Review of Boyhood (2014) by Piscaso — 08 Oct 2015

So this is one of the most boring movies ever made. No, I did not dislike it because it was long. I don't mind long movies. First, the cinematography is fine, the dad and the mom were great but that's pretty much it. The boy is the most unlikable character I've ever seen a movie be completely about, that wasn't trying to make the character unlikable. The early parts were fine, it had a sense of slow progression but looking back a mere 45 minutes you realize so much had happened since then.

If anything, the idea behind the film is the best part: watching a boy grow up before our eyes. This is done well. But when the boy is a jaded **** for the majority of the movie (once he becomes a teenager) it's just bad. No matter how much work the crew did, or Richard Linklater, if the movie sucks then it **** sucks.

I'm assuming people like this movie because of the obscenely high scores it gets and sort of a lemming effect, but I encourage you to look at the movie critically and objectively.

I saw some people giving it a 10/10 because it had no melodrama, which is okay in some cases, but I would rather that this movie have a bunch of melodrama than the multiple flat scenes with awful writing. I think he was trying to be hip in a few scenes but it just fell flat. The movie has a clear aesthetic and tone, and it's pretty clear what he was trying to do. And I applaud the work he put into it. 12 years is a long time to work on a project. But that doesn't change the fact the kid is annoying, nothing interesting ever happens (even though multiple times it seems like it's going to).

Another thing I find wrong with it is the fact that it's 3 hours long. Again, nothing wrong with 3 hour movies, in fact I enjoy them more because they usually have a longer and usually more wholesome story (which Boyhood had admittedly). But there were so many points that it could have ended on. There were multiple scenes where I actually thought "and this is the end I guess, wow that was a great ending" and then another scene starts. The actual ending itself was actually pretty bad too. They did LSD in a valley or something and then it cuts to black. The car ride to college was a much better place to end. Speaking of which, there were a lot of other things that seemed like they would lead to more interesting things but never did. I won't go into detail in case you still want to slog through it 15 months later.

My final beef is that every side character that gets only one scene, or is only in it for a short time is intentionally unlikable, but in a manipulative sort of way. The drunk abusing father, the unencouraging teacher, the "cool" older kids that peer pressure, etc. Richard created these two dimensional characters to create the illusion of adversity. To make a sense of drama or progression. That he proved them wrong or something. But as I watched it I felt like he was just throwing cliches at me to try and get me to care. There were other side characters that weren't like that though. Imagine how everyone in a restaurant sees you as an extra in the story of their life. But they were also just two or one dimensional, and rarely got any development.

The family (mother, father, kid and sister) were really the only ones with development. The sister was trash, and only there in the end because she had to be, and was probably just the lesser of the awfulness that is child actors at the beginning who auditioned. The kid was as I said before unlikable and annoying. But the parents actually had some depth and the actors did an incredible job with their material.

I will end on a quote that I think sums up this movie perfectly:

"This is the most true to life movie that's ever been made when you think about it. When you get to the end you just want to die.