|
Vogler posted:No no no no, I said "stale", lacking in originality and spontaneity. It just never felt real to me. When people compliment the movie they say that it was "meandering", just like life. The characters are so archetypical and the cultural references are so in your face that it felt more mathematical than it was meandering. How original and spontaneous is your life that you think this? I mean, I guess I could understand your point better if you could offer up some counter-examples. Can you give examples of dramas that you do like, which aren't boring and present what you think are "real-feeling" conflicts? You personally lost me when you said "drama comes from not knowing motivations" because 90% of the time, not understanding a character's motives is seen as a bad thing.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
Vogler posted:No no no no, I said "stale", lacking in originality and spontaneity. It just never felt real to me. When people compliment the movie they say that it was "meandering", just like life. The characters are so archetypical and the cultural references are so in your face that it felt more mathematical than it was meandering. Oh, well in that case I just disagree because I felt that movie did these things well and it felt very real to me. The characters never felt like archtypes and while I guess there were certain cliches they could fall into those cliches seemed pretty genuine and still just sort of kind of semi fit into mold in a very broad sense but when taken as characters they seemed to just be people. I do agree early on cultural references seem to happen for the sake of it butt aht sort of get smoothed out as the film goes on and as Linklater becomes a better filmmaker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
On the cultural references thing, he wrote and filmed, like, ten minutes a year. He had no idea how those things would be perceived in a decade's time. Would people have completely forgotten them? Would they be completely passé or cliche? He had no idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Vargo posted:I mean, I guess I could understand your point better if you could offer up some counter-examples. Can you give examples of dramas that you do like, which aren't boring and present what you think are "real-feeling" conflicts? A woman under the influence by Cassavetes felt so real to me that I couldn't even bring myself to finish it. It was too hard. Scenes from a marriage by Bergman is excellent, so is La Pianiste and Amour by Haneke. quote:You personally lost me when you said "drama comes from not knowing motivations" because 90% of the time, not understanding a character's motives is seen as a bad thing. The complete lack of moral ambiguity is what bothered me the most. It was obvious what the viewer should feel at any given moment. That's disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
This was great. This movie should be nominated for Best Picture and Arquette should get a Best (Supporting??) Actress nod.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Wow. That was one of the best movies I've ever seen. As someone who is in college now, and had so many things in common with Mason growing up, that brought me to tears. Seeing him dealing with separated parents, and lovely step parents, and heartbreak, and moving on with life, and all of that just resonated hard. By far the hardest hitting part of the movie for me was his step-siblings never being seen again, after being prominently involved in his life up to then. Hardly a mention, just gone. Because that's how life is sometimes, there's not always staying friends or meeting up later in life. I loved the format to death. This movie is Mason sitting on his first night in college, reminiscing about the things in his life that made him the way he is now. Reminiscing about the moments from his boyhood, some extremely pivotal, and some just the random moments that are essentially meaningless but you remember for ever anyways. Mason sitting at a start of a new chapter and thinking about his life, a life which isn't particularly unique or fascinating, but realistic hit me so hard. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say this is one of my favorite movies of all time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Quandary posted:By far the hardest hitting part of the movie for me was his step-siblings never being seen again, after being prominently involved in his life up to then. Hardly a mention, just gone. Because that's how life is sometimes, there's not always staying friends or meeting up later in life. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the son of the first stepdad is at Mason's graduation party also in his graduation clothing. I swear it is the same kid or another kid who looks a lot like him. If anyone can confirm or deny that would be good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the son of the first stepdad is at Mason's graduation party also in his graduation clothing. I swear it is the same kid or another kid who looks a lot like him. If anyone can confirm or deny that would be good. That's his high school friend from photography class
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
What a beautiful beautiful movie. Also, as a Hispanic male, I did not find the scenes with the landscaper hollow, tone deaf, or racist at all. If anything, it was a great juxtaposition of all the encouragement mason and his sister get and ultimately ignore throughout their upbringing. They're constantly being told to strive, to be assertive, to not expect things to be handed to them when having things handed to them is basically all they expect. If you want hollow tone deaf racism, Linklater could have had Arquette's character adopt the dude or take him into her home and support him, or sign him up personally for classes or some other dumb horse poo poo, but sometimes an offhand word of encouragement is all that's needed. But then again, maybe I'm just blinded because it's Patricia Arquette giving the advice. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:If anything, it was a great juxtaposition of all the encouragement mason and his sister get and ultimately ignore throughout their upbringing. They're constantly being told to strive, to be assertive, to not expect things to be handed to them when having things handed to them is basically all they expect. I feel like they turned out to be pretty good kids DESPITE everything. Let's face it the mother was more concerned with her goals and for better or worse it made her less tuned into her children's lives. I see the kids as continually let down throughout the film by many people who shouldn't be doing that. When she has her breakdown at the end saying "I thought there would be more" I couldn't help but think to myself "you missed it all while pursuing the poo poo you thought was so important and now you're feeling sorry about it". Also even assuming they do "expect things to be handed to them" you have to agree that if they do in fact think that way then ultimately that is still on the parents for raising them to be like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:I feel like they turned out to be pretty good kids DESPITE everything. Let's face it the mother was more concerned with her goals and for better or worse it made her less tuned into her children's lives. I see the kids as continually let down throughout the film by many people who shouldn't be doing that. When she has her breakdown at the end saying "I thought there would be more" I couldn't help but think to myself "you missed it all while pursuing the poo poo you thought was so important and now you're feeling sorry about it". Also even assuming they do "expect things to be handed to them" you have to agree that if they do in fact think that way then ultimately that is still on the parents for raising them to be like that. It's a bit depressing that your idea of good parenthood is the total abandonment of personal ambition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:It's a bit depressing that your idea of good parenthood is the total abandonment of personal ambition. Total? I think that is a little strong. People strike a balance between career and family all the time without shortchanging one or the other. The film clearly shows she has no idea what is really going on with her kids at many points, and it can mostly be explained by her being consumed by her career. I'm not actually saying she is a bad parent by the way. Just that at the end when she has her breakdown it feels like she doesn't get it. Sometimes you make a choice as a parent to be career driven but it can come at the cost of emotional distance from your immediate family depending on how well you balance it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Total? I think that is a little strong. People strike a balance between career and family all the time without shortchanging one or the other. The film clearly shows she has no idea what is really going on with her kids at many points, and it can mostly be explained by her being consumed by her career. I'm not actually saying she is a bad parent by the way. Just that at the end when she has her breakdown it feels like she doesn't get it. Sometimes you make a choice as a parent to be career driven but it can come at the cost of emotional distance from your immediate family depending on how well you balance it. Yeah but her career development isn't just some ego thing, it's a way for the family to achieve financial independence. And I don't think she has some huge breakdown at the end of the film, she's upset her youngest child is leaving for college. The point of the scene isn't that she's guilty she missed his childhood in favour of her career, more that no matter how much time she spent with him growing up wouldn't have been enough for her. And y'know, it's also an echo of the audience's temporal viewpoint on his childhood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Yeah but her career development isn't just some ego thing, it's a way for the family to achieve financial independence. To some degree sure but she makes a lot of choices during it that force a lot of lovely situations on the kids that they never get any say in. The two "leaving home abruptly" scenes are heartbreaking. When little Mason paints over the marks on the door that marked his height at different ages is such a depressing scene, as is the scene where they leave the drunk. They get violently yanked out of their lives and are expected to roll with it multiple times. I think they rolled pretty good with it, and it's strange to me that some people think they were entitled little brats. EDIT: The film absolutely makes a point to establish she makes bad choices with men. We see the whole fiasco with the first guy, but with the second one the film just kind of moves on once his inner rear end in a top hat presents itself. We already know the story and don't need to see the aftermath again. ApexAftermath fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Sep 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Arquette wasn't a perfect mother, but for the situation she did a pretty drat good job. Her striving for a career or husband never was portrayed as doing it for her, but doing it for her kids.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:The film clearly shows she has no idea what is really going on with her kids at many points IMHO, 75% of parents don't have a clue what's going on with their kids at times, and the other 25% are those horrible smothering helicopter parents. It's part of growing up - hiding poo poo from your parent(s) and trying to deal with it on your own. Part of being a parent is letting your kids say 'yeah, I'm doing ok' even when you know they're struggling, 'cause that's how they transition into functioning adults. Of course you keep an eye on them and step in if poo poo really hits the fan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
I saw the film last Monday, and it resonated with me in ways films rarely do. I loved the structure of the movie - the passage of time, while ever present, is never underlined or pointed out. It just goes on. Moments come and go. I don't get the criticism regarding archetypal characters at all - I thought they were all believable and layered. Patricia Arquette was a stand-out - I thought she gave the most compelling portrayal of her career. She really has matured beautifully as an actress. It probably helped that I saw quite a bit of myself in Mason. I also went through my teenage years as an introverted, creative kid with big thoughts but limited perspective. My parents divorced when I was eleven. I moved often, had to say goodbye to a few childhood friends, and had to witness my mother go through a few bad relationships. There was no big tragedy in my childhood, however. I was bullied in school, but not to the point of emotional breakdown. My parents were supportive and did the best they could, given that both of them had some emotionally rough years after the divorce. I still consider my upbringing, and my home, a good one. In some ways, my life was just as mundane and sheltered as Mason's. I thought Arquette's breakdown near the end was easy to relate to, even though I am a man nearing my 30's and have no children. Probably all of us have had that same line of thought at some point - that we think of our lives as a series of milestones, where everything else blurs out in the long run, and that we somehow thought ( when we were still young and naive ) that there was more to it than there actually is. Life is a series of moments, of things happening, but there is no grander purpose or answer at the end of it. Life just is. And I thought this movie reflected that in a beautiful way. As an end-note, I also see the validity in comparing this to Malick's Tree of Life. They're tonally different, but explore the same subject: life. Linklater explores it from the perspective of a young boy growing up. Malick explores it in a more juxtaposed, universal way - is it just us and our everyday lives, or is there a greater purpose for our existence? Both brilliant films as far as I am concerned. I want to see this again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Vargo posted:How original and spontaneous is your life that you think this? I just watched Boyhood and figured I'd chime into this old thread to give it my 5 cents. To summon up my feelings on Boyhood I would at best describe it as a passable movie, about 4/10 if I ever were to grade it. Did not hate it, but I can't say I get the "hype" either. Now I feel really really weird about this because Boyhood seems like the kind of movie I'd love; A slow, "artsy" independent movie which experiments with tradition. I also feel really odd that so many people do not share my opinion. I know that movies are very subjective and can be different upon each viewing, but sooo many people liked this that I wonder if it's an issue with me and not the movie... Still, I hold firm that this movie feels staccato and fails to deliver on several basic points. To answer the question in your post; A firm and clear no. But also, My life should not be made into a movie either. Here are my problems with Boyhood in list form; 1. Shoddy acting delivery from several people (Will expand upon this) 2. Some scenes seem inorganic and forced (--"--) 3. Things are introduced and abandoned (--"--) 4. Length (Too long) 5. Sometimes seems preachy and pseudo-intellectual (--"--) 6. Relies too much on the concept to carry the movie (--"--) Things I liked; 1. Soundtrack, opening shot and initial character introduction was spot-on 2. Many good shots, ex car-scene going to college (also gripes here with certain flat angles) 3. ("Real") Dad was great, grandpa was awesome (for a minute or two) 4. Darkroom scene gave some direction and emotion Point one I think is really indisputable. Take a look at the infamous "sawblade" scene, the acting in this was so bad it made me physically cringe in the theater. The little "abstinent" kid was very bad, and the "jack black"-ish dude who tried to push beer on him and raved about pussy was atrocious as well. It does not help that these are characters we are possibly meant to relate to, they are his friends, but they have not been introduced earlier in the movie and they re not shown later. Yes, the movie and scene was supposed to be about our main character but he felt absent and agreeable and the scene ended up feeling pointless for me. There are minor instances of this level of acting occurring during other parts of the movie, but this example was the most dominant so I thought I'd focus my rant here. Point two refers mostly to the scene of the plumber. Mother sees plumber and tells him that he should go to school and apply himself, and I thought to myself that I knew where this was going to end up. Sure enough the guy approaches them in a cafè later and thanks Patricia Arquette. (Who was a very serviceable actor in this movie I might add, a lit up the screen) But still, the scene seems soo forced that he had to cram this feelgood tale into a movie which tried to carry itself on it's realism. Sure, things like this happens in real life but this instance felt forced. Also feels forced; Sawblade-scene, drunk father. Point three is hard to explain, but my most concrete examples are a scene in ca the middle (??) where our main character gets pushed and bullied inside a bathroom. This scene is simply just done and done. It's shown, set up - and then never investigated again. I can totally live with it if this wasn't "resolved" in the classical movie sense, because this is supposed to be a "real" movie, but it was not even expanded upon. Introduced, abandoned. Some other things also felt without resolution for me. Another scene was the one where he went to a new school. A kid greets him in the classroom with the line "Welcome to the suck", and gives him a fistbump. Here I was thinking; "Great! This movie is finally picking up! They just introduced that he's a new kid in school, so for some part of the movie now he's going to struggle to fit in, this new kid will show him around and give him the run-down, it will be a great "fish-out-of-water"-experience." But this was introduced, then promptly abandoned. He just seems to "fit in" off-screen and we never see this important part. Possibly because it's hard to film. I really wanted to see this part, but this crucial moment happened without the viewer present. Point six is minor because I can tolerate a lot of this, having been a pseudo-intellectual shitbag myself at age 15, but it is not so much our main character who seems like a pseudo-intellectual, but the overall message of the movie seems to be encouraging his behavior. Hard to expain. I could tolerate this behavior with our mc because it's realistic, but I lose investment in where he's going. Point six, wow. Ok. So I feel like everyone else when I try to describe the concept; It's brave, it's interesting, it's cool - but the movie fails as a stand-alone movie. To me a good movie cannot rely on it's concept, it has to rigorously stand up to being a good movie completely on it's own, and to me - Boyhood sadly did not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Criminally stylish posted:I just watched Boyhood and figured I'd chime into this old thread to give it my 5 cents. To summon up my feelings on Boyhood I would at best describe it as a passable movie, about 4/10 if I ever were to grade it. Did not hate it, but I can't say I get the "hype" either. Now I feel really really weird about this because Boyhood seems like the kind of movie I'd love; A slow, "artsy" independent movie which experiments with tradition. I also feel really odd that so many people do not share my opinion. I know that movies are very subjective and can be different upon each viewing, but sooo many people liked this that I wonder if it's an issue with me and not the movie... Still, I hold firm that this movie feels staccato and fails to deliver on several basic points. To answer the question in your post; A firm and clear no. But also, My life should not be made into a movie either. Here are my problems with Boyhood in list form; You are wrong. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Thanks man, glad we cleared that one up 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
What does "relies too much on the concept" mean?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:What does "relies too much on the concept" mean? I guess I was unclear. I don't mean that it relies on it's concept per sè, but it's my own personal explanation for why my opinion varies so much from what other people have said. I feel like the movie has gotten a pass because of it's concept. It has to be a good movie-going experience whatever the concept is, and it was not for me. I might be wildly off target, movies can be very subjective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Criminally stylish posted:Point three is hard to explain, but my most concrete examples are a scene in ca the middle (??) where our main character gets pushed and bullied inside a bathroom. This scene is simply just done and done. It's shown, set up - and then never investigated again. I can totally live with it if this wasn't "resolved" in the classical movie sense, because this is supposed to be a "real" movie, but it was not even expanded upon. Introduced, abandoned. Some other things also felt without resolution for me. Another scene was the one where he went to a new school. A kid greets him in the classroom with the line "Welcome to the suck", and gives him a fistbump. Here I was thinking; "Great! This movie is finally picking up! They just introduced that he's a new kid in school, so for some part of the movie now he's going to struggle to fit in, this new kid will show him around and give him the run-down, it will be a great "fish-out-of-water"-experience." But this was introduced, then promptly abandoned. He just seems to "fit in" off-screen and we never see this important part. Possibly because it's hard to film. I really wanted to see this part, but this crucial moment happened without the viewer present. Do you understand that this movie is supposed to evoke a sort of "flashback", or "lived experience", or "collage" type feel to life, and that only the most important events in Mason's life take up more than a single scene (the first abusive father, for instance)? Have you seen Tree of Life? Think of it in those terms- it's not a classically structured bildungsroman- it's supposed to summarize one's life as it would be remembered. When you look back on your own life, does in fit in a nice three-act structure, or is it largely a series of disconnected memories, many of which seem to have stuck with you for seemingly no reason? It's just how memory works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Do you understand that this movie is supposed to evoke a sort of "flashback", or "lived experience", or "collage" type feel to life, and that only the most important events in Mason's life take up more than a single scene (the first abusive father, for instance)? I consider myself to be somewhat of a pure utilitarian when it comes to movies, I do not care what you do or try to evoke with your movie as long as it works. I knew what Boyhood was trying to break at; to make a realistic movie which seemed like a memory of a childhood. This might just be realism as far as I know, sure - and that might just be how memory works alright, but it did not work for me as a movie because of what I just explained. Flashbulb memory-technique just means you set up stuff and leave it abandoned. I am not saying that Boyhood should be a bad experience to you, but in turn you can't come to me and say that "oh, this is how memory works therefore it is objectively a good movie technique", - not saying that you said this, but just pointing it out. No, movies don't work that way, movies work when they successfully deliver a good movie-going experience in one way or the other, which Boyhood failed to to for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
That's fine, you don't have to enjoy it by any means. And in fact, you don't even have to have a good reason, you can simply say "this movie just didn't click for me". My point was that your comment about random scenes not being expounded upon being a fault in the movie is misunderstanding the purpose of the movie itself. You make it sound like it was an error in judgement on Linklater's part, like he somehow forgot to tie up loose ends, when in reality, the movie was filmed pretty much as scripted, and that the collage-effect was well done and achieved its purpose. It's like faulting a black and white movie for not having enough color- if you don't like black and white movies that's fine, but it achieved its goal, at least on those terms. Your other five points are all easier argued and I think each have some small bit of individual merit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:That's fine, you don't have to enjoy it by any means. And in fact, you don't even have to have a good reason, you can simply say "this movie just didn't click for me". My point was that your comment about random scenes not being expounded upon being a fault in the movie is misunderstanding the purpose of the movie itself. You make it sound like it was an error in judgement on Linklater's part, like he somehow forgot to tie up loose ends, when in reality, the movie was filmed pretty much as scripted, and that the collage-effect was well done and achieved its purpose. It's like faulting a black and white movie for not having enough color- if you don't like black and white movies that's fine, but it achieved its goal, at least on those terms. Your other five points are all easier argued and I think each have some small bit of individual merit. What do you think is the "purpose" of Boyhood? I also agree that Linklater's editing and pacing was shoddy in this film. It's asinine to respond by claiming that "life itself" has bad pacing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
"This is why this movie is objectively not very good, by me" is never a good way to phrase a post on a discussion forum tbh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Bown posted:"This is why this movie is objectively not very good, by me" is never a good way to phrase a post on a discussion forum tbh. Actually that's the possibly the best "coming into a thread for a forums-beloved movie not liking it" post I've ever seen. Most of the times it's just people borderline trolling or not giving any explanation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
I thought this was a fantastic movie and there were only two scenes which didn't feel totally genuine and captivating - the scene with Mason and those other kids who were like PUSSY GET SOME PUSSY YOU FAG and the very end with the Mexican fella at the restaurant. Small problems though, the rest of the movie was great
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:What do you think is the "purpose" of Boyhood? I also agree that Linklater's editing and pacing was shoddy in this film. It's asinine to respond by claiming that "life itself" has bad pacing. The purpose was, among other things, to articulate the effect of time on a persons development. To that end, increasing the timeline to its logical extreme was a sensible way of evoking the breadth of scope that even a small slice of someone's life can encompass, and the changes that come with it. It is the theory that one's consciousness is merely an additive series of memories, made manifest in film. Other movies have made attempts at the bildungsroman with other techniques, and met with varied degrees of success. I think the general consensus about the film speaks to its effectiveness at evoking a sense of the passage of time and the development of a human over a broad span.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:That's fine, you don't have to enjoy it by any means. And in fact, you don't even have to have a good reason, you can simply say "this movie just didn't click for me". My point was that your comment about random scenes not being expounded upon being a fault in the movie is misunderstanding the purpose of the movie itself. You make it sound like it was an error in judgement on Linklater's part, like he somehow forgot to tie up loose ends, when in reality, the movie was filmed pretty much as scripted, and that the collage-effect was well done and achieved its purpose. It's like faulting a black and white movie for not having enough color- if you don't like black and white movies that's fine, but it achieved its goal, at least on those terms. Your other five points are all easier argued and I think each have some small bit of individual merit. Here is the thing; I think it was an error in judgment on Linklater's part, just not in the way you implied that I thought it was. I did not mean to imply he forgot - I simply think that this modem of delivering the story is just inferior to your more standard setup/payoff-method of forcing a story forwards. You say that the "collage-effect was well done and achieved its purpose" and equate this to a black-and-white film working well, and there are examples of movies working despite this; Schindlers list had this schtick and worked incredibly well as a movie at delivering a compelling and engaging lenghty movie. Boyhood had the collage-effect narrative and failed to keep me engaged, so in my eyes - yes, that was a fault of Linklater. I don't even care that other people like it when I think about this point because it is not relevant to me. I simply deconstruct it to see what made me not like the movie. This is my opinion of the movie, can't say that I think that this point does not have any value to it even if lot's of people seem to disagree with me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Finally saw this one. Here are some thoughts by someone who saw it months ago and loved it.quote:Here’s one thing I liked about this movie. Every adult man in the movie talks to Mason about responsibility. Following up. Thinking about consequences of actions. It’s the verbal glue that holds all the men in the movie together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
It took me six hours to watch this movie because of buffering issues with a stream I was watching (I was on-again, off-again, obviously. Not just angrily waiting over and over for a six-hour period.), but thankfully this was the perfect movie to laze about with all day, and the format makes it easy to leave and come back. I wasn't sure I would like it going in, because on paper I should hate it. But I feel like anyone who has ever grown up should be able to relate to it. Also people were asking (months and months ago) if Bill's alcoholism is foreshadowed, but nobody pointed to the correct scene: when they pull up the liquor store and he says "Just in case we have guests this weekend." His son responds "He says that every time, but we never have guests." I also think that Mason has an interesting relationship with alcohol afterwards. When he's with the older kids and they give him a beer, he takes one to fit in and opens it, but I don't think he ever drinks out of it. In high school he drinks, but turns down his father's offer for a beer at a concert. I wonder if he worries about becoming an alcoholic if he doesn't keep himself in check. Or maybe I'm just reading into it too much. Henchman of Santa fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Just got this on disc from Netflix, and holy moly what a great movie. I'm definitely in the "connected with and loved it" camp. What I loved the most was it's a story of a relatively normal growing up period. I mean, it's totally unlike my life but a lot like my life. I was bullied but never seriously bullied - in my case the bully was a former "friend" who knew embarassing childhood stories about me and would taunt me in class and spread them around during freshman year in high school. I simply acted like it didn't bother me and it was over in like 3 months. Everyone else realized the guy was just trying to make people think he was tough. It could have been worse, but wasn't. Much like what is portrayed in the movie. Other than that, I was never molested, I had enough self esteem to deal with peer pressure and give in to it sometimes but not when it counted. I was peer pressured just like the empty house scene, my best friend had an absentee mother, and his older brother bragged about drinking bourbon on a saturday afternoon. I tried it and it was terrible, and he called me a pussy, but that lasted about a minute and we went on with our lives. He wasn't my friend, his brother was. Hell, my first car accident happened when I was 40 years old. On the other hand, a lot of serious poo poo happened in my life. I had to live in a half-finished house for several years, with exposed studs and a bedsheet for a door. We were dirt poor and barely had food. My mom made my shirts and patched my jeans and I was made fun of at school for it. I didn't let it get me down and was proud of a mom who was talented enough to make clothes for me. My dad had a tumor on his pituitary that made him severely depressed and unemployed for half a decade, during which a former business partner who was angry him for some property investments that went bad took revenge, showed up at our house one night and shot him in the legs with birdshot. I still had to go to school the next day, and while it was rough and hard to understand, I rolled with it and dealt with it. Here my entire post is about me and not the movie, but that's why I connected with this movie. It's a remarkably unremarkable story, but it's still meaningful, much like the lives of most of the audience. And people talking about the drunk dad, the real foreshadowing was the surprise haircut. Patricia Arquette delivers such an amazing portrayal of a woman who knows her kid is right but knows she's going to get socked in the mouth if she stands up for him, which turns out to be inevitable. And in regard to the political ranting that the dad does at the bowling alley, I was laughing my rear end off because a) he was 100% correct, and b) I do that to my own kid now, only the topics are gay rights and economic inequality. Boyhood is absolutely perfect as a title, because it ends at the perfect moment: The first day of college, an amazing experience in nature with what are foreshadowed to become some of his best friends and likely his first real lover. Like we know that relationship is as likely doomed as any other, but he'll remember it as amazing and influential for the rest of his life (like I do the first girl I dated in college). It's basically the day that he begins manhood. Loved it loved it loved it. LloydDobler fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Just saw this and it was absolutely incredible and lived up to the hype. Those scenes in Austin Texas were so weird for me though since I live there. RIP ANTONES
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:It took me six hours to watch this movie because of buffering issues with a stream I was watching (I was on-again, off-again, obviously. Not just angrily waiting over and over for a six-hour period.), but thankfully this was the perfect movie to laze about with all day, and the format makes it easy to leave and come back. I wasn't sure I would like it going in, because on paper I should hate it. But I feel like anyone who has ever grown up should be able to relate to it. I might be remembering in hindsight but I could swear as soon as he ordered the wine at the dinner at the restaurant (I think he told them off for playing with something maybe?) I said to my fiancee "He's going to have a drinking problem" but I'd have to watch the film again to confirm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
teacup posted:I might be remembering in hindsight but I could swear as soon as he ordered the wine at the dinner at the restaurant (I think he told them off for playing with something maybe?) I said to my fiancee "He's going to have a drinking problem" but I'd have to watch the film again to confirm. Yeah, I thought the foreshadowing was in that scene as well, when the parents order a second bottle of wine, and admonish Nathan for ordering a coke. I suspected that alcohol would be a factor right after that scene.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Looks like the Red Letter Media guys came around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fOA1cv9pHs
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Looks like the Red Letter Media guys came around. Heh, buttholes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
RLM's insularity on this one just makes me feel really really uncomfortable because, just my personal take on it, it really strikes me that they didn't like the movie because they didn't like their own childhoods. Just plain sad. Like they were bullied too much as kids. But, you could probably say that's what makes them entertaining otherwise. It takes pressure to form a diamond.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 10:36
|
|
