The Worst Film Ever

hyped garbage

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Spending 12 years making something doesn't absolve you of the basic requirements of story and plot. Essentially, it provides you with more time to rewrite your script. A completely boring, cliche story, whose only redeeming aspect - and the reason everyone is raving - is because it took so long to make. Which is never a good reason to like anythin.

This film was so natural that I can't fault it in any way. Remarkably, the film was shot over a 12 year period, with the cast coming together for about 12 weeks every year for shooting. Therefore Mason is played by the same actor (Ellar Coltrane) through the entire span of the film, as well as the rest of the cast, off course, but I mention Mason here since he is the lead actor. This makes the film even more believable to see him grow throughout the film - from an innocent young boy to a typical teenager trying his first cigarette, having his first beer, thinking about girls, etc. Even the speech was very appropriate from kid to teenager to young adult. I must admit, I really enjoyed the movie's dialogue. Although the film is very long, I never found it boring. It was like watching someones (real) life play in front of me and it was interesting all the way. In fact, after almost 3 hours I was disappointed when the film ended - I wanted more.Although it is a film to savior, it is not the type of film I'd watch over and over, but having seen it I'm glad I did and will fondly remember it as a very good movie. A truly moving picture.

If you are considering watching this movie, you must expect that you will watch a boy's life through 12 years as the description of movie say BUT what makes this movie interesting or special?... it is the 12 years in making!!!.. This movie was made to present an ordinary boy's life, his thoughts and prospective on living that came from his observations and interactions. I like this movie and would recommend it to everyone who would like to watch a special movie with an ordinary (if not without) plot OR at least like to watch sweet movie on "regular" life.

My biggest focus in a film tends to be the characters and interactions, and that is a huge problem in this film, and a big reason why I don't tend to like gimmick films in general. This film seems to be more infatuated with its gimmick than telling an intriguing story.Production started from 2002 and finished in 2013, and covers a family, focusing on a boy named Mason as he grows up. Reportedly, the script hadn't been completed by the time filming started beyond basic plot points and an ending, and it unfortunately shows badly in the final product. The most basic elements of storytelling are blatantly mishandled as the film chugs along at a snail's pace through its nearly three hour runtime seeming to make things up as it goes, which is likely what happened given the gimmick. It's essentially a slice of life story with a few plot devices placed to try to give the film some narrative to follow. It doesn't push any boundaries or try to be creative in any way other than in taking ten years to film, which is hardly a matter of talent rather than one of patience.The film starts off with its strongest conflicts right at the start, as the mother, Olivia, is recently divorced and falls for her teacher, Bill, who becomes an abusive alcoholic. This feels like one of the few elements that was placed in the story from the beginning, but even it didn't grip me. I grew up with an abusive alcoholic father, and Marco Perella's performance as Bill didn't convince me, as the subtleties seemed off. While it seemed right on paper, the execution felt like he was saying his lines off a teleprompter. Anyways, the movie shortly moves past that and goes on to focus on the family as Mason and Samantha who are now in high school, and it's nothing we haven't seen a million times before, and experienced at some point in our lives, which I suppose is the point, but it seems counter-intuitive to go to the movies to experience the worst part of your life over again. As Mason grows up throughout the movie, I find him less and less likeable as he gets extremely pretentious and depressing, to which point I agree with all those who antagonize him and call him out on his teenage melodrama. Samantha is not much better as she is unreasonably rude to her mother, who is by far the most likeable character in the entire movie. Mason Sr. is alright, and he gets a nice positive arc from being a loser to getting his life together and being a more active father throughout their lives, but I don't feel Mason Jr. quite follows along the same lines. He's simply not matured by the end of the film and it left me very disappointed. The real climax of the film involves Olivia having a mental breakdown about how her life has turned out, and it's actually quite effective, but short-lived, as the movie feels it more important to end with an artsy-fartsy yet cliche scene with teens blabbing about life while watching the sunset at the beach. Seriously, teenagers are just awful.In other words, this film is basically my life with a whole lot less conflict and an even worse teenager than myself. If this concept had worked out to make an entertaining film, it would have been an incredibly lucky lightning in a bottle scenario, and unfortunately that didn't happen. The family didn't have much chemistry, and the children didn't grow into as strong of actors as the parents were from the start. I understand the attempt at becoming a cultural phenomenon, but the excruciating runtime is ultimately undeserved. It can be an interesting diversion for some people, but I'm not entirely surprised it didn't resonate as well as may have been expected through its lengthy production.