The Boys Are Back... and So Am I

A review of The Boys Are Back.

[Apologies for the extremely long gap between reviews. With the awards season for films heating up once again, this site will be updated on a much more regular basis.]

Seeing The Boys Are Back, adapted by Alan Cubitt from a memoir by Simon Carr, and directed by Scott Hicks (Shine, Snow Falling on Cedars), is kind of like having a store-bought chocolate chip cookie. It doesn't quite rate the way a homemade chocolate chip cookie does, but when you're really in the mood for a cookie, it satisfies the craving and you don't regret eating it afterward. The Boys Are Back, possibly the most unfittingly-titled movie in recent memory (seriously, is there anyone who doesn't automatically think of the identically-named song as well as the Woody and Buzz sequence in Toy Story that uses that song when you hear the title?), is a quality film that you will in no way regret seeing, but I boldly venture to predict that it will not be the best film you will see in 2009. Clive Owen's performance, on the other hand, may soon enough be advertised as "award-winning," and award-worthy it is, but we'll get to that in due time.

The Boys Are Back tells the story of Joe Warr (Clive Owen), a successful sports journalist who loses his young wife, Katy (Laura Fraser), to cancer and is left to cluelessly raise his six-year-old son, Artie (Nicholas McAnulty), on his own. Joe's parenting philosophy to "just say yes" and live in "hog heaven" works for a while, until the arrival of Joe's fifteen-year-old son from a previous marriage, Harry (George MacKay). Harry's visit both complicates and illuminates the inadequacies of Joe's parenting style, forcing Joe to confront the damage he has inflicted with the mistakes that he has made and continues to make.

Clive Owen gives a remarkable performance as Joe, as he brings real humanity and soul to the role. There are times when Joe does or says things that are patently unlikeable and it's a credit to Mr. Owen's talent (as well as Mr. Hicks' direction) that you still root for Joe to turn it around, make the better choice, say the right thing, even in those moments. George MacKay (seen most recently giving a noteworthy performance in Defiance) also merits special mention for his portrayal of Harry. As Harry, Mr. MacKay conveyed such an enormous amount of heartache and heartbreak merely through a doleful look at his father that I challenge you not to have the impulse to want to hug him fiercely. And while Mr. McAnulty did a fine job as little Artie, his large role in the film reminded me of the many reasons why I generally dislike child actors, through no fault of their own. I find that, with few exceptions, child actors tend to be coached into being a version of themselves onscreen and thus occasionally their performances feel false, and this was such a case. There were moments when Artie would say or do something to his dad that was designed to have a particular impact, and I would have to force myself to focus on watching Joe so as not to feel quite as manipulated.

Another form of manipulation that The Boys Are Back relied upon was the device of a narration that bookended the film. I found it unnecessary and distracting. Some narrators have their place and add something beyond exposition to their stories with their disembodied voices. Unfortunately, not so much with Mr. Owen's narration. While it was helpful in delineating Joe's terribly sad situation quickly, it felt somehow out of sync with the tone of the rest of the movie. In addition, I wasn't crazy about the choice to have Joe actually see and converse with his deceased wife in certain situations – it also felt like a manipulative device. I admit that I could be biased by the esteem I hold for HBO's Six Feet Under and its skillful use of that contrivance, but I did find it to be an overt way for Joe to express sentiments that otherwise might not have been verbally explicated. I contend that they might not have needed such explication, as we the audience could have been trusted to understand what was being spelled out by watching and connecting with the emotion of the surrounding scenes.

In addition to being comprised of well-constructed, emotionally rich scenes, the physical scenery of the film was exquisite. Shot in South Australia and England, The Boys Are Back was beautifully shot and contains a number of visually stunning sequences. But despite the fact that you may have recognized while watching that you enjoyed what you were looking at, the film never felt like it was showing you the story, rather, it kept you involved in the story. You really felt that you knew the individuals and their relationships and their pain, which is a credit to the great skill of Mr. Hicks' direction.

Mr. Hicks also did an excellent job balancing the tone of The Boys Are Back. It is a tragic story that doesn't wallow in its tragedy, but rather, embraces a fair amount of humor and even a few heartwarming moments, particularly in the development of the relationship between the two brothers. Mr. Hicks also did a nice job of pacing what could've been a very slow film. It feels a bit long in the first half or so, but picks up nicely after that.

Overall, The Boys Are Back is more than worth your time, but be forewarned that while it may win awards for its performances, it will not win the moniker of the "feel good movie of 2009." And if you in any way possess any neat-freak or obsessive-compulsive tendencies, the kitchen scenes may have you re-classifying this film from the "drama" category to the "horror" genre.