Like many of Richard Linklater's films, Boyhood will will continue to inspire controversy and enjoy notoriety for many years to come. All serious film-goers will see it and discuss it. Many will love it. Some will not.
As a member of Richard Linklater's Austin Film Society I was predisposed to like this film a lot. The uniformly rave reviews from festivals and major media film critics set my expectations at the highest level.
I loved the director's earlier, pioneering masterstroke of experimental technique, Waking Life, and his uncanny ability to bring complex, fascinating characters to life on the screen, as in Bernie. I'm not a big fan of his slacker films, but Boyhood bore the promise of what I saw as the best of Linklater's filmography: applying an unprecedented and challenging creative methodology to a story about the evolution of characters over time. Wow!
My wife warned me that I was setting myself up for disappointment. She was right. The film turned out to be a lengthy, disappointing, mockumentary about the evolution of a slacker.
The production values were uniformly good, earning an A for effort, but the narrative line meandered aimlessly as moderately interesting characters aged, a C at best. Overall, a B minus. (7/10 stars)
Over the course of 12 years Mason, a thoughtful, energetic, and charming little boy turns into a passive, whining cipher who walks like a zombie. His mother serenely makes innumerable bad life choices but unexpectedly implodes as her youngest leaves for college, while his estranged father evolves from slacker to relatively responsible adult - about 10 years too late to have any redeeming value to his son. Linklater's daughter, Lorelei plays Samantha, an almost unremittingly insensitive and obnoxious child, even as a twenty year old.
The principal adult actors, Arquette and Hawke, as well as the supporting cast of step-parents, friends and relatives did a highly professional job, portraying complex, multi-dimensional characters who grew and changed over the course of the film. Sadly, the ostensible focal point of the exercise, the boy, devolved into another irresponsible slacker.
According to a local interview with the director, Lorelei asked early on if her character might be allowed to die, ending her participation in the creative endeavor. Perhaps she anticipated the lack of universal acclaim for her father's most recent effort - a noble experiment, but to some, a disappointing result.
As a member of Richard Linklater's Austin Film Society I was predisposed to like this film a lot. The uniformly rave reviews from festivals and major media film critics set my expectations at the highest level.
I loved the director's earlier, pioneering masterstroke of experimental technique, Waking Life, and his uncanny ability to bring complex, fascinating characters to life on the screen, as in Bernie. I'm not a big fan of his slacker films, but Boyhood bore the promise of what I saw as the best of Linklater's filmography: applying an unprecedented and challenging creative methodology to a story about the evolution of characters over time. Wow!
My wife warned me that I was setting myself up for disappointment. She was right. The film turned out to be a lengthy, disappointing, mockumentary about the evolution of a slacker.
The production values were uniformly good, earning an A for effort, but the narrative line meandered aimlessly as moderately interesting characters aged, a C at best. Overall, a B minus. (7/10 stars)
Over the course of 12 years Mason, a thoughtful, energetic, and charming little boy turns into a passive, whining cipher who walks like a zombie. His mother serenely makes innumerable bad life choices but unexpectedly implodes as her youngest leaves for college, while his estranged father evolves from slacker to relatively responsible adult - about 10 years too late to have any redeeming value to his son. Linklater's daughter, Lorelei plays Samantha, an almost unremittingly insensitive and obnoxious child, even as a twenty year old.
The principal adult actors, Arquette and Hawke, as well as the supporting cast of step-parents, friends and relatives did a highly professional job, portraying complex, multi-dimensional characters who grew and changed over the course of the film. Sadly, the ostensible focal point of the exercise, the boy, devolved into another irresponsible slacker.
According to a local interview with the director, Lorelei asked early on if her character might be allowed to die, ending her participation in the creative endeavor. Perhaps she anticipated the lack of universal acclaim for her father's most recent effort - a noble experiment, but to some, a disappointing result.