6 comments

  • By Daniel W.
    October 11, 2016
    10:35 PM

    One of the biggest disappointments of 2014. I was with it for the first hour but as it progressed it got worse which is sad because the premise was promising. Mason is not interesting and just becomes more and more boring and directionless, the adults (Arquette and Hawke) were more interesting than the kids, it has virtually no story or ideas to latch onto or get invested in and the list goes on. It tries to capture the experience of "life" on film but it at times does it so well that it becomes boring. It presents the mundane reality that one would want to escape from by going to the movies. Ironic isn't it? It like sitting down to watch someone's home movies for 3 hours (and boy does this film feel twice that length). You can watch real life happening around you at this very moment and it doesn't cost you a cent. Who cares if this took 12 years to make? 12 years a gimmick is my favorite joke title for this.
    Reply
    • By Roger Acosta
      October 13, 2016
      01:17 AM

      I somewhat agree with your assessment of Mason, however you missed the whole point of the movie, it's not all about him.
    • By MelanieDaniels
      October 13, 2016
      03:30 PM

      I was disappointed,too. I remember thinking,if this is considered one of the best films of the 2014,than that's a rather sad commentary on contemporary film. I didn't hate it; there were parts of it that it enjoyed.But I thought it was mediocre((average) at best. Although I do realize that's the minority opinion.I do admire your guts.
    • By Daniel W.
      October 14, 2016
      03:33 PM

      If the movie isn't all about Mason then what is? The film is called Boyhood and he is the center of attention. We follow this sleepwalker we are supposed to believe is a character throughout the whole film and given the damn near impossible task of relating to him. If it wasn't all about him, the film would have been called "Life" and would have also given bigger emphasis on characters that would have been more interesting like Patricia Arquette or Ethan Hawke. I would have liked to have followed them not simply because they are more experienced actors and children and teenagers in movies, for the most part, are dull but because Linklater (and I suppose Ellar Coltrane as well) failed spectacularly to make Mason a character worth sticking with in it's almost 3 hour running time and Arquette and Hawke had more interesting events happen to them. Mason just comes off as this stale, lethargic, unfocused turd that as he gets older speaks in pseudo intellectual talk that doesn't sound natural at all. "The moment is constant. The moment seizes us." How trite. Anyone can write this. I do wish this turned into Slacker where you go from character to character so we didn't have to see him again.
    • By Brenden Masar
      October 31, 2016
      03:25 PM

      I think this will boil down to expectations different people have for what it is that "cinema" represents. You wrote, "It presents the mundane reality that one would want to escape from by going to the movies" and sure, there's a large swath of people that do look to cinema primarily as escapism. But there are also plenty of people like me that look to cinema to present a new or unique representation of truth, and "Boyhood" delivers an honest experience in a way no other film has accomplished. In part, as the essayist notes, because it's impossible to separate the characters and the actors from the passage of time.
    • By Daniel W.
      November 13, 2016
      12:04 AM

      I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. Just for the record though, I don't consider cinema as just escapism. Some of my favorite films include Stalker, A Brighter Summer Day, The Sky Crawlers, Fanny and Alexander and so on. These may not be quite like Boyhood but I understand the need to present stories in a different manner to explore different themes. I know they don't have to be standard hollywood kind of films. That is why I come to Criterion. I can handle movies that are slower with vague plots and occasional lack of resolutions if the characters pick up the slack. But unfortunately, when Mason becomes a teen, he is a bore, and drags the rest of the film down with him. I also could not give a fraction of a crap (again aside from Arquette and Hawke) for any other characters either. I don't mind films that present real live on screen but Boyhood is far too mundane for it's own good.
  • By ericgarfield31
    October 13, 2016
    01:09 PM

    Completely disagree. I thought the film was very moving and I can't wait to own it on Criterion Blu-ray. Maybe this Christmas. We'll see.
    Reply