Dump 'boring' from your film vocabulary

Roger Ebert said a film is not what it's about but how it's about it. That description serves as the foundation of good film criticism, and it's something everyone should keep in mind before blasting a movie opinion on social media.

If Sunday's Oscars taught us anything, it's that people online don't share the artsy-fartsy tastes of the Motion Picture Academy. You could fill volumes of (e) books with the dismissive commentary of Joe Moviegoer - like how "Birdman" is "nonsense, liberal garbage" and "Boyhood" is "aimless and boring."

And everything is not awesome. It's "overrated."

Ever since "Boyhood" arrived on home video last month, I've had the uncomfortable pleasure of biting my tongue every time someone described the film to me as "overrated and boring." Considering how it's my favorite movie of 2014, there's a temptation to simply tell the person they're wrong, and then maybe avoid all future interaction with them.

Of course that's an extreme reaction, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. A person isn't wrong in disliking "Boyhood." We all respond to different types of films, and many people (understandably) don't find much entertainment in watching a kid stumble through puberty for 180 minutes.

Those people, however, are making a mistake in how they criticize it. While we may be bored while watching a movie, the movie itself is not necessarily boring. The distinction is important, because the difference between engagement and boredom is more often the result of exterior forces and personal preferences.

We all have expectations of what a particular movie is supposed to provide. For most, that's entertainment, and others will like something like "Boyhood," a movie that deliberately rejects the constructs of common storytelling. I like movies that work both sides of that spectrum as long as they're made well, but the more I see in a given year the less interested I am in movies that lean too hard on oft-repeated genre tropes.

I've personally seen a lot of Denzel Washington action movies, so there are long stretches of "The Equalizer," a movie that's not particularly well made, where I had trouble fully engaging with it. As much as I want to blame the quality of its storytelling, my personal indifference to the genre is contributing to my boredom.

It may sound like a typical, old fogey complaint, but technology is also ruining our ability to engage in things that don't provide instant, slam-bang fulfillment. I feel bad for those watching "Boyhood" at home, because viewers have the ability to pause, Tweet and play Candy Crush while it unfolds. It's these small, quiet films that demand big screen attention. Movies like "Guardians of the Galaxy" have it easier with their explosions and talking raccoons.

The genuinely great moments in "Boyhood" are small and easy to dismiss, and how they build into a unified experience is not reliant on the typical three-act structure viewers subconsciously find comforting. I don't say that to sound snooty. The three-act structure works for a reason, and plenty of great films use it wonderfully. But it is OK for something to break the mold, and a movie doesn't need to be plot-driven to be successful.

Those who accuse "Boyhood" of being boring often say it isn't about anything. Well, it's about boyhood, and how it's about it is not the typical way we see that story told onscreen. You don't have to like it, but you shouldn't simply dismiss it with the B-word, especially if you made time for a status update while watching it. Plus you can always re-watch "Stand By Me."

I'm not trying to be judgmental. I'm plenty guilty of being distracted by technology while watching movies at home. It's gotten so bad I sometimes need to read the Wikipedia plot description of a movie just to figure out the stuff I missed while goofing around on my phone.

Ultimately, how can we dismiss something as boring if we haven't given it reasonable attention? "Boyhood," by the way," is less leisurely paced than much shorter movies released in the pre-blockbuster era. Even the most memorable blockbusters, like "Star Wars" and "Jaws," have stretches that now get blasted by a generation raised on Buzzfeed lists and YouTube videos.

I could make a similar argument about the equally "overrated" Best Picture winner, "Birdman," a movie full of bizarre fantasy, invasive music and uncomfortable close-ups. It's a nonsense movie to many because it rejects a familiar structure and visual style.

Yes, it's OK to not like it, and it doesn't mean you're stupid for not getting it. There's definitely value in questioning how a movie operates, especially when the structure calls attention to itself.

Just talk about it in more than 140 characters, without using the words "overrated" and "boring." Be like Roger and talk about the How.

Tyler Wilson can be reached at twilson@cdapress.com.