What's going on with this piece of shit? Why are all actors

>>64448123
Did you know it took 12 years to make this film?

TWELVE YEARS
W
E
L
V
E

Y
E
A
R
S

>>64448123
If I was in charge of the movie I'd have given the kid a problem to overcome. The reason the movie was so boring was because the kid was. Like it would've been so much better if they made the kid schizophrenic or bipolar or gay or something. Give him a challenge in life that makes him interesting. I guess that would be asking a lot of a six year old actor though. idk

>>64448140
>>64448221
I was made aware of this meme. Even in the imdb description it opened up with that statement. I don't mind people looking different because a convincing actor will make you forget it's not the same person.

>>64448237
That bugged me the most. He was never in any real danger or financial situation. He was always spoiled and became a really obnoxious "woke" person.
It would have made the movie incredibly uncomfortable to make the character not normal. This is oscar-bait of the highest degree and I couldn't be happier they didn't get it.

>>64448403
>This is oscar-bait of the highest degree

Nah, it would've been if what >>64448237 suggested actually happened. I would've thrown up had it.

>ITT people missing the point

calling it boring because there was no huge monumental task for the kid to over come is completely missing the point. it's a film that mimics the way it was shot - a slowly shot movie, a slowly inching life. can you think back at huge feats you worked towards? no, life happens in bits and chunks and when you look back you can piece together some grand narrative. you never notice it as its happening.

boyhood attempted to mimic that but failed because it never gave a true sense of a changed character or even nostalgic remnants of who the kid used to be. it's a bold experimental movie that on concept and execution alone deserves praise. it failed in some ways but it's a huge feat either way.

>>64449202
>literally participation award
Fucking kek

>>64448123
that little faglord kid annoyed the fuck outta me always saying "i guess" with that fuccboi face

>>64449202
Nah man, the movie is a boring pretentious garbage. He thought: "Hey man, people thought Harry Potter growing up was super awesome, maybe I can make a movie entirely about that", and it sucked dick.

>>64449415

Sorcerers Stone : 2001

Boyhood begins production : 2001

what's your point?

>>64449460
k now I feel stupid. I take back what I said.
Still, slow movies aren't meant to be boring, in fact they don't strive to be, and boyhood was a lot.

>>64449202
>can you think back at huge feats you worked towards?
I get what the guy tried to do. But he missed the "normal" and made it boring. And pretentious.
I still enjoyed some of the scenes, especially the first half of the movie. The teenage years throughout the end are a mess, though. After they leave the drunk rage guy, I stopped caring about the characters.

>>64449573
>>64449570

i understand your points. boyhood had the potential to be a generation defining movie if it had a stronger narrative and used nostalgia to a more dominant effect. but instead, it did nothing with this huge oppertunity it had - the chance to show a GIANT narrative that's really not giant at all. but it still felt so, like looking back at your own life. it's pretty minor and small but it feels like everything to you.

there was so much potential to do something truly great here that i still kind of like what it ended up being. the teenage years are awful and easily the worst part of the movie. the first third is entirely captivating and had it kept up with that level of narrative it probably could have reached the heights that it was aiming.

>>64449676
To be something like what you said, it would need not just a good cinematography and directing, it needed something original, a soul, and that's something this movie didn't have from the premise.
Even if the movie continued like the first part of the movie, a bit more engaged, I doubt it would have been much more interesting. It's not everyone who likes life movies, and it's not everyone who had that kind of life. In fact, I think one of the reasons a lot of people didn't like the movie is because they didn't relate to the main character, and he and his mom were the only characters to get some development.

Careful, op. You are dangerously close to having idiots here call you an RLM shill

>>64450157
Explain

>>64450157
>Plinkett will never review Boyhood
Why live

>>64448123
I regret wasting my time with this piece of shit. 1 hour in and I was already begging for this boring piece of crap to be over. And I watched all 3 hours of it waiting for it to be good. I fell for the stupid marketing gimmick

>>64448123
It's a wonderful movie, very cozy, with poignant storywriting, great direction and a fluid progression of moods. The film never once feels long despite its unconventional length...very few films manage to capture the essence of a time and at the same time succeed at crafting an apparently timeless coming-of-age tale quite as well as Boyhood does...it's a masterpiece of filmmaking.

5/5