The Boys Are Back

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

Nice film that unfortunately didn't get the chance to perform well at the box office because of an incredible lack of marketing. The film has three connected storyline.You have Joe Warr (Clive Owen) a father who his coping with adjusting his carefree lifestyle for the need of his sons after loosing his wife from Cancer,you then have his son Artie Warr (Nicholas McAnulty) a little boy who don't know how to handle the loss of his mother. Then,you have the 14 year old son,Harry Warr (George MacKay) from a previous marriage who always felt left out by his father and never built up the courage to tell him and the fact that his mother is now pregnant with a new child from another man increase the boy's feeling of being on his own.The father and his two sons learn from each other throughout the film and the father start to built a relationship with his children but the film is not Soppy or cheesy,somehow it find a way to tell this sort of story without going over the top,to make it short this is not a lifetime movie of the week , it's a strong drama with subtle,quiet but very thoughtful performance. Clive Owen gives one of his best performance as a father who doesn't quite know how to handle his newly found responsibility,he gives a very strong yet vulnerable performance. Nicholas McAnulty,the youngest of the cast gives a great performance for such a young actor,he plays a boy who is overwhelmed from keeping his grief locked inside with incredible maturity. But in my opinion the most interesting storyline came from Joe's estranged British son,Harry, played by the very talented George MacKay.The relationship between Harry and his father was very interesting because they truly felt like a father and son who knew nothing about each other and some of the most intense scene came from the two trying to get a feel for each other.One scene that stick in my mind was when a frustrated Joe asked Harry to take the garbage out and after Harry insist that he will do it but later , Joe get angry with Harry who immediately realize that he had upset his father.It's an awkward moment between a father and a son who were never long enough with each other to have that sort of fight before and it ends up with Harry crying and his father running away from having to deal with his oldest son's problem , knowing quite well that the problem was in fact himself.It's theses bravely performed moment that makes this film a pleasure to watch. The only minor problems I have with the film is that some elements that are introduced are not used to the best of their capacity.The relationship between Joe and his Mother in Law is interesting but underused and you feel that much more could have been done with it,the same goes for the relationship between Joe and the mother of one of his youngest son's friend (Emma Booth). Overall this film had a very good Cast and interesting characters and as a Drama it's superior to a lot of films that comes out at the moment. Very recommended. 7.5 out of 10.

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.

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)

In The Boys Are Back, a film based on the memoir by Simon Carr of the British newspaper the Independent, is about a character named Joe, a sportswriter who has a five year old boy living with his mother in southern Australia. Joe is away from home often and mostly sees the boy, Artie (Nicholas McAnulty) on holidays or the few times he can get away. He loves his wife (Laura Fraser) and kid a great deal, and his life, as they say in the movies, is turned upside down by his wife's passing from cancer. Suddenly he finds himself with Artie 24/7, a boy who doesn't grasp what has happened fully with his mother's death (Artie, rambunctious but not annoying, asks Joe at one point if he can die so he can be with his mother again). On top of this for Joe is his teenaged son Harry, (MacKay) from a previous marriage, who comes to visit and adds another to his juggling of being a single-father-widower and top sports writer.

There's other things that sort of 'happen' to Joe as well in the film, such as a friendship (but not quite romance, thank goodness for us hoping for a lack of contrivance) with a single mom (Emma Booth). And it happen in a fairly realistic context of sudden grief that Joe has while taking care of his small boy, which he's never had to really take charge of before (we get the sense he left most of the child rearing with both of his sons to their respective mothers), and as a easy-going but firm parent has a philosophy of "just say yes", meaning anything goes, except when he says so.

His source material is a memoir by Simon Carr, which was more just a collection of musings and thoughts and little anecdotes as a single father as opposed to a coherent narrative. But what unfolds is just simply this story, more of a character study, about parenthood and the nature of a father-son bond that mostly the director Scott Hicks takes without too much sentimentality. He and his screenwriter accomplish at best something we don't see too often in movies: a sympathetic man, a father in a tough situation, and a little boy who seems simple enough but has his own complexities and nuances (McAnulty is great at getting the exuberance and frustration of a six year old, particularly one without a mother, and is never less than genuine). And then when Harry is thrown into the mix then the complex relationship builds as it becomes a father-son-brother story, with scenes that reveal how little of a bond there really is between Joe and Harry, and how they both know it needs to change now or never.

Another thing one must commend upon is Clive Owen, who is perhaps the paramount reason to see the film. It's a minor revelation after years of awesome action films (Shoot em Up) and thrillers (Duplicity) to see the guy get so much in touch with a torn and frayed character like Joe. For one thing, we see him cry, but its only in two crucial scenes, one of them while on a telephone with Harry as he greatly holds back tears when asked if anything is wrong, then later on in the other scene having his sob in the middle of a grassy field. It sounds like a character that could lead to some cliché- a tough no-nonsense sometimes-drinker sportswriter who has to put up with two kids- but Owen makes Joe fascinating to watch at every turn. Especially since, frankly, it's also equally impossible along with the crying to picture Owen acting so well off of McAnulty, who has had relatively little experience. Watching the two of them together go back and forth, and then later on as well with Owen and MacKay, is the heart of the picture.

The film is crafted with a lack of cynicism, with an eye for the way family works in times of trouble, and as well for luscious vistas from down under in Hicks' own home areas of south Australia. But there are a few things that keep The Boys Are Back from being a must see. There is a guitar score by Hal Lindes that pops up with an irritating precision, much akin to something like Brokeback Mountain, where we're made to suddenly feel something be it in a montage or a simple cut-away, and it becomes old-hat pretty quickly as the only significant orchestration. Also, a plot device that should work more but doesn't: Joe's wife appears several times in the film as a sort of ghost or just presence of comfort to give some advice or listen to Joe's own fears, and its just hokey, especially when we're told that it's not only Joe but his mother-in-law seeing her daughter, and at the end giving Joe a piece of encouragement regarding a convertible that had me roll my eyes. It's a shame, since everything else around those flaws make up some of the finest non-sentimental familial-drama scenes I've seen this year. 7.5/10