Seldom has there been a film where the critic's opinions and its true quality diverge so seriously. "Boyhood" is empty because it lacks form. It celebrates the ordinary and mediocrity instead of aiming at something extraordinary. As a result, it embraces nothingness and is in that sense deeply nihilistic and even depressing. Anybody with the same camera and some actors could have made this movie or (more likely) a better one.
Boyhood Reviews & Ratings - IMDb Sunday, July 20, 2014 @ 7:00pm
Those who praise the film always point out the same thing (the only thing they can say) which is: This film is like "real life". I have to say: This is true. But I may ask: Is that a good thing? Is this, if film history or art history in general has taught us anything, what films should be? "Real life", according to Linklater, means a lifespan during which nothing happens. The Boyhood-experience is the equivalent of your experience waiting in line at the supermarket. Yes, this is the "real life" Linklater presents us. NOTHING HAPPENS in this movie! Nothing, no story, no characters, just ordinary situations from "real life". Of course, there are films in which nothing or very little happens and they can be great (like Tarkovsky's "Mirror"), but you need ideas, you need a style or form (which cannot be separated from the content), you need a capable director that can create a form of visual communication. Boyhood offers none of those things.
