Boyhood - directed by Richard Linklater
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Patricia Arquette, Ellar Coltrane, Elijah Smith, Lorelai Linklater
Running Time: 166 minutes
Rated: M - Profanity and mild sexual content
Having garnered universal praise from critics this is a strong contender for a Oscars.
In the run up it has nabbed best movie and director Golden Globes and Baftas and scored a bunch more nods including best actress Patricia Arquette.
Famously shot over an eleven year period it tells the story of young Mason who we follow from age six to eighteen.
Writer director Richard Linklater shot the film in pieces between other projects and a lot of the fascination for me with this film is watching Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke and Ellar Coltrane grow old on screen.
It's a lengthy film clocking in at two and three quarter hours so we get a decent look at the actors at several stages of their lives.
It must have been quite a risk to make a film like this not only because so much rests on the talent of the young man in the lead role but also due to the potential for things to change over such a shoot.
I did wonder going into this if the manner in which it was made is the main reason for the films many awards and critical raves.
Richard Roeper has declared it one of the best films that he has ever seen and it currently has a 100% on Metacritic.
Starting with a shot of blue skies to the strains of Coldplay's 2000 hit "Yellow" we are introduced to Mason - a six year old boy.
He is being collected from school by his Mother (Patricia Arquette)
Arquette looks trim- this will have been shot less than a decade after "True Romance" and a couple of years before her hit television show "Medium".
The film uses popular music tracks as reference points in the timeline and it helps because it isn't always obvious when the movie skips a year or two.
Mason has an older sister Samantha (played by Linklater's real life daughter Lorelai) and an estranged Father (Hawke).
The film is very much centred on the relationships that Mason has with his parents.
His Mother Olivia gets the bulk of the attention as she has custody of the children but it is the men that she becomes involved with that impact upon Mason.
She marries a lecturer and the families merge into one.
Problems are apparent very early and soon enough the degree of them is revealed.
Olivia doesn't have a lot of luck with her men and by association Mason doesn't either.
His biological Father is a no hoper who improves as time goes by but the step Fathers are the opposite.
Father figures feature strongly but it was hard for me to gain an understanding of how the various men that entered Mason's life changed him.
When all is said and done for a movie that takes place over more than a decade not a lot really happens.
It may be more realistic that there are no deaths or natural disasters or the like but it doesn't help fend of a growing sense of boredom after less than an hour has passed.
Had the events produced a recognisable change in Mason I may have enjoyed the approach more.
Even though the family move several times forcing Mason to leave close friends behind there is never any drama as a result.
Linklater's daughter Lorelai as Samantha doesn't help much either.
She is a vapid brat for the entire length of the movie and contributes absolutely nothing beyond annoyance.
Mason himself fares better as a character early on and is very likable.
However once he hits his teens he is unsurprisingly moochy, mumbly and completely self absorbed.
I lost all connection to the character at about the midway point and was far more interested in Olivia.
She is a strong woman played very well by Arquette.
Her striving to educate herself to improve her and her children's lot in life and her seeming inability to choose a man worth a damn were far more compelling dramas than the petty ones her children were involved in.
The same is true of the biological Father.
Ethan Hawke is very strong in the role and the scenes where he bonds with Mason over the years slowly becoming the male figure that the boy needs are some of the best.
But there are not enough of these moments for me and I found myself looking at my watch far too often.
The style of filmmaking is far more impressive than the execution here.
Sure- it is a slick trick to have put together a narrative over such a long time but when the end result is as un-impactful as this why bother?
If almost three hours of disfunction, brattiness and self reflection sound like a good time I recommend this film.
Also if you are a fan of Patricia Arquette and want to see her best work yet this one is for you.
She really is very good and if she beats Julianne Moore to the best actress gong in two days it wouldn't be a miscarriage of justice in my mind (Not that I have seen "Still Alice" yet to be fair)
Otherwise I struggle to find any reason for the massive critical success of this film.
It really is starting to smack of Emperor's New Clothes syndrome.
An impressive filmmaking feat resulting in a less than impressive actual film.
RATING: 70 / 100
CONCLUSION: Boyhood drags often but it is well made and acted - nowhere near as good as the buzz and awards success would suggest however. Difficult to recommend to anyone other than hardcore Linklater or Arquette fans
Running Time: 166 minutes
Rated: M - Profanity and mild sexual content
Having garnered universal praise from critics this is a strong contender for a Oscars.
In the run up it has nabbed best movie and director Golden Globes and Baftas and scored a bunch more nods including best actress Patricia Arquette.
Famously shot over an eleven year period it tells the story of young Mason who we follow from age six to eighteen.
Writer director Richard Linklater shot the film in pieces between other projects and a lot of the fascination for me with this film is watching Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke and Ellar Coltrane grow old on screen.
It's a lengthy film clocking in at two and three quarter hours so we get a decent look at the actors at several stages of their lives.
It must have been quite a risk to make a film like this not only because so much rests on the talent of the young man in the lead role but also due to the potential for things to change over such a shoot.
I did wonder going into this if the manner in which it was made is the main reason for the films many awards and critical raves.
Richard Roeper has declared it one of the best films that he has ever seen and it currently has a 100% on Metacritic.
Starting with a shot of blue skies to the strains of Coldplay's 2000 hit "Yellow" we are introduced to Mason - a six year old boy.
He is being collected from school by his Mother (Patricia Arquette)
Arquette looks trim- this will have been shot less than a decade after "True Romance" and a couple of years before her hit television show "Medium".
The film uses popular music tracks as reference points in the timeline and it helps because it isn't always obvious when the movie skips a year or two.
Mason has an older sister Samantha (played by Linklater's real life daughter Lorelai) and an estranged Father (Hawke).
The film is very much centred on the relationships that Mason has with his parents.
His Mother Olivia gets the bulk of the attention as she has custody of the children but it is the men that she becomes involved with that impact upon Mason.
She marries a lecturer and the families merge into one.
Problems are apparent very early and soon enough the degree of them is revealed.
Olivia doesn't have a lot of luck with her men and by association Mason doesn't either.
His biological Father is a no hoper who improves as time goes by but the step Fathers are the opposite.
Father figures feature strongly but it was hard for me to gain an understanding of how the various men that entered Mason's life changed him.
When all is said and done for a movie that takes place over more than a decade not a lot really happens.
It may be more realistic that there are no deaths or natural disasters or the like but it doesn't help fend of a growing sense of boredom after less than an hour has passed.
Had the events produced a recognisable change in Mason I may have enjoyed the approach more.
Even though the family move several times forcing Mason to leave close friends behind there is never any drama as a result.
 |
| Aside from the visible aging of Arquette technology and music is used to provide time context from first scene to last |
She is a vapid brat for the entire length of the movie and contributes absolutely nothing beyond annoyance.
Mason himself fares better as a character early on and is very likable.
However once he hits his teens he is unsurprisingly moochy, mumbly and completely self absorbed.
I lost all connection to the character at about the midway point and was far more interested in Olivia.
She is a strong woman played very well by Arquette.
Her striving to educate herself to improve her and her children's lot in life and her seeming inability to choose a man worth a damn were far more compelling dramas than the petty ones her children were involved in.
The same is true of the biological Father.
Ethan Hawke is very strong in the role and the scenes where he bonds with Mason over the years slowly becoming the male figure that the boy needs are some of the best.
But there are not enough of these moments for me and I found myself looking at my watch far too often.
The style of filmmaking is far more impressive than the execution here.
Sure- it is a slick trick to have put together a narrative over such a long time but when the end result is as un-impactful as this why bother?
 |
| Aging over 11 years (left), Sheena (Zoe Graham) and right - reconnecting with the kids for the first time |
Also if you are a fan of Patricia Arquette and want to see her best work yet this one is for you.
She really is very good and if she beats Julianne Moore to the best actress gong in two days it wouldn't be a miscarriage of justice in my mind (Not that I have seen "Still Alice" yet to be fair)
Otherwise I struggle to find any reason for the massive critical success of this film.
It really is starting to smack of Emperor's New Clothes syndrome.
An impressive filmmaking feat resulting in a less than impressive actual film.
No comments:
Post a Comment