dougdoepke The movie's mainly a matter of taste. There's no real narrative or exchanges of dialog, while the characters are more humorous caricatures than real people. Still, the cinematography is dazzling, probably too much so since FFC appears obsessed with the spiraling effects. These, however, do lend the film a free-spirited sense of freedom that young Bernard (Kastner) is confused by, having been kept on a tight parental leash. So, the theme, as much as there is one, is very much a 60's one— how to break free of stifling convention. In Bernard's case, it's more like simply understanding what it is that's stifling him.The biggest mystery to me is how FFC assembled such an outstanding Broadway cast—Harris, Paige, Torn—for a Master's Thesis. And who's inspired touch is that "attack chicken" that bedevils the girls, or the Neanderthal cop who's never off duty. Anyway, if you're not insisting on a conventional style and are willing to put up with some pretty self-indulgent passages, the movie may have genuine appeal, especially for those either nostalgic or curious about the free-wheeling 60's.

dartleyk hard to rate: pretty good for a film school thesis? how about an 11; cinema to study as a precursor to several great films? maybe a 5 or 6; as a movie, just a movie, maybe 3; two big problems: story is loose, too often sophomoric, too much filler dialog of no help, never defines the main character, sometimes nerd, sometimes rube, adventurous and off to a new life, a wimp who reports to daddy; worse problem, the actor who plays him, kastner: no screen presence, often unpleasant, beady expression in closeups where he's supposed to be interested, thinking; in drawn out tours of Manhattan, watching him watch NYC, no reason to care; when the locations overwhelm the star of the movie you sense more trouble to come; it does; but, amazingly to me, he was nominate for bafta 'Most Promising Newcomer to Leading Film Roles' in '68, then went on to do mainly minor parts in minor TV series; somehow, film student Coppola got appearances from Geraldine Paige and Julie Harris, both at home with the camera, and a john Sebastian soundtrack; newcomer in small role that leaps out is Karen black, a natural; so settle on a 5- for the history of cinema, and glimpses like break to sepia and stills in a flashback become some of the great scenes in godfather 2

jimac51 This movie is flawed,frustrating and...fun. What energy! What a supporting cast! What a cool score from the Lovin' Spoonful(not just "songs by")! But,yes,it is bizarre,especially for a mainstream film. It's bizarre in the way that "Harold & Maude" is bizarre. And if you think that H&M works,give this a chance.I just emailed TCM to think about doing a 1968 retrospective,as they are doing for 1939. I'm not saying that the films of 1968 were more important that 1939,but'68 is the pivotal (post WWII)year for America. Movies,films,even TV was changing and in some ways we're still trying to figure out what happened. "Big Boy" was the coming of age movie that never got its due while hundreds of thousands of Babyboomers were indeed coming of age.

Kirasjeri A coming of age film centering on a young man's longings and fantasies for his dream girl whom he sees in the New York Public Library's main branch. This comedy-drama is so spotty it is often infuriating but still worth seeing. The lead, Peter Kastner, is forgettable, but his father played by Rip Torn, head of incunabula (see the movie and find out what it is!) at the library, is hilarious; the fight scene with Julie Harris is marvelous. The opening scenes show the behind the scenes goings on at the great library and even where all the books are stored, which the public can't see. Karen Black did a fine and affecting job as Kastner's girlfriend. On the negative side is the lovely Elizabeth Hartman coming off her big success in "A Patch of Blue" with Sidney Poitier. She is supposed to be the cool and detached object of longing - but is as vapid and empty as any character could be, and in part this has to be the fault of the direction of Coppola. This is a significant problem with the film. Hartman was very tragically an apparent suicide in 1987. The movie does have enough in it warrant a viewing.