This film is unique, that's for sure. It tracks the life of a boy called Mason from age 6 to 18 and rather than aging him with makeup or CGI or using multiple actors, this movie was filmed over 12 years for 3 or 4 days at a time capturing multiple moments in his life. It's a 'coming of age' story but not like any I've seen before. His parents are played by Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke and they are both fantastic in this.
It also felt unusual to me in the sense that there's no crescendo to the story, no big drama that it's all been building to. It's just a bunch of moments, some of which do feel more significant than others, that in total make a charming story but for me, not an amazing one.
That said, I do need to tell you that this film has had many four and five star reviews. For example, four stars here from theguardian.com and five stars here from the New York Times.
Fairfax reviewer Sandra Hall gave it three stars which is more in keeping with my personal opinion of the film. There's a lot to love - it's unique, Arquette and Hawke shine beautifully and there's something compelling about the rawness of the story. As an average (unsophisticated & boganic, some might argue) viewer though, for me it didn't live up to the expectations that came with the knock-out reviews. And at 2 hours and 45 minutes, it was just too damn long. (Or as Leigh Paatsch from News Ltd said in an otherwise positive review "At a running time of close to 3 hours, Boyhood can be messy, unfocussed and too tedious for words. Just like life.")
If you see this one, please do let me know what you think of it! And if any of you are super keen to read more about the film and the discussion around the amazing reviews it's been getting, this piece from The Independent UK is interesting: 'Boyhood gets perfect score on Metacritic but is it really the perfect movie?'
Trailer here.
* Pic at top courtesy of a clever artist at Palace Westgarth