on the screen, but only as an unobtrusive background. At the same time, the director brings the story to us with everyday pictures that happen to many of us.
In the center of the plot is 12 years of the life of an American family, nothing remarkable and it would seem, why make a film about it, but... But while watching, you get imbued with what is happening, in which you constantly snatch details from your life. Particular emphasis was placed on the process of Mason’s growing up, we are shown how his vision of the surrounding reality changes from childhood to the moment when he finally leaves his parent’s nest to now forge his own path. The main feature of the film is that 12 years in the film are 12 years in reality, respectively, Mason is from elementary school and he is the same person in college, the same applies to other actors. Thanks to this, the film becomes even more real, the characters just live, and we just watch, plus in places we are shown real scraps from the outside world, like the 2008 presidential election.
Most likely, you will not be impressed with your eyes to look at the credits at the end, the film, despite the timing, flashes with a light moment and continues after completion on this side of the screen.
It’s not the C.R.A.Z.Y. brothers, it’s just a movie about how a family lived for 12 years. The boy has grown; the movie is over; life goes on.
You know, sometimes people say "caught the moment"?
- I think this is true in the opposite direction... The moment captured us.
- Yeah, sure. Every time. The moment is like all the time now, you know?
9 out of 10
"What's true is true" - and 20 more mindless claims about adolescence
From the first minute it becomes clear: we are here for a long time. At first, we get confused about children, not yet understanding which one should grow up, that is, become the main character. In the process of analysis, we are immersed in many small problems, broken down into even more elusive nuances. This creates an illusion of growth and maturation of characters. Gradually, this is how it develops: time rushes quickly, and the film in a fascinating form broadcasts images that remind us of the familiar from childhood shots from the series “Charles in Charge” ('Charles in Charge').
At this very moment, the viewer gets used to the main character, to his eyes, which become more convex. If you ask me, I’ll tell you that I hate movies about life expectancy (except 'Forrest Gump'): 'The Mysterious Story of Benjamin Button', the Harry Potter Movie Complex (nothing on its own), TV series 'Just Maria' and 'Santa Barbara' and so on. But I don’t hate “Adolescence” because its central theme can be described as “The Becoming of Puberty.” Linklater’s work is rather reminiscent of the protracted Club ' Breakfast', which is quite pleasant: its atmosphere of an uncertain senior class, a pronounced problem of fathers and children, which does not shock us, but peacefully resolves.
The actors played well, considering that throughout the project they probably starred in others. Finally, I would like to say that I enjoyed watching. But I wouldn't watch it a second time.
This movie catches your eye when you hear it's been made for 12 years. It's really a genius idea. Taking actors, every year, as if behind the scenes, you show the formation of a personality. Watching the film, you understand how deeds and actions affected a person, through which periods of his life he went. The world, from early youth to adulthood. Nothing, but two and a half hours is not enough. The world seems to be fragments of human youth, interconnected by mini-stories. After the movie, it's hard to understand the people in the frame. You understand that what is told is not enough, and only quarrels and separations, divorces and moments of joy for the whole family about an important event are remembered. This is perhaps the main disadvantage and the complexity of the perception of the film.
But there are pluses to the movie. The most important music. It's perfect, like going back to that year, that time. Music is much better conveys the spirit of the times than appearing in the frame of electronic devices, machines, objects. The very first Coldplay song - Yellow, as it were, says, this song from the beginning of the two thousandth. And throughout the film, you feel it. I think this moment is especially better to impress those who are over 30.
I especially want to talk about acting. The first impression is that it is absent. But then you realize that actors don't play. They show life. The way she is. I want to believe that there is no script. I especially enjoyed playing Mason's biological father. He literally lives the role of a father. And I want my father to be more often with the children ... and on the screen.
One last thing about the script. It remains a mystery to me whether the script was originally written when it appeared. Whether he ever was. No, I'm not saying the story is terrible, uninteresting. But sometimes fast-paced events on screen only make things worse. Lost thinking about the situation in the lives of the heroes. But at the same time, the film is interesting to watch, to find out what blows next and does not sag even in the simplest scenes. But long dialogues are not boring, but only attract more attention.
So what do we have? Actors, music, directorial idea and an interesting story on the one hand, and only the complexity of perception on the other hand.
Laughing and sighing, kissing and saying goodbye – that’s our whole life.
Look at the sunset. Beautiful. The one above is a painter.
Adolescence is the period between childhood and youth. Richard Linklater managed to cover this stage of life in 3 hours of screen time. It took him 12 years to make this film. Every few weeks, the director shot small episodes from the life of a boy, a teenager, and then a young man. This film is a successful experiment that will be remembered by every viewer.
Happy, happy, irrevocable childhood!
This is a story about the life of an individual, how he changes and how time changes him. In the plot of this film there is no mystery, there are no sharp turns or unexpected ending. This is a story about the life of an individual. Watching the film, you will guess every subsequent moment, but it will cause exceptionally positive emotions. As sad as it is to realize, our whole life is made up of patterns. And all these patterns are so familiar to every person that it is simply impossible not to recognize yourself in this film.
"Do you want bumpers?" There are none in life.
I don’t want to talk about actors, filming and other aspects. It just doesn't make sense. Adolescence is a real breakthrough and opening of this year. In this film you do not need to look for any hidden thoughts, everything is open to the viewer. Real life dialogues and problems are understandable to everyone.
If you don’t like beer, you’ve never had sex with a girl.
Fresh, unusual movie, I think any person will get pleasant emotions after watching. It has its own charm and charm.
“Life is an unceasing birth, and you accept yourself as you become.”
9 out of 10
I looked at "Adolescence" and said that my expectations were very high.
I spent 2 hours and 45 minutes waiting for something brilliant, as everyone was saying. Not a single bad review on the IMDb website even entered the top 250. The only thing that is brilliant is that the film was made for 12 years. There was so much genius to come up with, but Richard Linklater didn't. There is nothing special about the film: no intrigue, no interesting twists and turns. We're just seeing the stages of a boy's maturation. But in none of the stages the director went deep. There was no emotion, sympathy or joy for the main characters.
The plot is very simple. A typical American family with typical American problems: a mother who has suffered multiple divorces, children with their own problems, which passes, probably, every teenager. We see ups and downs here. But again, there's nothing in the story that gets me hooked, there's nothing that I can call genius. I just saw how life has changed over 12 years, how people’s interests have changed, how people themselves have changed, what in appearance, what in views, how a new technique appeared and the old one became unnecessary, but I don’t think it’s genius. Oh, yeah, the songs from the movie are good.
You can judge me, but I don’t understand why this movie has such a high rating and so many good reviews. I live and see these stories every day, and sometimes they are much more interesting than this.
It is very difficult to write even a short opinion about this film. But I will try to write a whole review, being impressed by the work of Richard Linklater.
Not really knowing anything about the film (well, except that the film has just some really high ratings on foreign sites), included and stuck on the whole of his almost 3-hour marathon.
The film itself is a kind of chronicle of all those people who were born in the late nineties, and all their childhood passed in the early two thousandth.
The name of our protagonist is Mason. Mason has an older sister, Samantha, a mother and father, who divorced the mother of his children. All the difficulties of people’s relationships in such a situation, their emotions and feelings are shown just fine. And very sincerely. Mason's relationship with his sister is also very well shown. I'm really into it.
Our Mason is slowly growing up. He begins to make friends, one event replaces another, the film just flies, now Mason begins to understand something in men's magazines, here Mason is offended because of the haircut, here Mason tries to tell his friends that he had someone there in Houston, and to the question "who was it?" he answers the first name he gets, here is a dialogue with his father about sex ... And so on.
Don’t be surprised – so much of Mason’s life is very similar to what happened to you. This is the beauty of the movie - it touches any person, immersing him in the very feeling when you first came after the time set by your mother, she looks at you with such a slightly disappointed look and a formidable tone orders you to go to bed.
I don't know what to add. If you want those memories from childhood, then run to see this masterpiece. I didn't talk about the soundtrack and the actors because it's at some level that's just unattainable. The film touched, took by the soul and left there the deepest trace.
I will watch this movie more than once.
Very interesting project, unique in its kind. Involuntarily recalls "The Truman Show", but the main advantage is that the shooting of "Boyhood" really lasted eleven years. Allar Salmon (the boy who played the main role), under the terms of the contract, could not be replaced by another actor until the end of filming. In principle, I think that this condition applied to all actors who played the main roles.
The main line of the picture is the life and period of growing up of an ordinary boy named Mason. The picture tells us about the main milestones of the period experienced by each child, and called “adolescence”, such as the first trip to school, first friends, first hobbies, first love, and so on. In parallel with the main line, we can observe how the lives of Mason’s parents, their relationships and, in general, how the world, society and his views changed in a seemingly short period of Mason’s life.
I really liked the whole cast, absolutely all the actors naturally and naturally entered their roles throughout the film. I think that the only difficulties during the filming, the creators of the picture, arose only with Ethan Hawke, who for eleven years practically did not change his appearance, and the crew had to artificially change his appearance. As for Ellar Salmon, who, not being an actor, at the time of the start of filming, due to his age, after the premiere, gradually becomes a popular person and I would like him not to get lost, like many brilliant young actors, and we saw him in new interesting projects.
“Boyhood” is a very soulful and deep film, which, I am sure, will appeal to most viewers, since almost everyone will see something of their own in it.
A huge thank you to Richard Linklater, and all the creators and actors who had a hand in such a complex and long project. A project that is just beginning to receive well-deserved awards.
Watched “Boyhood” by Richard Linklater – a film with an incredible popularity rating overnight ranked as a genre of “masterpiece”.
So, the director for 12 years periodically assembled the film crew and played with the same actors staged scenes designed to show the growing up and development of the family (certainly, we are not only talking about the main character, since the people around him are inevitably under the sight of attention). Cool? Yeah, I agree. But let's discard the scale of this idea and look at the story we've been told.
Before us average statistical American family is living fairly average events. A single mother gets married several times (everything is unsuccessful); a father-posh water as cares for children and closer to the final even finds his own family; children - the protagonist and his sister - grow up, change schools, friends, interests and eventually go to college.
Interesting? As the basis, skeleton, plot - nothing more. It will become interesting only if you drop deeper and try to consider what feelings, experiences occur in the soul of the main character. Does he suffer from failures in his mother’s personal life? How is his relationship with his sister developing? With friends? Then with the girls? What's the hero going through? How do you find the meaning of your own existence? Or is it easier to find your way, your calling in life?
But is all of this covered in the film? No!
The director is quite detached watching how his characters just live. He is not interested in what the inner torments of a growing person are, what stages of growing up, becoming a personality he passes, what affects him, what he struggles with. The director simply and rather trivially tells us the story of the life of an ordinary, average American family.
So what's the importance of this movie? What is his masterpiece? What is the genius of the praised director? In his patience?
If this film were real, that is, a documentary observation of the life of a single family, on which the way of life of the entire American society is beautifully projected, I would say: yes, this is cool! But I've got the actors here. Actors who play ordinary people, but because they do it on a script and not in one take, they remain actors. Without sincerity, without naturalism.
In the end, this is just a movie. A boring, not deep movie about family. A movie that did not allow me to relive some of my own, inherent in that age, emotions, experiences associated with search, disagreement with the world, confusion, resentment, etc., etc. Cinema without a hero. Because a hero is a person whose emotions I can understand and share. The main character of this film is just a boy who grew up. It was this process of growth, not maturation, that the director filmed with staged means for 12 years. But who the director was never told. You could have.
It’s very hard to be critical of something as masterful as “Adolescence.” Especially when he has already been praised by everyone. After all, this is one of the most grandiose events of cinema in recent decades. And yes, this film really deserves such a loud title.
Growing up. This is the best and most important time in life. And one of the hardest. At this time, your becoming takes place, your future is determined, you become a person. That’s probably why Linklater chose this part of his life for the film. We see people growing up and changing accordingly. These are not just external changes that can be conveyed with the help of ordinary Photoshop or makeup. Nope. This is growing up: changing interests, priorities, first goals, ambitions, relationship with parents (this is one of the most difficult aspects of growing up), first friends, first love. And all in three hours. Isn't that genius?
Three hours. Twelve years. One life. No, not alone. After all, “Adolescence” is not only a film about growing up, it is a film about the lives of many people, different people, people with different problems and goals in life, even people of different generations. The film, covering a huge period of time, about people united by life and separated by it. The main thing is, it's all natural, without falsehood, and you believe it. Why do you believe me? After all, all these years pass right in your life, as well as on the screen, everything is real, alive, you feel it, as if you yourself experience every moment.
We have a history before us. People’s interests change, their lifestyle, their understanding of beauty, in the end clothes and technologies change. You immerse yourself in all this – you attend the presentation of the book “Harry Potter and the Prince of the Half-Blood”, choose political views and defend them yourself, observe the development of technology and how they replace real life, and many, many historical events of the decade pass by yourself.
It's not about the idea. She's not as unique as she seems. Yes, many have had the idea to remove such an epic. Not everyone would do that. The main thing is to implement this idea. The way Linklater did this is really genius. Any great story can be merged without the skill of directorial hands. In "Adolescence" it is mastery of everything.
The notorious dialogues Linklater. The second half of the film is full of them, as it should be. The script can be analyzed by citations. Intelligent, somewhat innovative ideas embedded in ordinary conversations.
What's the point?
- In what?
- I don't know... In this. In everything ...
- Everything? What's the point? What the hell do I know? Nobody knows what the point is. You have to improvise, you know?
Childhood is also a kind of improvisation. Improvisation of situations, moments in life. Editing is the most important thing in this kind of picture. And he's perfect here. Every moment, every detail, everything seems perfect. You end up with the feeling that you’ve lived with this guy for 12 years without missing anything important.
Musical design - another brilliant part of the picture. Each soundtrack is like a selection. Great music, for a great movie. Linklater didn't fail with the actors. It’s nice that there are no seemingly perfect people in the film. It's like life. And the protagonist is not a pretty kid, because we do not need to win the hearts of thirteen-year-old schoolgirls?
You might say, Why make a movie about life? As if we didn’t live it, as if it wasn’t around us. It's necessary. We need that. “Adolescence” will help you look back, analyze your past mistakes, understand when everything went wrong. This movie is necessary.
Bravo, Linklater, bravo! The film is beyond evaluation.
An ordinary house of cards on the table will not surprise anyone, but if such a house will reach a hundred-meter height - very even. So with this film, the material based on life and nothing more, life and philosophy have to be observed annually in dozens of good independent projects. But what's really fascinating is the scale of "Adolescence".
Not every loving parent can shoot their children for years, which is already to say about a professional director who has so much perseverance and patience to eventually realize his idea. Richard Linklater's idea is about the same as Terrence Malick's, only the latter often went outside the house and walked in the universe.
Incidentally, "Tree of Life" seems to be the only analogue to "Adolescence" and both films were very individual and personal to the directors who directed them. In Malik’s case, his personality in the film was only an obvious guess, Linklater does not hide anything inside the box, and introduces him to his family, and even his personal car, in which the character of Ethan Hawke is driving in the frame.
Timekeeping of the film torments the viewer for endurance, plus the absence of any truly emotional scenes make this film a dry ration for the viewer. Nevertheless, I repeat, the scale of the film is really amazing, partly the problems raised in the film relate to purely American stereotypes in society, the central figure becomes a growing boy, but the objects for research are absolutely all the characters involved.
The film is generally bright, with a positive aftertaste after watching. This is certainly a big step forward for the whole cinema of art, although from the artistic side, the film was shot without an outstanding script.
9 out of 10
