Watching someone else's life can bring something out in us and make us better appreciate our own. And thus, the moving picture was invented!
Better to be king for a night than schmuck for a lifetime.

Ordinary everyday life is an unlikely occurrence.

The makers of this movie, I'm sure, claim that it's a good movie, as did many critics. That's what I was disputing. I thought it was awful.

What boring lives must these critics lead that they find such a boring movie worth watching?
It doesn't have to do with people living boring lives. To me at least, the charm of this movie is the fact that it shows that there is a certain level of beauty to everyday life. People like seeing things in movies that they can relate to, and pretty much everyone can relate to having been a kid who does mundane things. It's not a complex movie with character motivations and a major source of conflict with an antagonist (the stepfather doesn't count since he disappears pretty quickly), it's just a simple film about a kid's life over the years, and it doesn't claim to be anything other than that.
Previous IMDB Account: ThisGuy2070

I agree with you 100%.

I think you have too many filters for a good movie to enjoy it for it is. Chances are many good movies will be filtered out.
https://raviyer.wordpress.com

don't bother replying because I'm not going to waste anymore time repeating this.
Yup, I knew you were a poseur when you said you wouldn't respond to me. You don't have the courage of your own convictions. Sad, really. You can't best me because you are too mentally challenged to know when you are out of your depth.
Being nominated does not mean you were 'baiting' for those awards. No great drama, no great issues, no weepy sentimentalism, no 'jokes' or smirkiness or smutiness or violence or fantasy, just the beauty of life in all its messiness with a detailed, almost clinical exploration of what 'boyhood' means. A phenomenal accomplishment from a great, iconoclastic director.

1. I remember calling the people who liked this film, "millennials, critics, indie fans, hipsters & anti-mainstream cinefiles." That's 5 different groups, not one.
2. Depth is not my issue. My issue is the overlong, boring exposition of the film was unnecessary to serve to a simplistic story about a millennial growing up.
3. It was Oscar-bait. The Academy and BAFTA loved it. Ask The Golden Derby Oscar-betting site. The only reason it lost Best Picture was due to the preferential voting system. If it were simply "vote for your favorite," Boyhood would've won Best Picture. Thank God for the preferential ballot.
4. I'll mind-fart as much as I want in a free country/internet. If you disagree or are insulted, move on. Several people say things on the internet that annoy me. I don't message them about it. So, p!ss off fanboy. Don't message me again. If you do, I won't read it and simply block you. This way, you'll stop wasting my time, and I'll do the same.

"I never insulted anybody"
Patently false. Hipsters? Do you remember calling folks who like this film, hipsters? I will give you some time to reread your own post. If you are not going to face your own writing honeslty, than I am not sure what you are doing.
"Depth isn't the issue."
Ah, I see why you think you are superior to the critics. And then you go on with more insults!
"Oscar-bait realism" is ridiculous. Making a Slice of Life film without a plot is such a far cry from Oscar-bait. Story about someone overcoming a diesease or handicap, maybe. But this?
Again, you continue this post wiht more insults. Stop polluting the internet with more of your mind-farts.

I never insulted anybody. You just took it as an insult because anything other what you think/feel is an assault against your sensitivities.
The political scenes added no depth but depth isn't the issue. Boyhood is a character study requiring the filmmaker to keep the scenes/focus tight to serve a thematic purpose and prevent loose, unfocused, plodding & meandering scene-staging. To me, Boyhood did the latter. Only specific moments such as the domestic violence and friction between Hawke/Coltrane scenes were concise/and striking but it was stretched over plodding scenes like too little butter spread over too much bread. The 12-year shoot gimmick didn't impress me either. I was more impressed by the consistent filming of Apocalypse Now or any Stanley Kubrick film.
Secondly, there many reasons why people loved & hated Boyhood. The socially-relevant, high-brow Oscar-bait realism endeared it to many groups including some millennials, critics, indie fans, hipsters & anti-mainstream cinefiles enjoy. Others hated it for being slow, overlong, boring, pretentious and gimmicky. These are just assessments of a wide range of people/opinions. I tend toward the latter. We also cannot pretend like Boyhood isn't the kind of film critics love. They're rather watch that than Mad Max Fury Road.
Lastly, what compounds dislike into hatred of Boyhood is how it was received. It was just unanimously "loved" without analysis/discussion over why it was "great" or deserving of 99% approval (above many other classics). There was complete dismissal of contrary opinion and obscurity of dissenting opinions, which may explain why some opinions run heatedly contrary.
Now, you can perceive what I'm saying as an insult or repeating my opinion. It makes no difference to me if you do or don't, but if you do, don't bother replying because I'm not going to waste anymore time repeating this.

The fact is that you can't explain away the near unanimous love for the movie by your insults. And your 'analysis' is simply restating your opinion. Every scene of this movie adds to the depth of the film. In fact, you can't name a scene that doesn't.

If you bothered to read the post, I did argue the merits of three films including Boyhood but I'll say it again: Boyhood is a boring, plodding film that weakens itself with loads of unnecessary elements that detract from its momentary strengths. For critics and indie fans, it was a masterpiece. To me, its beneath my standards. If that insults you, deal with it.

Typical put down of people who have a different opinion, by insult. The critics are paid to have intelligent, thoughtful opinions, and sometimes they disagree with each other. But not really about Boyhood, one of the most critically acclaimed films of the last twenty years. Add that to the industry acclaim and the acclaim of the general public, and all of a sudden you have so many of these 'crowds' that adore the movie, it can no longer be explained away by grouping everyone into a category.
So argue the merits, sure, but spare us the cheap tricks.

Exotic settings and unfamiliar experiences don't make a movie tolerable. Short Term 12 is very familiar to me and lacks an unusual turn, but its the writing, pacing and acting that elevate it. For me, its a question of what you're expressing and how coherent/consistent the storytelling method is.
The Wolf of Wall Street expresses nothing as a story. Its a 3 hour romp of debauchery without a narrative, unconcerned with rectitude and packed with unlikable, apathetic characters. As a result, I dislike the film and am apathetic to everything about it. The Hurt Locker had interesting aspects but never develops them. Instead, they're dropped as quickly as they occur. In addition, several elements of the Hurt Locker make absolutely no sense, especially of trained EOD soldiers.
Despite disliking Boyhood, it has interesting aspects including things I did and did not experience. The issue is the film stretches into 3 hours, adding in numerous boring/unnecessary scenes, subplots and elements that weaken the story/narrative, which plods. I believe Boyhood was liked by artsy-fartsy critics who like anything non-mainstream, yet it expresses little in comparison to Birdman, Gone Girl, The Imitation Game, Nightcrawler, Whiplash or Selma, which say so much more as films. They also say far more about humanity, society and where America is at as a nation (even the period films from the 40s-60s). You'll also find that Boyhood is less liked outside of the indie, hipster and critic crowds.

Other offenders include 45 Years, The Hurt Locker & The Wolf of Wall Street. None really have any real conflicts. They just follow the characters in their every day lives without any obvious point to it all.
At least the two I know of these three movies show you an exotic setting, either Iraq or the situation of a Wall Street trader, so not really average everyday life and instead something most of us have never experienced.
Boyhood shows absolutely nothing out of the ordinary and shows characters that have nothing to offer for me, no interesting ideas, actions, capabilities.
I believe every movie has to have at least one turn in its story that is unusual or unlikely and digresses from the normal, because otherwise it will be boring. Luckily for me almost all movies are like that. The exceptions stick out, negatively.
Still I recognize once again that movie tastes differ widely, and obviously some viewers enjoyed and liked Boyhood for reasons that will remain elusive for me.

You're exactly right. Too many films can get away with just being "documentarian," watching characters without any overarching importance, plot or narrative.
Other offenders include 45 Years, The Hurt Locker & The Wolf of Wall Street. None really have any real conflicts. They just follow the characters in their every day lives without any obvious point to it all.

This message has been deleted.

should just be renamed "the 12 year gimmick movie"

I think that's the beauty of the film, even though he suffered through some bad times and it was pretty mundane overall Mason still seemed to he happy and enjoyed himself. The basic elements of life and qualities of society are in and of itself a blessing.

This message has been deleted.

And here we are at a crossroads where movie judgments and movie tastes differ. I cannot mete out universal, absolute judgment. I can only say how I perceive the movie. Obviously, many people, including particularly the critics, do not share my movie taste,
but I cannot understand why. Have they all grown up under circumstances as miserable as those in the movie? Do they see themselves in the boy?
This is kind of the problem I'm having with your posts. Your attempting to understand critics is kind of presumptuous at best. The critics have written down their opinions. Maybe that would be a great start.
Even meeting the girl in the ending is not his achievement. She descends on him purely by accident. He did not choose her, and she did not choose him. What in the world did the story author think? That finding a partner happens on its own? Here the movie is not even boring, it also becomes unrealistic.
Not everyone meets their partner in the same way. Sometimes finding a partner happens "on its own." Heck, that even assumes the film intended for the Nicole at the end of the film to be his "partner", not just someone he meets on the way (which is an idea that Linklater is absolutely fascinated with. Half his works are about how people encounter one and another. How strangers open up to each other before moving on).
And you know what? There is an unlikely act in Boyhood. Its not the act of the character but the viewer. The viewer sees 12 years in 3 hours. 12 years of the characters aging in a natural way (due to the script), 12 years of the actors aging, 12 years of society changing.

He was high on marijuana. He had just smoked marijuana in the car. So when he comes into the house and sees that his mom is having a party with friends, he enters a very awkward situation. A teenager smoking marijuana don't want to start interacting with their mom's friends. They might smell it on his breath or detect it by his behavior.
I wasn't simply 'pointing out what I like.' I was explaining an important theme in the movie: The distance between what you think and how you express yourself is monumental in your development, and how you handle that difference makes up your boyhood.
Repeatedly through the movie, the camera focuses on Mason's reaction to confusing things he sees in the adult world. This is not by chance. It is a crucial part of the movie.
In the Boyhood featurette (10 minutes long, about the making of Boyhood) there must be a dozen examples of this:
I think it's a fascinating liitle film. You shoulk watch it.

Thanks, I had read it already, but what you explain is mostly some retelling of the movie and pointing out what you like.
Perhaps I do not even understand what is happening, because apparently I live in a different world. For example, the scene you like so much, that you linked to on YouTube. You write, "He is high this whole time, but doesnt want to announce it." What do you mean by "high"? Do you mean that he took some narcotic drug?

"many people, including particularly the critics, do not share my movie taste, but I cannot understand why."
I explain why in my post, which I thoughfully link yet again for your convenience:
http://www.imdb.com/board/11065073/board/thread/240989390