Movies provide us with tiny glimpses into much longer spans of time. In 2002, Richard Linklater decided simple glimpses just wouldn’t do, setting out to follow the same story with the same actors for 11 years. 

On the surface, his feat is fresh and innovative, something never before fully explored. Now that it's playing on big screens across the country, it's being acclaimed by critics and fans. But in order to validate this acclaim, the question must be answered: What truly defines the success of a film?

Boyhood follows the life of Mason (Ellar Coltrane) from the time he is a young boy to the day he moves into college. From the first scene, we are plummeted into the hectic routines of the household, including his single mother (Patricia Arquette) and older sister (Lorelei Linklater). 

We are back in the early 2000s with soundtrack choices such as "Yellow" by Coldplay and a film quality that gives off a slightly out-dated vibe. Aesthetically, the film has a unique style combining contemporary techniques with older ones. But do we go to see movies for music, film quality, and cuts?

Story is an integral element of film. As viewers, we crave a beginning, a middle, and an end. We also tend to require a clear understanding of what's taking place; the ability to kick back, enjoy, and not have to think too hard. 

While Boyhood incorporates many elements of daily life and universal struggles, the composition of the story lacks real momentum. Each time there was conflict or a new development, I found myself waiting for something more. 

Mason's mom can't choose quality men and his dad comes and goes. These are both sympathetic situations for many viewers, but Mason's journey may be too ordinary for the big screen. Not because we need a groundbreaking story of fame or love, but because we need likeable characters played by dedicated, convincing actors. Boyhood lacked those pieces. 

The story of a film is communicated by writers, directors, and actors. In the case of Boyhood, Linklater's expertise isn't exactly disputable; however, the content of the script, as well as the actor's performances, may be. While they set out to remain authentic to real life, I found their acting unnatural and often forced. Relationships, interactions, and emotions were underwhelming. But I found myself asking if most of these flaws were actually a result of a weak script.

At a peak (maybe the peak) in the film's narrative, Mason is leaving for college and his mother finds herself asking if this is really it. Has she raised two kids, struggled through various relationships, and worked tirelessly for no real reward? It is a crucial scene in the film. One that demonstrates the relationship between mother and son, and also presents the infamous question of what life is really all about. 

Rather than coming to a conclusion about a redeeming quality of life or motherhood , the scene just sort of lies there. I felt no real resolve, good or bad, from the characters' pivotal moments, leaving me to feel as if they had experienced no growth through the film's progression.

I am nowhere near being a film scholar. I am a very average college student who happens to enjoy works of art and entertainment. Because of this, most of the world will probably adhere to the high recommendations of Boyhood circulating around the Internet rather than my article based entirely on personal taste. But, as film continues to progress, I challenge us all to ask what we are seeking from an experience at the movies.

What it comes down to is that Linklater took on a groundbreaking endeavor. By conducting a sort of “study” of the human condition with elements relatable to so many families and teenagers, he accomplished many things through simplicity. These are the parts of Boyhood that deserve praise.

I may prefer films made of up of glimpses and featuring the most passionate of actors, but if you're looking to peer into eleven years' worth of ups and downs, Boyhood is worth a watch.