Another example of a film shot over a long time is the 2012 film Everyday, which was shot a little at a time over five years.
Besides the films named above, there are movie franchises. They work differently from the ones listed above (although perhaps the Harry Potter books should be thought of as a franchise). A franchise can be totally recast. It can be rebooted so that new films in the series will be just a remake of an earlier one in the series. There can be no continuity at all in the crew, so each one can be done with a new writer, a new director, etc. The franchise can be sold to a new production company so that the people making decisions about the films will be completely different. I’m not certain I can precisely distinguish between franchises and the movies I named above, but they seem to be rather different to me. Here’s a list of 30 long-running movie franchises:
Yeah, it’s really not the same thing in my mind, having seen all Linklater’s work. Having the entire time span occur in one movie is a different experience. Hell, Die Hard and Rocky use the same characters in their sequels over a long period of time, but those aren’t really similar, either. I loved the Before series, but it’s not quite as striking when they’re released 9 years apart. I’d be interested to see if you agree once you’ve seen it.
Cripes!
Even IF there is some hyperbole in some of the praise for this film’s “original” approach, Linklater did something amazing, rare, difficult to achieve, and he achieved it beautifully.
And half the posts in this Thread have to be about nitpicking whether or not this has ever been done before.
Sorry, Linklater, come back to the SDMB when you’ve actually made something of your life, loser. Bring pie.
I saw Ethan Hawke talking about this movie in a late night talk show interview. The concept of the movie sounded so intriguing. I like Ethan Hawke’s acting in the clip. He looks like the scene was unscripted.
That’s what I liked about Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, two of my favorite movies. They look like it’s just people talking. They looked unscripted to me, although they clearly weren’t.
I’m glad to see the positive reviews of the movie. I was hoping it would be good.
There’s a slim chance that you don’t already know, but there’s a third film in that sequence Before Midnight. I kind of hope that they keep doing a new one every ten years or so, as long as Linklater, Delpy and Hawke live.
You heard wrong, it’s a perfect length. A movie that takes 12 years to make doesn’t lend itself to such criticism. You either accept what Linklater gives you, and put your damn watch away, or go see Transformers or something.
I’ve seen it twice now and the 2nd time was even better, because now that I knew what was coming I could savor the moments in that boy’s life. And his sister (played by Linklater’s daughter, she also aged over the years, and her journey, from a little girl to a lovely young woman, was as fascinating as his), his mother and his father. I loved it.
Yep. Hell, I could have watched it unfold for another half hour, easy.
Also, I don’t know if it’s been mentioned much in the reviews - I’ve seen a lot of talk about the main kid, who was great - but Patricia Arquette nailed the hell out of her role.
Saw the film this afternoon – quite unique and engaging. It was especially interesting to watch Patricia Arquette age gracefully from her “Kissin’ Kate Barlow” years to present-day matron. Also, I was impressed how they managed to cast a boy who grew up to strongly resemble his fictional dad Ethan Hawke, right down to the ugly scraggly beard.
Like some, at first I did feel the movie dragged on for 30 minutes too long; but thinking back, it actually ended on the perfect note. The ending felt less like a finale and more like the opening chapter to the next story in this young man’s life. To end the film at the graduation party, or after the scenes where each parent shares their pearls of wisdom (what little there is to learn – this is real life we’re talking about) would have been far too cliché for what the story deserved.
Some reviewers are calling this one of the best movies of all time – which is a bit of a stretch IMO, but it was definitely a resounding success. An experiment like this could have failed in many spectacular ways; but instead, I think it’s clear that Richard Linklater is quickly becoming the Robert Altman of his generation.
I really, really liked it, although not to the OMGbestmovieever extent that the critics seem to.
I wonder if they’re more in awe of Linklater’s vision than they are of the actual results. And it really is jaw-dropping, how he managed to make his 12-year shoot work. But I turned out to just not care all that much where Mason went to school, or about his problems with his girlfriend, and those dragged down the last 30 minutes. His relationship with his parents was more interesting.
Has anybody heard if there were problems caused by the timespan? Did actors drop out, causing re-writes, characters to get dropped?
It was fascinating to see a minor character this year become major next year (like the random guest at Thanksgiving becomes Mom’s new boyfriend).
Were Ethan Hawke’s new wife, and the girl at the bowling alley one and the same? I missed her name.