OK, first things first (I'm the realist just kidding) I'm not saying that Boyhood is a bad film, its fine. I just don't find the reason why everyone finds it to be best picture worthy. Now, the Oscars have chosen a more "realistic" movie over an adventure story numerous time for example: American Beauty over The Green Mile or Forrest Gump over The Shawshank Redemption. Which is perfectly fine, because both films are fantastic, but i do not categorize Boyhood as a fantastic film, in my opinion its kind of boring and in some cases very unrelatable . I know what your thinking "this guy doesn't know movies, he can barley use proper punctuation" ,and you should rightfully think so my fellow pilot, but think about it the only thing Boyhood really has going for it is that it was filmed over a Twelve year period. Granted this is an excellent concept and I give director Richard Linklater and his actors a lot of credit for 1: sticking around till the end of filming 2: not quitting half way through to pursue other projects and of course 3: not dying. This film is more of an art piece, that you would present to a college level film class then an Oscar worthy film. With that all in mind let me begin my three reasons why it should win Best Picture.
Reason 1: The competition
This year movie fans were spoiled with excellent movies and performances like Foxcatcher, Birdman, Selma, The Grand Budapest (which in my opinion should win best picture) and of course American Sniper. Obviously there are more movies to name but who has that kind of time. A Best Picture win means that your movie was the "BEST" of its nominated year, and there are so many better movies (as ive listed for you above) this year then Boyhood. A Best Picture winner should be a movie that made me slip out of reality for a couple of hours and go right into movie mode, a Best Picture winner should make me feel for every character involved, a Best Picture winner should not make me constantly check my phone clock to see how long its been. This movie is like LeBron James, its very overrated, wouldn't do very well in another time period, and will never be as good as Kobe or Jordan. OK that last one doesn't count but you get my point. MOVING ON
Reason 2: The Acting
I'm going to on record saying that if it wasn't for Ethan Hawke this movie would have gotten the proper IMDB rating of 6.9 out of 10 instead of 8.2 out of 10. Ethan Hawke was the ONLY good actor in this movie, i felt so bad for the guy because he was such a nice guy, drove a nice car, took his kids on great adventures. In fact i couldnt figure out why Patricia Arquttes character divorced him in the first place? She even tells him at the end of the movie that she should have stayed with him and i was like "yeah you should have!" Eli Coltrane (a.k.a Mason the kid on the cover) is emotionless and his delivery is not very good, which is funny because you would think he would have taken some acting classes as the years went along. Lorelei Linklater (Samantha Mason's sister) is also not very good, shes stale and basically only there because her dad is the director. and finally Patricia Arquette (Mason's mom) who if she isn't dating drunk idiots is crying almost all of her dialogue and is the "feel sorry for me character" and the problem is that I NEVER FEEL SORRY FOR HER! Compared to movies like Whiplash and Gone Girl make Boyhood look like a high school film project besides of course Ethan Hawke.
Reason 3: The Movie itself
OK let me get back to the whole twelve years to make idea. Avatar (not the garbage last air bender crap) took over ten years to make, and that movie had all of the same cast in it, The Thief and The Cobbler (IMDB it) took over 28 years to produce. This "new concept" of using the same actors over a twelve year period isn't at all new, in fact the movie making process can span from 12 months to a couple of years and in some cases longer then that. The only thing that Linklater did differently was he wrote a script and kept the cameras rolling thought that time. I will give him credit however because instead of using different actors to played older versions Linklater kept the same actors who aged normally, which works. Like i stated before this movie (for me) is very unrelatable. Take for instance the part where Patricia Arquettes character tells the contractor to go back to school and he eventually happens to become the manager of the restaurant they are eating at. Who is that for? I mean if you are someone who has gone back to school and bettered yourself then great but i mean really? Isn't this stretching just a little? As for the characters i really couldn't relate with any of them, Mason is that kind of kid who thinks he knows the world and everything in it, Samantha is (a girl so there's that) really bratty and super annoying, and Patricia Arquette (the mom) is just a wreck there i said it shes a wreck. MOVING ON
In conclusion Boyhood is a pretensions artsy piece that you should watch once and the go from there, its boring, the acting isn't great and at the very most get an Oscar for Best Director, but it will probably get Best Picture because the wrong people like it too much. I hope this has helped you understand my stance on why this movie shouldn't win for Best Picture and if it didn't watch the movie and you'll understand what i mean. Please comment and let me know what you thought, other then that until next time Hasta la Pasta everyone!