But it'd be a completely different movie. The reason this movie is so brilliant is because it's a coming of age movie with actual coming of age in it. Not just the Mason character, but Samantha and the parents as well. The passage of time shapes the film's actors and writing in unexpected, natural directions.

When Patricia Arquette's character breaks down and says she thought "there would be more" towards the end of the film (obv. Patty's Oscar clip, btw), you can really sense her character's resigned anguish because we've been watching her for 12 years.

Fair enough, but for me, The Dark Knight is a movie that can very well stand on its own even without Ledger and TWBB is such masterful filmmaking that Boyhood can't even dream of, even without DDL's involvement, so...

The passage of time thing really is cool. I felt with that and that is the reason why the film never seemed to drag despite its running time. The acting is solid too. Actually I can't pinpoint much of what is wrong with it, but an all-out masterpiece for the ages, it is not. As Magnus has pointed out, its lead character sucks, especially towards the end. I wanted to punch him.

That's how you should feel towards teenagers coming of age.

It is classic Arthur to hate the character of Mason for trying to be edgy, hip, intellectual, etc. as a teenager.

Is it?

Yes.

Do you think my reaction would be different if he was edgy, hip and intellectual, but not a teenager?

You want him to be more meat-and-taters and not put on airs.

That is correct, but it does not have much to do with age. I don't like hipsters and too-cool-for-school alternative types. Generally. Some are cool, most are of the annoying kind. He is the latter.

But you should allow for this and find it amusing or even sympathetic. The film is a portrayal of an adolescent shaping his persona, finding himself, etc.

I doubt I can force myself to find it sympathetic. The movie should bring me to that point and it didn't. But in all fairness, I had no issues with the character during the first two hours.

I think he grows up to be a pretty awesome fella.

I don't think "coming-of-age" is limited to a very specific age. Stand By Me is a coming-of-age film too despite not actually spanning a decade to show the kids growing up.

All I have to say is; people never grow down.

Very well made film and strong performances across the board to put in the top tier for 2014. It's not perfect as there are some story problems, particularly with the older male characters playing very cliche "earn your living characters" that becomes repetitive and boring, but it's still an adventure unlike any other before.

Is this masterpiece on DVD yet? I need to buy it, ugh.

Girl...it came out last Tuesday. Read your Best Buy ad. Buy the Sunday paper. Visit blu-ray.com.

Couldn't be happier about this film winning awards and being the favourite for BP.

Bro

you have no soul. boyhood is 'GOAT' material.

This is one of those movies that I have to sit and think about for a while before I can formulate a proper opinion, but just having finished it, I thought it was excellent. I do think it loses something special towards the end, however I cannot pinpoint it. It kind of perfectly captures those thoughts and feelings in that time period, when we think and say things that sound deeply profound but ultimately end up just that: thoughts and words that sound a certain way, but more often than not, we grow up, we grow older and we lose that spark, which is why it was an added layer to have Arquette and Hawke grow at the same time. Hawke's father character matures and grows into a respectable man, but is that what he really wants? Certainly isn't what he expected. Whereas Arquette's mother seems to fall further and further away from what she has wanted, to the point at the end where it seems like there's nothing left except to die, which is a sad reality itself.

The repeated criticism about the "gimmick" is whatever. I never thought to myself "boy, if only Dick Linklater shot this in four months with a new kid for every era". It's like saying "No, director man, don't shoot your movie with your vision, shoot it the way we've all come to expect so it doesn't look like a gimmick!" And I'm normally a love-or-hate guy on Linklater. But I wasn't bothered by it. I also think if he had shot it over four months instead, it would still be a great movie. But like Algren said, of course if you take that away, it will change the movie. That's just a silly reason to dislike it.

Long story short: A-

But I remember acting the same way, or at least similarly, when I was in high school and upon graduation. Like I would say or think these things that, to me, sounded deeply profound, like I had cracked the code of life and no one else had. It sounds like someone who survived childhood and is staring down the barrel of life and wants to take it on.

What would be more interesting is seeing life kick him around in another 12-year movie. When you realize those profound thoughts are just that: thoughts.

The more I think about it, the more I love the movie. It's vintage Linklater to get preachy with the dialogue, but the last lines about life being about moments is true, and that's what the whole movie is. When you look back on life, it's all these sporadic moments and events.

Well I can understand that. I'm not going to dispute personal opinion.

But I still think this movie would be great even without the 12-year gimmick. Maybe it wouldn't be getting the award attention without it, but that's beside the point.

At 165 minutes this movie is 45 minutes too long. I wasn't bored, but at the two hour mark it feels like it hits a wall and it comes to a complete stop.
The older Mason got, the less interested I was in his character. In fact, I did find the characters of the mother and father and the cultural references much more interesting to follow than the main protagonist.

I also feel that the movie is mainly getting its accolades because of the gimmick and that it wasn't absolutely necessary. While it's interesting to watch the physical transformation, I can't believe a single of moment of his psychical (coming of age) transformation. Why? Because the movie is scripted and we aren't seeing what really happened to the main actor and all the interactions with all other characters are staged.
I'm not really complaining that the filmmakers went that route, I'm complaining about the ones throwing accolades and calling something 'true to life' and 'natural' when it's not.

For how it's rightly done, I would suggest the 7up series that started in 1964 and that since the second installment has been continued by Michael Apted (14up, 21up, 28up, 35up, 42up, 49up, 56up). It's a series of movies that every 7 years follows the lives of what once were a group of children in the UK. They are real people, none of them are actors, some have died, and you can see a bigger timespan of physical and psychical transformation. The last installment so far is 56up from 2012, so 63up should be coming in 2019.