Review of the Reviews

       A film that is still somewhat fresh in my head from a recent viewing is Richard Linklater's (almost) universally acclaimed Boyhood. I had mixed feelings coming out of the theater, but I place most of that blame towards the general hype and the shocking consensus coming from a few critics that hailed it as, so far, 'the greatest film of this generation.' Rotten Tomatoes determines whether a review is 'fresh' or 'rotten' by drawing the line between a positive review and a negative review at a 6/10 or a 3/5. I have some strong opinions about the flaws of the aggregation systems of both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, but this topic is for another time. Boyhood rotten tomatoes received a 99% (one of the highest ever seen), and an average score of 9.4/10 (that beats the average rating given by critics to The Godfather). However, two people decided to break away from the crowd writing 'rotten' reviews, one of which panned the film and dished the abysmal .5/4 rating.

Original Review

Matt Pais of Red Eye Chicago claimed the film was merely "impressive in theory". Which, I have to partially agree with, the sheer technical scope of the movie was my driving factor to go and see it, whilst the other high points reviewers mention are the 'sprawling examination of the human experience' which I thought to be disappointing. It simply never worked for me and when I walked out of the theater I felt poorly about myself for not having liked it as much as others have. The reviewer compares it to Gravity in that it was amazing that it was done, but it did not turn out that well. Although I thought the story was thin, the visuals in that movie (especially in IMAX 3D) were absolutely astounding and turned it into a great film, but again, I digress.

"None of the moments in “Boyhood” are bold in suggesting the experiences are universal. Linklater isn’t deconstructing our communal stepping stones; he’s merely reminding us of them. It’s easy to watch the film and recall similar moments in your own life. That’s not enough; the film needs to inspire reflection, not just recollection."

Here is where I have to disagree. The time period the main character in the film grows up in almost completely reflects that of my own, and that, along with the choices Mason makes throughout his life triggered nostalgic moments that I had never thought would be important to me, such as simply playing on my gameboy. Not only did I have nostalgic happiness throughout parts of that movie, some the choices that Mason actually made me think back to what I could have done differently, even the most minuscule of choices. That, in my opinion, is where the movie succeeded, but other movies have done that for me in the past so it did not determine to be one of my favorite movies of the past few years, or even this year for that matter. 

The reviewer also mentions the weak use of music to determine the time period, and I my opinion would most definitely correspond with that as they countless times blasted the hit pop song of the year to make you know that time had changed. However, in the end, Boyhood proved, at least, to be an enjoyable and worthwhile experience, and most definitely would not give the appalling low review score of .5 stars out of 4. It should be noted that the comments for the review are hilariously filled with hateful comments, as this guy took away the Rotten Tomatoes perfect score of 100%.

Original Review

 Our very own film critic Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune gave, like almost all the other reviewers, an overwhelmingly positive review for Boyhood with 4 out of 4 stars, AKA a perfect score. Now, I used to read Michael Phillips reviews, but have not in a long time since Rotten Tomatoes became more popular, so I do not know exactly what he deems a good movie and what is deemed a fantastic one. Also, I want to cut this section down because I seem to keep forgetting that this is not my own personal review of the movie.
Philips loved how the film realistically presented moments of life just as they are, moments, not playing up life's crises for an emotionally manipulative plot. To that I say, and brace yourself for somewhat of a rant, then why (SPOILERS) does Mason end up having two drunk stepdads, one of them physically abusive and the other emotionally abusive? Don't we all go through that? Do we all become hipsters with a huge philosophical quest to examine the meaning of life? (He literally says at one point during this 'phase', "What's it all about?", I got mad when I heard this) Well I know this has not yet happened to me, but I still have two more years to experience the whole hipster section of the movie, but that section still came off as pretentious, and maybe that is what they were going for, whatever it was, I did not think it worked. I remember my bigger problems with the film now. The whole premise of the movie requires the narrative to be improvisational in that the yearly segments are written when the time comes, so it can be disjointed at times, and some segments are clearly better thought out and more impactful than others.

"Some films fill 164 minutes with sound and fury signifying nothing. "Boyhood" (one minute shorter than the 165-minute "Transformers: Age of Extinction," for the record) opts for a different approach. In completing this simple, beautiful project Linklater took his time. And he rewards ours."

This is where Philips is absolutely correct. Not once throughout this morning-long of a movie did I get bored, sure, I had my issues with it, but it was a really great movie in terms of its pacing especially considering how low-key its subject matter was. It astounds me to think that I got bored of Michael Bay having fun with his money, blowing up things in the last Transformers movie, but I was thoroughly entertained by the story of two children making their journey through American life.  Not necessarily the Magnum Opus of two kids growing up or any film in recent history, however, a solid film and one that merits attention.