Dustin: 3 of 5 stars Nick: 4.5 of 5 stars Average: 3.75 of 5 stars (Live canary)
Dustin: Boyhood was filmed over 12 years and follows a boy from a broken home as he grows from elementary school until he goes off to college.
What did you think of Boyfood, Nick?
Nick: Boyhood was certainly ambitious. There were so many events that felt true to life, so much so, to the point that whenever a person was introduced there was already a suspicion that this certain relationship would not last. Whether because of alcoholic fathers or female companions.
Dustin: I liked the concept of filming scenes over 12 years instead of using a younger actor to play the little kid parts and an older actor for the high school parts. I’ve actually wondered before why no one has done this (other than the logistical difficulties). Other than the gimmick though, I cared very little for this film. I liked the parents, and their character arcs, but otherwise, it was too long and rather pointless.
Nick: It never felt long for me, and the last talk between Ethan Hawke (father) and Ellar Coltrane (main character) is about how pointless life truly is, but you should still do what makes you happy. Since the film is trying to depict, as realistically as possible, a family growing together (and apart) over the course of 12 years then I’d say it did one incredible job.
Dustin: I disagree. If they wanted to make a movie about a lame white family and boring real life, they could have made a documentary about me. This movie just kept going and going. After the two hour mark, I was getting quite bored, especially when it stopped following the parents and instead followed the boy as he took boring pictures of old fire hydrants and what not. After each scene ended, I was gearing up to leave the theater, then another pointless scene would begin. I kept waiting for something, anything to happen. There was a scene where he talks to his father on the phone and his father tells him to be careful driving, then while they’re driving, his girlfriend shows him a picture on the Facebook, and I thought they would crash or something would happen. Nope. Just another pointless scene. Then when it finally ended, it didn’t seem to end on a particularly poignant note. They could have just ended it anywhere for the same effect.
Nick: That would be pretty melodramatic and a bit off point if the kids were in a car crash. I love that there is no coy set-up in the film to where you are able to guess what’s going to happen next. It sounds like you enjoy the simpler things in life, sir.
There were two parts of the film that should have been altered dramatically (though I could now see them being your favorite scenes) and they both involved alcoholic step-fathers.
The first step-father is set up correctly, but the events involving him could have been more subtle. Like seeing their mom have a random black eye or limping and saying she fell down the stairs. But the father went from three to 10 in about 15 minutes of film time. Least favorite scene of the film is when he takes his kids for a joyride. Not because it depicted something unrealistic, but the scene altogether felt disjointed.
The second step-father is also an “alcoholic.” The first guy chugged a bottle of tequila, hit his wife and used fear tactics against his children. The second guy seemed to have four or five lite beers, supported his wife (never hit his family that we know of), and tried to discipline his rebellious children (never with a fist). Yet we get no explanation for why she left the second husband beyond the film jumping another year and simply saying now that I have no alcoholic husbands in my life… The first father has a lot of screen time. The second father has barely any screen time. By the end they are equated by the mother as the same. I suppose we are to assume that he became like the first husband, but I never got the sense that that would happen.
Dustin: I actually hated those scenes too for the same reason you said. The first step-father was so comically evil when he was drinking that I was actually laughing. I enjoyed the scenes, actually, but definitely not for the reason the filmmakers intended. It was like something out of Strangers with Candy. There was quite a bit of laughably bad dialogue. I was the only person in the theater laughing, which was awkward. Just couldn’t take the pretentious BS seriously.
The movie was too reductive to form a story, which is my main complaint about a lot of movies that try to cram too long a time frame into too short a running time (even at 2 hours 45 minutes). I knew where it was going as soon as we saw the second step-father drinking the beer on the porch and then chewing out his step-son (rightfully so) for being selfish and inconsiderate to his mother. Then he’s gone and we never know why. His character just isn’t there anymore (probably working on another movie and didn’t go back, so they wrote him out).
Would you have liked this movie as much if it were the same story, but not with the gimmick of filming it over 12 years?
Nick: If it was a different director then I might be OK with calling it a gimmick. The word has so much negativity to it. Richard Linklater likes to make films that are slightly different than the ones we see too often. Look at his catalogue: Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise trilogy, Waking Life, and A Scanner Darkly. These films, whether I liked them or not, are firmly planted in my brain because they were either magnificent, eccentric or something that I have never seen before. Boyhood is not the first film to do this “gimmick.” My favorite documentary is a series by Michael Apted called 7 Up. Started in 1964 and still going today. Francois Truffaut made his Antoine Doinel character with a series of 5 films somewhere in like a 20-year period. To answer your question, the first trailer I saw said nothing about the film being shot in 12 years, and I thought it looked incredible. I guess it doesn’t matter though because the film was made over 12 years and nothing can change that, but it’s not something I thought of too much to where it bothered me. There is nothing in me that will make me think Richard Linklater is either “gimmicky” nor pretentious. Linklater has passion and loves to tell coming-of-age stories, though he always finds a different artistic way to bring them to life.
Dustin: I just didn’t think this was a story anyone would care about. I liked the parts with his parents and their relationship. If that had been the focus of the movie, and about 45 minutes or more were cut to make it a leaner story about his parents, especially his father, growing over 12 years, I would have thought this was quite good. But once he’s a teenager and they follow him through his emo phase until he finally becomes a lame hipster going to college to learn a skill anyone can teach themselves (photography), I was pretty much fed up. I thought it was a wasted opportunity to work so hard for 12 years to tell this story.
Nick: If it makes you feel any better, everyone I know, from film buff to average movie goer loved this movie. I also had to try four times in order to see the movie because it was surprisingly sold out at the first three showings I attempted. Even at the larger theaters! The film also has an impressive 99 percent on RottenTomatoes with 181 out of 183 critics at least liking it, but not only that, as I look now, it also has the highest average rating I have ever seen at 9.4 out of 10. So, although I get your point and the father is a much more interesting character, the film seems to have a story that most people would enjoy. To be honest, I’m sorry you didn’t like it, since I “made” you see it. Though I also saw the Turtles and it was worse!
Dustin: Saying something must be good because a lot of people liked it is a logical fallacy known as “Appeal to Popularity.” Hindsight often proves them wrong. But I’d agree this movie wasn’t as damaging to the idea of “boyhood” as the new TMNT movie.
Nick: Is it a logical fallacy to state that I stated that anyone called it good? I said “enjoyed,” which a lot of people did which is just a fact. And the fact was pointing to your statement that you couldn’t imagine this story being anything that anyone would care about, which a lot of people seemed to care… And I don’t think I have a problem with appealing to popularity… I didn’t like Captain Phillips which was hugely popular with critics, moviegoers and you!
Dustin: I realize the movie is popular, I just don’t understand why (for the reasons I already explained). There wasn’t a plot, and what did happen wasn’t particularly interesting. I gave it 3 of 5 stars because I liked the concept and seeing the same people age on screen in one movie. I definitely wouldn’t have given it three stars if it was filmed over a couple months with different actors playing the younger roles.
Nick: I get that and I was genuinely saying that I’m sorry it didn’t tug at your heart strings or anything… and you are not wrong, I am not saying that. It’s our opinion and its a logical one to why one might not enjoy it as much, but normally when I go into a film hyped-up because I’ve really been wanting to see it I often leave disappointed, but I left this film with so much gratification. Maybe its because I have such a hard-on for Linklater. I love passionate people doing what they love.
Dustin: Of course neither of us was likely to change each other’s mind. This argument is for readers to get different perspectives on the movie and look at it through someone else’s filter.
Nick: You have made me change my rating before. I take your opinion and consider it seriously. I actually think that we both have the exact same idea of Boyhood, but while I thoroughly enjoyed you didn’t. Boyhood is more about feeling than a plot line. The plot is a boy growing up and there is no other plot. We’ve had a discussion recently about this kind of film that is character-based instead of following a plot. Character-based films often get to me more and once again that has proven itself again!
