SYNOPSICS
Boyhood (2014) is a English,Spanish movie. Richard Linklater has directed this movie. Ellar Coltrane,Patricia Arquette,Ethan Hawke,Elijah Smith are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2014. Boyhood (2014) is considered one of the best Drama movie in India and around the world.
Filmed over 12 years with the same cast, Richard Linklater's BOYHOOD is a groundbreaking story of growing up as seen through the eyes of a child named Mason (a breakthrough performance by Ellar Coltrane), who literally grows up on screen before our eyes. Starring Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette as Mason's parents and newcomer Lorelei Linklater as his sister Samantha, BOYHOOD charts the rocky terrain of childhood like no other film has before. Snapshots of adolescence from road trips and family dinners to birthdays and graduations and all the moments in between become transcendent, set to a soundtrack spanning the years from Coldplay's Yellow to Arcade Fire's Deep Blue. BOYHOOD is both a nostalgic time capsule of the recent past and an ode to growing up and parenting.
More
Boyhood (2014) Reviews
A Miracle Of Sorts
If this film is not a miracle of sorts, then, I don't know what is. Time is the plot, yes, and it overtakes without us noticing when or how and the next stop is "my f"%&ing funeral" Patricia Arquette gives "Boyhood" its palpitating heart. It reminded me and confirmed that the future is female and that Patricia Arquette is one of the greatest actresses that ever lived. That incident with her Mexican laborer and its consequences (I don't want to give away too much) are one of the many gems this miracle of a movie exposes. Ethan Hawke, heartbreaking, funny, enormously real and then, Lorelei Linklater, beautiful, unique. Ellar Coltrane...where do I start here? I hope he knows that the truth and beauty of his creation, touched, transformed and enlightened anyone who came to meet you with an open heart. Firstly and lastly, Richard Linklater...he's been a hero mine for a long time but now, he's in a place that I reserve only for him. Artist, adventurer, explorer, storyteller, miracle worker. His film, for us who look from the outside, is a hymn to family, friendship, loyalty and cinema. Thank you sir, thank you all.
Not bad, but disappointing
One of the more overrated films lately. The good: production, shooting, editing, sound -- were all good. The great: the idea of following the same boy and others for 11 years. Transitions from age to age were beautiful. The tiresome: the acting. It was OK, but nothing that grabs you. Ellar Coltrane was at his acting best when he was young, but gradually got more stilted. This could have been due to the director more than to him. The ugly: The script. Existential drivel, over and over. Every character was written in a way that remained two-dimensional, especially his sister and mother. Ethan Hawke as his father did the best job of any of them in bringing some depth of life to his role.
Future classics
BOYHOOD...What a great movie! I simply believe in America again! They are also humans, guys, trust me:) Its obviously doesn't matter if you are an American, German or Russian. There are the same problems, the same ways, the same love inside us. As a Russian I must say I understand American people and also myself much much better with this movie. It was like... about me... I just COULD NOT imagine how much we are all the same.. Just love it! If I look at my childhood in the former USSR I see not much difference, the cars and houses are different, we spoke Russian, but that feeling, that pulse of life, that sometimes "lost" fathers and mothers to solve every day problems, fighting for the existence and good life for the children are so familiar to me.. That long hair and piercing.. Oh boy, its all so much alike. And those "Paul was greater than the others...". The movie is just breathing, its a three hours of fresh air! I do not want to say much about the qualities of the movie.. It is overall brilliant. I do believe, this will be a classical film, and students all over thew world will study it in future at their film schools. P.S. Sorry for my poor English.
By far the most disappointing film of the year!
Seldom has there been a film where the critic's opinions and its true quality diverge so seriously. "Boyhood" is empty because it lacks content and form. It celebrates the ordinary and mediocrity instead of aiming at something extraordinary. As a result, it embraces nothingness and is in that sense deeply nihilistic and even depressing. Anybody with the same camera and some actors could have made this movie or (more likely) a better one. Those who praise the film always point out the same circumstance (the only thing they can say) which is: This film is like "real life". I have to say: This is true (on the most superficial level imaginable). But I may ask: Is that a good thing? Is this, if film history has taught us anything, what a film should be? "Real life", according to Linklater, means a lifespan during which nothing happens. The Boyhood-experience is the equivalent of your experience waiting in line at the supermarket. Yes, this is the "real life" Linklater presents us. NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS MOVIE! Nothing, no story, no interesting characters, just ordinary situations from "real life". Of course, there are films in which nothing or very little happens and they can be great (Tarkovsky's "Mirror", Antonioni's "L'avventura" or Tarr's "The Turin Horse" come to my mind), but you need ideas (you got that, Linklater?), you need a style or form which cannot be separated from the content, you need a capable director that can create a form of visual communication. Boyhood offers none of those things. The film gets praised especially by those who have never seen an art-house movie and mistake it for an art film. People are misled so easily. Boyhood is pure blankness, shallowness, superficiality, nothingness. To praise Boyhood as a masterpiece is actually a slap in the face of all those directors who put a real effort into creating works of art that have real value. Boyhood is in fact an anti-film in the sense that it stands against everything film should be - be it an artistic masterpiece or just an entertaining, fun movie. The film is neither a work of art nor entertaining. In that regard it can be called a non-film. It celebrates its own non-existence and drowns in its nihilism. I doubt this was Linklater's intention but it certainly is the result of what he created. Be warned: This is NOT a drama. The movie is the opposite of a carefully constructed work of art. It's nothing but a re-enactment of memories, a collection of unmeaning scenes we may or may not know from our own lives (bowling, playing video games, reading Harry Potter etc.). I think it is only fair to ask: What is the point? I went to see this film having high hopes and (having read all the raving reviews) expecting a masterpiece from Richard Linklater, the director of the great "Waking Life". I liked the trailer which makes the movie look much more interesting than it actually is (actually, everything that "happens" in the movie is already in the trailer!). The basic idea of filming a boy growing into a young man during twelve years is interesting, yes, but sadly the film offers nothing more than that. This is not enough! Sadly, many critics seem to have liked the basic idea so much that to them it didn't even matter if the director would be able to make it interesting or not. The film which is much too long follows an unstable family and focuses on the life of Mason, a character that has absolutely no interesting characteristics whatsoever. The intelligent viewer will be unable to connect with such a person. Mason walks through this film as if he was in a coma or half asleep; he has no ambitions. At some point he gets his first kiss, gets interested in photography (the ultimate art form for unimaginative lazy people) during high school (haven't we seen that already too many times?), goes to college at which point the film ends. I kid you not, this is the whole movie. The mother becomes a teacher at a local college and always seems to attract the wrong guys. The father is an unemployed loser who only talks about pop music and ends up being a square. Mason's sister (the director's daughter) grows up too and that's pretty much all you can say about her. It is actually impossible to spoil this film because nothing happens (unless you consider the fact that Mason finishes high school a spoiler). Linklater completely fails to dramatize his ideas. As a result, following this movie feels like watching family home videos of a family you do not care about - just with better picture quality. Instead of using form (or content/drama) to make the film interesting, "Boyhood" refuses to do just that and therefore remains superficial. You don't get to the essence of "real life" by only showing the surface of things. Everybody could do that! It is really hard talking about this film because there isn't a single interesting character or scene in it. You just follow ordinary events in the lives of these people. Stay away from this movie! Yes, this review will get negative votes, just because I didn't like the film, unlike the critic's union. Well, none of those "critics" were able to offer a single insightful argument that would speak for this non-movie. In fact, many even admitted the film lacked interesting characters or style! But because of the 12-year-gimmik, they call it a "masterpiece". Give me a break. I would be willing to debate any of these pseudo-intelligent "critics" and tear them into pieces. Over and out.
Reinforcing the limitlessness of DIY filmmaking
Once a year, over the last 12 years, Richard Linklater ('Waking Life' / 'Before Sunset') has reunited the same cast and shot segments of a feature film following the life of a boy (played by Ellar Coltrane – who literally grew into this part and became an actor of substance) from the age of 5 through the age of 18; the result is both fascinating and inspired. The only other project that comes close in comparison is Michael Apted's 'Seven Up' series which documents the lives of a collection of school children in 7-year intervals, starting in 1964 and still going as of the latest edition in 2012. What's so unique about 'Boyhood' is that these individuals (including Ethan Hawke, Patricia Arquette, and Linklater's own daughter, Lorelei Linklater) evolve and age within a scripted narrative that is not 'like' a time capsule, this is a completely authentic period piece that retraces an era from the cultural response to September 11th, through the election of Barrack Obama, and into the age of social media saturation. As you watch these actors morph through more than a decade of their lives within a few hours, the story becomes as engaging as its concept. Throughout my life and travels, I've heard so little enthusiasm for Linklater outside of Austin and it's a shame because he is a unique force within the industry and quite an American gem. The director received a well-deserved standing ovation from SXSW's elated audience having, once again, set a new standard in the exploration of film's potential and reinforcing the limitlessness of DIY filmmaking.