IMDb रेटिंग
6.8/10
11 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA sports writer becomes a single parent in tragic circumstances.A sports writer becomes a single parent in tragic circumstances.A sports writer becomes a single parent in tragic circumstances.
- पुरस्कार
- 6 कुल नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Going in, I had utterly no idea of what to expect from this film. My companion didn't even tell me ~what~ movie we were going to see, much less any clues to what it was about. I don't think I've ever walked into a theater with so little idea of what to expect. All I knew was that Clive Owen had a role; but he plays such diverse roles, that gave me no clues.
But, I'm sure even those who knew lot more about this movie going in were surprised. The story provides lots of unexpected and unusual moments. I would anticipate the plot would turn one way, and it would find a whole new direction of it's own. It was refreshing to see a movie that didn't try to fit a mold - that has it's own unique view, rather than fitting into a genre.
The acting was quite amazing; really wonderful believable performances all around. Main characters and minor characters were so believably portrayed that watching the movie occasionally gave me as sense of being the peeping tom.
So those are truly amazing achievements in a movie, especially these days. And yet...
"Boys" has aspects of a great movie, but, sadly, it isn't great. The underlying Peter Pan theme was a bit overplayed. It felt as though the director kept whispering in your ear, saying, "Got it? Got it, yet?"
The storyline held surprises, drama, tension, and some great comic relief... along with more than a few tediously boring scenes that let the audience fall right out of the movie (enough of the raindrops on windows!). It's always a bad sign when I check my watch during a movie, and I checked my watch way too many times in this one.
So, go see it and expect to see something special in it. The specialness is there, even if the movie sometimes dumps you out of the scene and back into your theater seat.
But, I'm sure even those who knew lot more about this movie going in were surprised. The story provides lots of unexpected and unusual moments. I would anticipate the plot would turn one way, and it would find a whole new direction of it's own. It was refreshing to see a movie that didn't try to fit a mold - that has it's own unique view, rather than fitting into a genre.
The acting was quite amazing; really wonderful believable performances all around. Main characters and minor characters were so believably portrayed that watching the movie occasionally gave me as sense of being the peeping tom.
So those are truly amazing achievements in a movie, especially these days. And yet...
"Boys" has aspects of a great movie, but, sadly, it isn't great. The underlying Peter Pan theme was a bit overplayed. It felt as though the director kept whispering in your ear, saying, "Got it? Got it, yet?"
The storyline held surprises, drama, tension, and some great comic relief... along with more than a few tediously boring scenes that let the audience fall right out of the movie (enough of the raindrops on windows!). It's always a bad sign when I check my watch during a movie, and I checked my watch way too many times in this one.
So, go see it and expect to see something special in it. The specialness is there, even if the movie sometimes dumps you out of the scene and back into your theater seat.
There is much to admire in this film.
The acting is superb. In fact it is Oscar worthy, whether from Clive Owen or either of the young actors playing his sons. (I fear the 6 year old will get all the praise, but the 14 year old's performance was simply brilliant and more difficult.)
The story is honest, fresh, and touching. This isn't a, "What happens if..." movie. This is not just a true life story, it is a true to life story. You can see that Scott Hicks had one goal, honesty. He succeeds at every level and this is perhaps the most honest film you will ever see.
So why did I debate giving this film a 6 or 7 and not an 8 or 9 or 10? Because in this quest for truthfulness, it often fails to satisfy. It is, in many ways, a movie that only asks questions and provides no answers. They did their best to reach inside this story and create a beginning, middle, and end, but the truth is that at the end you are left without any of your needs met. I absolutely did not want Hollywood elements tossed in, but the story is simply incomplete. It is real. And real stories are incomplete. I suppose I want to praise this movie for being brave enough to not satisfy while warning friends, "Look, this is a very good film, but it's focus is honesty even if that means ignoring your needs as an audience."
Perhaps over time I will come to see this as brilliant. The characters are often not getting their needs met, and neither does the audience. But how do you recommend someone pay $10 to not have their emotional needs met? At the screening I attended, there was a Q&A with Scott Hicks and Clive Owen. Many people joked about a sequel with their questions, because clearly there could never be a sequel. Even Clive joked about sequel titles. You know what? I believe all the sarcasm about a potential sequel came from the truth that this story is unfinished.
So...
If you feel like seeing honesty and emotional truth, if you want a break from Hollywood BS, if you want to see a slice of real life without any pretense or falsehood, rush to this movie. And I do hope you enjoy it more than I did because of these warnings.
The acting is superb. In fact it is Oscar worthy, whether from Clive Owen or either of the young actors playing his sons. (I fear the 6 year old will get all the praise, but the 14 year old's performance was simply brilliant and more difficult.)
The story is honest, fresh, and touching. This isn't a, "What happens if..." movie. This is not just a true life story, it is a true to life story. You can see that Scott Hicks had one goal, honesty. He succeeds at every level and this is perhaps the most honest film you will ever see.
So why did I debate giving this film a 6 or 7 and not an 8 or 9 or 10? Because in this quest for truthfulness, it often fails to satisfy. It is, in many ways, a movie that only asks questions and provides no answers. They did their best to reach inside this story and create a beginning, middle, and end, but the truth is that at the end you are left without any of your needs met. I absolutely did not want Hollywood elements tossed in, but the story is simply incomplete. It is real. And real stories are incomplete. I suppose I want to praise this movie for being brave enough to not satisfy while warning friends, "Look, this is a very good film, but it's focus is honesty even if that means ignoring your needs as an audience."
Perhaps over time I will come to see this as brilliant. The characters are often not getting their needs met, and neither does the audience. But how do you recommend someone pay $10 to not have their emotional needs met? At the screening I attended, there was a Q&A with Scott Hicks and Clive Owen. Many people joked about a sequel with their questions, because clearly there could never be a sequel. Even Clive joked about sequel titles. You know what? I believe all the sarcasm about a potential sequel came from the truth that this story is unfinished.
So...
If you feel like seeing honesty and emotional truth, if you want a break from Hollywood BS, if you want to see a slice of real life without any pretense or falsehood, rush to this movie. And I do hope you enjoy it more than I did because of these warnings.
Going by a superficial examination of director Scott Hicks' latest human drama, The Boys are Back, it might prove incredibly difficult to envision how the story, detailing the death of a spouse, healing through father/son bonding and the struggle to balance personal and selfless agendas in life, could avoid caving to contrived Hollywood sentiment and easy storytelling cliché. However, bearing this concern in mind, Hicks' film can be seen as affirmation to the fact that real stories of loss and emotional rebirth can be told without simply succumbing to excessive saccharine convention while retaining their authenticity, as The Boys are Back fuses humour, heartbreak, power and poignancy with the greatest of ease and with a complete lack of pretension, feeling impressively real and all the more resonant because of it.
While the film could be described as a challenging watch due to its upsetting subject matter, more challenging (in an entirely positive sense) is Hicks' refusal to provide the viewer with 'easy answers' or superficial narrative or emotional closure. Rather than providing a streamlined narrative filled with requisite Hollywood exposition and filler scenes, the film appears to simply jump from scene to scene, providing a clear sense of an overarching narrative, but with more of a clunky, episodic flow, devoting nearly as much emphasis to seemingly banal scenes as Owen's character struggling to do the laundry or leisurely sequences of the boys playing (framed by the sumptuous scenery of Southern Australia)as more pivotal plot points. However, such a narrative style amplifies the sense of realism of the story, as if Hicks' cameras simply happened across the events unfolding rather than them being carefully predetermined for maximum emotional effect, as one might see in a more carefully tailored Hollywood film. Similarly, despite the superficially fragmented sense of narrative, through representing seemingly inconsequential moments interspersed with the major emotional scenes, Hicks' story paradoxically feels all the more flushed out, hinting at a much grander story looming beyond its collection of trace moments, and feeling all the more realistic and impactful because of it.
However, Hicks' film truly excels at providing moments of raw, often tear-jerking emotion, without them ever seeming forced or false. The subtlety and abruptness of Owen's wife falling ill is all the more devastating through its lack of overt begging for sentiment, and many of the scenes of Owen attempting to cheer up his sons are likely to leave few dry eyes in the house through their overwhelming charm and the sheer naturalistic joy they evoke. As such, while the film is not without its occasional faults (rocky patches of dialogue crop up throughout and the story begins to drag as it approaches the end), its sheer power, emotional poignancy and Hicks' refusal to beat the audience over the head continually instils the film with life and immediacy, making it a perpetually interesting watch.
However, as with many such intimate human dramas, it is the strength of the central performers which really drives the film home. Clive Owen is simply flooring as the struggling sports writer attempting to find equilibrium between his own concerns and grief and taking care of his two sons after the unexpected death of his wife. Giving a performance brimming with pathos but also necessary charm, Owen easily delivers his best work to date: a magnificent, unshowy and achingly true portrait of a man in crisis which proves utterly unshakable after the film is done. However, as capable as Owen is, the performances by Nicholas McAnulty and George MacKay as his two sons (younger and older respectively), who prove just as proficient at delivering staggeringly honest, powerful, charming and heartbreaking performances of two boys caught between acting their ages and dealing with emotional trauma potentially beyond their capacities. Laura Fraser is also a heartbreaking and memorable presence as Owen's tragically deceased wife, seen largely in imagined conversations with him throughout the narrative.
Whether extracting tears of heartbreak or cheers of joy from the audience, Hicks' The Boys are Back proves a remarkably effective yet impressively low key drama filled with enough scrappy humour to provide much needed balance. With astonishing performances sure to attract awards attention, the film will hopefully begin to garner more widespread recognition and attention, which it unquestionably merits and deserves.
-8/10
While the film could be described as a challenging watch due to its upsetting subject matter, more challenging (in an entirely positive sense) is Hicks' refusal to provide the viewer with 'easy answers' or superficial narrative or emotional closure. Rather than providing a streamlined narrative filled with requisite Hollywood exposition and filler scenes, the film appears to simply jump from scene to scene, providing a clear sense of an overarching narrative, but with more of a clunky, episodic flow, devoting nearly as much emphasis to seemingly banal scenes as Owen's character struggling to do the laundry or leisurely sequences of the boys playing (framed by the sumptuous scenery of Southern Australia)as more pivotal plot points. However, such a narrative style amplifies the sense of realism of the story, as if Hicks' cameras simply happened across the events unfolding rather than them being carefully predetermined for maximum emotional effect, as one might see in a more carefully tailored Hollywood film. Similarly, despite the superficially fragmented sense of narrative, through representing seemingly inconsequential moments interspersed with the major emotional scenes, Hicks' story paradoxically feels all the more flushed out, hinting at a much grander story looming beyond its collection of trace moments, and feeling all the more realistic and impactful because of it.
However, Hicks' film truly excels at providing moments of raw, often tear-jerking emotion, without them ever seeming forced or false. The subtlety and abruptness of Owen's wife falling ill is all the more devastating through its lack of overt begging for sentiment, and many of the scenes of Owen attempting to cheer up his sons are likely to leave few dry eyes in the house through their overwhelming charm and the sheer naturalistic joy they evoke. As such, while the film is not without its occasional faults (rocky patches of dialogue crop up throughout and the story begins to drag as it approaches the end), its sheer power, emotional poignancy and Hicks' refusal to beat the audience over the head continually instils the film with life and immediacy, making it a perpetually interesting watch.
However, as with many such intimate human dramas, it is the strength of the central performers which really drives the film home. Clive Owen is simply flooring as the struggling sports writer attempting to find equilibrium between his own concerns and grief and taking care of his two sons after the unexpected death of his wife. Giving a performance brimming with pathos but also necessary charm, Owen easily delivers his best work to date: a magnificent, unshowy and achingly true portrait of a man in crisis which proves utterly unshakable after the film is done. However, as capable as Owen is, the performances by Nicholas McAnulty and George MacKay as his two sons (younger and older respectively), who prove just as proficient at delivering staggeringly honest, powerful, charming and heartbreaking performances of two boys caught between acting their ages and dealing with emotional trauma potentially beyond their capacities. Laura Fraser is also a heartbreaking and memorable presence as Owen's tragically deceased wife, seen largely in imagined conversations with him throughout the narrative.
Whether extracting tears of heartbreak or cheers of joy from the audience, Hicks' The Boys are Back proves a remarkably effective yet impressively low key drama filled with enough scrappy humour to provide much needed balance. With astonishing performances sure to attract awards attention, the film will hopefully begin to garner more widespread recognition and attention, which it unquestionably merits and deserves.
-8/10
Clive Owen shines once again as husband and father dealing with loss. Although the story seems like the familiar one we have seen before in many films like this, the direction, script and acting really do go through the many complexities of the characters. Scott Hicks shows us how flawed the father is. Allan Cubitt's script works great because of all of Owen's input and ideas to it. The young George MacKay gives a standout performance as the teenage son dealing with many issues. George actually has the most important and revealing scene towards the end of the movie. Would definitely recommend this film.
At its core The Boys are Back is nothing new; tales of heartache and sorrow, and the plethora of emotions experienced after a loved one passes away, are a staple of the drama genre. It's thanks to novelist Simon Carr and screenwriter Allan Cubitt that Boys manages to feel fresh - albeit with slightly annoying characters, more on that soon – their book and adaptation, respectively, is in the higher echelon of 'mourning' dramas. The two plots – firstly Joe's new found responsibility to Artie then to his other son Harry, both under different circumstances – mould together seamlessly and never does it appear like they went for too much. Even the small subplots, which can so often be unnecessary, are natural and help boost the already exceptional story.
There is an issue though: the major players can be aggravating on occasion. Joe, a supposedly intelligent person, makes some parental decisions which – grieving a lost one or not – come off as just plain stupid and dangerous; mother-in-law Barbara needlessly spits out some manipulative dialogue; young Artie, possibly due to no fault of his own, at times behaves like a spoilt brat; and every now and then Harry is too whiny, even for a teenager. But hey, don't all family members have their faults? Unfortunately some of these are heightened after a life-changing event.
Greig Fraser's astounding cinematography must be given a mention. The rural South Australian setting is nothing short of breathtaking as Fraser's light green and orange palette gives the location warmth and calmness. The SA government would be well served using some of Boys material, the festival state's tourism would skyrocket. Complimenting the visuals is Hal Lindes terrific acoustic score, his music captures the mood perfectly for the opposing upbeat and pensive moments.
Overall director Scott Hicks has delivered a worthy picture about mourning, adapting and moving on. Would have been excellent if it weren't for the characters intermittently grating on your nerves.
3.5 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 - Classic)
There is an issue though: the major players can be aggravating on occasion. Joe, a supposedly intelligent person, makes some parental decisions which – grieving a lost one or not – come off as just plain stupid and dangerous; mother-in-law Barbara needlessly spits out some manipulative dialogue; young Artie, possibly due to no fault of his own, at times behaves like a spoilt brat; and every now and then Harry is too whiny, even for a teenager. But hey, don't all family members have their faults? Unfortunately some of these are heightened after a life-changing event.
Greig Fraser's astounding cinematography must be given a mention. The rural South Australian setting is nothing short of breathtaking as Fraser's light green and orange palette gives the location warmth and calmness. The SA government would be well served using some of Boys material, the festival state's tourism would skyrocket. Complimenting the visuals is Hal Lindes terrific acoustic score, his music captures the mood perfectly for the opposing upbeat and pensive moments.
Overall director Scott Hicks has delivered a worthy picture about mourning, adapting and moving on. Would have been excellent if it weren't for the characters intermittently grating on your nerves.
3.5 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 - Classic)
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe nine songs by Sigur Rós in the film were initially used as a temporary score. However, director Scott Hicks felt the music was so perfect for the film that he personally traveled to Iceland to get approval from Sigur Rós to be featured in the film.
- साउंडट्रैकIllgresi
Written by Jon Thor Birgisson (as Jón Þór Birgisson), Orri P. Dyrason (as Orri Páll Dýrason), Georg Holm (as Georg Hólm), Kjartan Sveinsson (Universal Music Publishing Ltd.)
Performed by Sigur Rós
Licensed courtesy of EMI Records
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is The Boys Are Back?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Boys Are Back
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $8,09,752
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $49,342
- 27 सित॰ 2009
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $32,52,136
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 44 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.35 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें