JayDee's Movie Musings

→ in
Tools    





Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror

Year of release
2006

Directed by
Edward Zwick

Written by
Marshall Herskovitz
Edward Zwick

Starring
Leonardo DiCaprio
Djimon Hounsou
Jennifer Connelly
Arnold Vosloo
David Harewood

Blood Diamond

-

Plot - Sierra Leone, 1999. Fisherman Solomon Vandy (Hounsou) has his life torn apart when his village is attacked by the RUF rebel militia. Kidnapped and taken away from his family, he is forced to work in the diamond mines. Whilst there he uncovers a huge pink diamond which he attempts to keep secret from his captors. During his attempts to hide it, he is caught by the rebel's leader Captain Poison (Harewood). Solomon's skin is saved however when at that very moment the rebel camp is attacked and Solomon is arrested by the army. As he waits in prison, Poison informs all of their fellow prisoners about the diamond that Solomon has in his possession and places a price upon his head. Amongst the prisoners there is a very interested party in the form of Danny Archer (DiCaprio), a mercenary and diamond smuggler. Arranging Solomon's release from prison Archer confronts him about the diamond, proposing that they work together. Solomon agrees, on the condition that Archer helps him locate his missing family. When they do so with the help of American journalist Maddy Bowen (Connelly) they discover that his son Dia has been recruited by the RUF rebels. Together the two men embark on their respective quests; one for the fortune he has always dreamed of, and the other for the life of his son.

There's a tragic irony at the heart of Blood Diamond's story. As a result of the whims and desires of the very rich and the quest for wealth, it is the very poor who suffer. The film itself spells this out at the very start with a message on the screen; “Sierra Leone, 1999. Civil War rages for control of the diamond mines. Thousands have died and millions have become refugees. None of whom has ever seen a diamond.” Further evidence of this can be seen during a sequence which intercuts back and forth between these two very different worlds. On the one hand we have the experiences of Hounsou's Solomon Vandy; we see his village brutally overrun and its inhabitants slaughtered, followed by his enforced servitude working in the diamond mines. While playing against this we see a bunch of rich white guys in suits sitting around discussing the situation in comfort.

Much like the continent of Africa itself, there is a conflict to be found in Blood Diamond; a conflict of beauty and horror. It is a continent of stunning beauty, which all too often is lost under the rivers of blood that cover its lands. The horror comes from the action sequences (more on them in a moment) that convey the horrific events that scar this area, and the scenes that depict the young boys stolen from their families and transformed into these bloodthirsty soldiers. During the breathers from this chaos however we are shown the other side of Africa; the sheer beauty of its land. The cinematography of Eduardo Serra successfully captures some truly astonishing images of Africa's bewitchingly harsh, almost mystical landscape, frequently shot during the so-called 'magic hour' of dawn or dusk to further enhance the drama of the image, taking place as they do under a searing orange sun. And you can certainly tell at all times that this was filmed on location in Africa. There's no sign of any Hollywood studio backlots, or of some Eastern European country acting as a cheaper substitute. Blood Diamond was filmed on location across South Africa and Mozambique, and doing so just adds so much more substance to the experience. Throw in James Newton Howard's poignant and rousing score that matches the journey of the characters and you have an exotic experience of flair and flavour.

On the evidence of the action in Blood Diamond I would be very surprised if Edward Zwick had never been considered or even contacted for films in the superhero and action genres, perhaps even a James Bond film. The action sequences throughout the film are quite excellent; the direction, editing and sound design proving a real assault on the senses that are a suitable match for what must be a truly terrifying situation in real life. They are frantic and chaotic instances which are very thrilling until the reality of the situation sets in, until it dawns on us that we are watching young boys indiscriminately gunning down innocent women and children who are running for their lives. The sequences really show how this is a world where your whole life can change in a mere instant. We see Solomon and his son Dia sharing a touching father-son moment as they laugh and joke with each other; and then with the appearance of a single truck on the horizon carrying armed soldiers of the RUF, they are forced to start running for their lives.

Film Trivia Snippets - The name of Solomon Vandy's son in the film is Dia, which actually means 'expensive' in Krio, the adopted language of Sierra Leone. /// At the end of the film, Solomon Vandy addresses a conference on blood diamonds in Kimberley, South Africa, describing his experiences. This conference actually took place in Kimberley in 2000. The conference resulted in the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, a system now used by diamond traders to certify the origin of diamonds, in order to curb the trade and sale of conflict diamonds. /// During pre-production Edward Zwick had two top choices for the role of Danny Archer, Leonardo DiCaprio who did eventually get the role and Russell Crowe. /// Blood Diamond was nominated for five Oscars at the 2007 Academy Awards - Best Actor (DiCaprio), Best Supporting Actor (Hounsou), Film Editing, Sound Mixing and Sound Editing. The film came away empty-handed however. /// In the scene where Danny Archer arrives in South Africa, there are two women standing in front of the airport and he walks by them. These women are Leonardo DiCaprio's mother and grandmother. /// Blood Diamond went on to amass a total box-office gross of $171407,179. While its DVD release saw it shift 3,620,038 units which added a furter $62,723,329.
Rather unwittingly I've had myself quite the season of Leonardo DiCaprio films of late (thanks to my season of Scorsese films), and yet again I thought he gave another very strong showing. I can certainly see why he is so highly thought of as an actor. The most notable element of this performance is certainly to be found in his Rhodesian accent. I personally cannot judge its authenticity as I have no idea what it is meant to sound like. What I will say though is that certainly in the initial stages it came across as so odd to me. It's just so different from what you expect him to sound like that it took me out of the film a little early on; not helped by the fact it gave me some Jar Jar Binks flashbacks! In Djimon Hounsou we have quite a strong example of typecasting. In Gladiator he played a slave who fought in the gladiatorial arena, in Amistad he played a slave aboard a slave ship and here once more he plays a slave, forced into service in the diamond mines of Africa. However I'm really not surprised he has found himself called upon so often for such a role. Beyond the obvious colour of his skin and his physical build I think he just has some of the perfect attributes required for such a tough task. For a start I think he has the talent needed to depict the pain and anguish of the situation but it's more than that. Through both his noble face and just his inner nature he gives off this aura of dignity, perseverance and a great inner strength which makes you buy into the character, his struggles and the notion that he can overcome them. His impassioned quest to find and save his son provides the real driving force for the film. I don't feel that the film is quite as successful with its other main performer, Jennifer Connelly. She takes on the role of Maddy Bowen, a hard-hitting journalist trying to mine a story concerning the sale of blood diamonds. I just did not buy into her being this character however; I didn't feel she had the required strength or grit for this supposedly tough, hard-as-nails reporter who will do anything for a story. I think the film could very easily have existed without her involvement which would have tightened up the film and kept the focus on Solomon's quest to save his son.

Admittedly there are a few concessions to Hollywood convention which perhaps hurt the film slightly. Once Hounsou and DiCaprio form their uneasy alliance the film does take on the more classic (or clichéd if you prefer) approach of a formulaic thriller, while the potential romance that blooms between DiCaprio and Connelly never really convinces. However I do feel that both elements are explored to add depth to both the story and the characters. By putting Solomon and Archer side-by-side the film is able to examine the characters and provide the contrast between their priorities in life, and make us ask what is truly important in life. Both men are willing to put their lives on the line but for very different reasons. For Solomon all he cares about is his family and in particular the fate of his son. While for Archer it is about nothing but money. He himself admits that he has no friends, no family and not even a home to call his own; he believes that with enough money however he can sort out his life and be happy. While the romance of a sorts that develops with Connelly's character, and in combination with his growing relationship with Solomon, is what sends Archer on his path to redemption.

Some people will complain about situations and dialogue being too heavy-handed, manipulative and clichéd, and those complaints may have some merit. On the whole however I personally can forgive the film for this as I feel it certainly had its heart in the right place. And by approaching the film largely as a by-the-books thriller meant that the project was able to command a budget of $100 million, and that it was in turn able to attach the considerable name of DiCaprio. In doing so the film ensured a much wider audience for its message. The film eventually grossed $171 million at the box office; had the film gone for a more searing, purely dramatic take it's hard to imagine it doing similar business. And I certainly don't feel that the film glosses over the issues at any point; showing the situation for the horrific and heartbreaking event that it is, and ending on the sobering note of how 200,000 child soldiers still remain in Africa to this day. It retains this as its core and just builds the thriller mainframe around it, making it more digestible for mainstream audiences.

Conclusion - It's adherence to traditional Hollywood values may turn some people off but I think Blood Diamond focuses on an important story that needed to be told, and if this is the style in which it needed to be told then fair enough. It's classic thriller template opens it up to a larger audience who will be able to enjoy it as a purely thrilling experience, and hopefully learn a thing or two along the way. I found it to be a powerful film with some impressive direction and two exceptionally strong performances at its core.





I love Blood Diamond. It is also a special movie that made me shed my preconception that DiCaprio was just the dweeb from Titanic. After this movie however I became a fan. And then I saw his work with Scorsese which propelled him into one of my top 10 favorite actors.



Still not giving you rep for taking Miss Vicky to the prom instead of me.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
length to the formatting to the trivia and everything else--- is very admirable.
Thanks Cap.

It looks great, JD, but I think you're giving too much.
You know what, you're right. You guys don't deserve all that effort!

Do you post these reviews anywhere else?
Not really no. I have however been looking to post them somewhere else just as a back-up in case this site ever closed or it crashed and they were lost or something. So I've posted one or two in a bunch of different places just to test them. And then just recently I started a blog to archive them to see how that would work.

http://jaydeesmoviemusings.blogspot.co.uk/

Why do you ask?



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror


Year of release
2013

Directed by
John Moore

Written by
Skip Woods

Starring
Bruce Willis
Jai Courtney
Sebastian Koch
Yuliya Snigir
Mary Elizabeth Winstead


A Good Day to Die Hard


Plot - Iconic New York cop John McClane (Willis) is back and this time he's off to old mother Russia. He heads there when he learns that his son Jack (Courtney), whom he's been estranged from for years, has been arrested in Russia, charged with killing someone. Proceeding to the court house where his trial is set to take place, McClane finds himself just in time to experience an explosion that levels the court house. Using the explosion as a distraction, Jack helps a political prisoner named Komarov (Koch) escape. With Jack and Komarov being chased by the same men who blew up the court house, John follows in pursuit and aids in their escape. At this point he discovers that his son is actually an undercover CIA operative, tasked with saving Komarov who has evidence against a corrupt Russian official. Komarov agrees to turn over the evidence in exchange for the freedom of both himself and his daughter. While it may seem like a straight-forward plan, things will take some very unexpected turns that not only threatens the life of John and his son, but also threatens all-out nuclear war.

Oh Johnny boy what have they done to you? How can they take John McClane, one of the great action heroes of all time, and deposit him in this pile of sh*t?! I am a huge fan of the Die Hard franchise and of the McClane character. Up until now I'd have thought it unimaginable that I would pass up the opportunity to watch a new Die Hard film at the cinema. As soon as word began to leak out about this film however I instantly started to get some pretty negative vibes about it. I mean sending him to Russia? That's one of the sure signs of desperation for a franchise. About the only move they have left that is more desperate is to send him into space; I'm thinking "In Space No-One Can Hear You Die Hard." I'm guessing that the only reason they took the character in such a direction is that someone came up with the tagline “Yippee ki-yay Mother Russia” and thought that 'oh we've got to use that!' And sadly my inclinations proved to well founded. This is just such a flat and turgid affair, completely devoid of just about everything that made the original film and for the most part its sequels so much fun.

While there is a lot wrong here, what really ensures that this film flops is its rather woeful script. To start with, the story is a real mess, with a needlessly complicated plot and a whole series of characters who pass by without making any sort of impression whatsoever. As the closing credits began to roll I realised that I would have real trouble trying to explain to people what exactly it was all about; something about Chernobyl and uranium, and that's about all I got. The other area where the script comes up way short is in the dialogue, specifically in regards to the continuous series of creaking wisecracks that Willis is given. All they can think of is to have him complain about how he's on holiday every 5 minutes or so. The script completely misses out on the charm and wit that was so present in the previous instalments. The most irritating aspect of the script however is in how it chooses to detail the relationship between McClane and his son. To show us how strained their relationship is they have Courtney forcibly and clumsily refer to his dad as "John." Fair enough, it's not too subtle but I could let it slide. If it wasn't for the fact that he does it constantly throughout the entire film! I'm pretty sure that no-one in history has ever referred to someone by their name so often when they're actually having a face-to-face conversation. I would advise using it as a drinking game except for the fact that many people would most likely die. The whole family dynamic that the film goes for is so forced and heavy-handed.

And sadly Bruce Willis was unable to take the aforementioned wisecracks and imbue them with any life. I don't know if Willis is coming down with a case of the Murtaugh's (i.e. he's getting too old for this s*it!) or if he just realised what a turkey the script was and just couldn't muster the enthusiasm required to try and salvage it. His delivery is severely lacking in any snap or energy, meaning that for the most part his supposedly hilarious lines elicit nothing but groans and a roll of the eyes. Thanks to the dearth of talent around him however, Willis still remains the best thing about the film by quite a distance. In the role of his son we have Jai Courtney. I have to say that before this film I had never heard of Jai Courtney, and based on the strength of this performance I wouldn't be surprised if I was to never hear about him again. It's the kind of performance that could easily see someone slip into obscurity. He comes across very much like a poor man's Channing Tatum/ Tom Hardy/ Chris Hemsworth etc. In appearance terms he may fit the bill physically but he is just completely lacking in any charisma or presence. He is so bland it's unbelievable.

Film Trivia Snippets - When it came to the role of John McClane's son a whole host of actors were considered. The list included Aaron Paul, Liam Hemsworth, James Badge Dale, Paul Walker, Ben Foster, Shiloh Fernandez, Milo Ventimiglia, Paul Dano, Steven R. McQueen and D.J. Cotrona. Sadly for all of us it ultimately went to Jai Courtney. /// Even though McClane takes on a Russian gang in this film, not a single one of them was actually Russian. All of the actors who portrayed members of the gang were either Slovakian, Hungarian, Serbian, Mongolian or Ukrainian. /// The film's original director was to be Noam Murro. He had to leave the project however due to his involvement with 300: Rise of an Empire. Other directors who were considered before John Moore was hired included Joe Cornish, Justin Lin and Nicolas Winding Refn. /// In the next paragraph I mention how this doesn't even feel like a Die Hard film. Well believe it or not but this was the first time in the whole Die Hard franchise where the original script was explicitly written as a Die Hard film. The first Die Hard film was based on a novel and a screenplay that was meant for Arnold Schwarzenegger as a sequel to Commando. Die Hard 2 was based on the Walter Wager novel 58 Minustes. Die Hard: With a Vengeance took its premise from a Jonathan Hensleigh script called Simon Says. While Die Hard 4.0 (aka Live Free or Die Hard) was retro-fitted from the original screenplay WW3.com, which was nearly filmed on its own merits before the 9/11 terrorist attacks caused it to be shelved.
As an action film this is really disappointing. As a Die Hard film however it's almost inexcusable. And it's not just that this is poor Die Hard film, it actually doesn't even feel or look like a Die Hard film. I love the Jason Bourne series of films but I hate the fact that since they appeared on the scene it seems that every action film that has followed in its wake feels the need to try and replicate its look. That grey, grubby aesthetic works well for the Bourne films which attempt to set themselves within the real world, but for something as stupid and bombastic as this it doesn't really fit. Although it's actually a lot more preferable than the grubby darkness that the film descends into in it's final act, when it gets so dark that occasionally it is very difficult to tell just what the hell is going on. In fact in terms of both how it looks and feels it more closely resembles one of those straight-to-DVD cheapos starring Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude Van Damme. And to be honest I think I'd have had a lot more fun watching one of them

Part of the reason that the original Die Hard became so loved is that it presented audiences with a new kind of hero. This wasn't the invincible killing machine so often portrayed by the likes of Stallone and Schwarzenegger. He was a flawed and vulnerable individual, both mentally and physically, quite often getting the absolute hell beat out of him and you always felt that he may well croak. While that facet of the character perhaps became more exaggerated as the series moved along, in this latest chapter the filmmakers completely throw that out the window, and with it any sense of realism. Even though he is now older than every before he has somehow became a hell of a lot stronger, almost to the point of being indestructible. On a couple of occasions McClane is involved in extraordinary car crashes; crashes that send his vehicle tumbling end over end countless times. And yet he instantly pops up like nothing has happened. He also survives being flung a considerable distance from a helicopter through a window with very little effect. I was half expecting him to peel back his skin at some point to reveal that he was actually the new model Terminator. There's no reason to care about the well-being of the character anymore, we know he's going to be just fine.

With all these massive flaws you're really left with only the action as the film's last hope. And while it may deliver a couple of impressive thrills it is nowhere close to being enough to make up for all the other shortfalls. Near the beginning of the film there's a fairly epic car chase through the streets of Moscow which does have a couple of neat moments thanks to its choreography and stunt work. They are completely undermined however by the fact that it seems to go on for an absolute age! I was left wondering if it was ever going to end. After that it's just a series of unimaginative set-pieces one after another with little to distinguish them from each other. And for the most part the film's director John Moore seemed to follow the rules laid out by Michael Bay's Transformers films - if in doubt, make it loud!

Conclusion - This was really quite painful to watch. It was tough seeing a character and a franchise that I have loved sink to such depressing depths. Its script is poor, the direction workman-like at best, the performances are flat and many of the characters are almost non-existent. If you were to compile a list of the top 20 moments from the Die Hard franchise I highly doubt that this film would gain a single place on that list. Hell even if you were to extend it to a top 50 it might still struggle! Based on this evidence I think it may well be time for Willis to open up his wardrobe and hang up his old blood-stained vest for good. A Good Day to Die Hard sadly marks a very bad day for the Die Hard franchise.



Skipped the last two Die Hard movies because I dont care about the first three. I know I am a horrible film lover.
__________________
Letterboxd



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
Skipped the last two Die Hard movies because I dont care about the first three. I know I am a horrible film lover.
I haven't seen any so I guess I'm worse



Die Hard and Die Hard With A Vengeance are really the only ones worth watching.
2 and 4 were ok for action-ups... nothing more. 2 was better than 4 though, fun and at least felt like Die Hard compared to 4.
Die Hard 5, as JayDee has just said, was utter cack.
Absolutely right though, McClane has gone from fallible cop with a bit of muscle and a lot of will power (1st, 2nd and 3rd films)... to an invincible Terminator style character in the 4th and 5th films, who you don't feel any peril for as you know he won't even chip a tooth after he falls 300 storeys and lands on his face on the concrete below.


Meh. I'm done with Die Hard. I'll stick to the first three.


Nice review, JayDee!



I still haven't finished A Good Day to Die Hard. I couldn't. That is really, really bad. I love the Die Hard movies. I loved Live Free and Die Hard. But this last one was depressingly awful. Two popcorn boxes seems like you're being too nice to it.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
Two popcorn boxes seems like you're being too nice to it.
There was actually a bit I meant to include at the end of the review that I forgot about. I was going to say that I was actually being a touch generous with the score but that the John McClane character had given me so much joy over the years that I couldn't bear to stick the knife in any deeper than I had already done.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
Wonder what the next one will be called?

Die Hard: Die Already!

Die Hard: dying for this franchise to end!

Die Hard: This **** should've ended with the third one

Die Hard: I want the old John Mclane back

Die Hard: What ever happened to Holly

Die Hard: it only works when Germans are the bad guys

Die Hardon (legit German porno)

Die Hard: Seriously how many times can this happen to one guy

Die Hard: Dying to stay Alive

Die Hard: The German accents in 1 are lol bad

Die Hard: Is there ever a good day to resurrect a dead franchise

Die Hard: We need John Mctiernan

Die Hard 6.0, no not just 6, but 6.0.........
__________________



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
Dead Hard: the Joys of Viagra

after the disgrace that was the last film how about "Die Hard-ly Trying Anymore"

Old Habits Die Hard (actually that ones not bad. It plays into the fact that he's now old, that it keeps on happening to him like a habit)



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Jeff Nichols

Written by
Jeff Nichols

Starring
Matthew McConaughey
Tye Sheridan
Jacob Lofland
Reese Witherspoon
Michael Shannon
Joe Don Baker

Mud

++

Plot - 14 year old Ellis (Sheridan) lives on a makeshift houseboat on the banks of a river in Arkansas with his parents. Sneaking out one day with his best friend Neckbone (Lofland) they head to an island on the Mississippi River to investigate an unusual sight; a boat sitting at the top of a tree, the two boys discover someone else has already claimed the boat; a man going by the name of Mud (McConnaughey). Mud enlists the boys to gather supplies for him, promising them the boat in return. As time goes by the boys learn that Mud is hiding out from the law because he killed a man back in Texas. He did so in defence of his great love, Juniper (Witherspoon). With Juniper waiting in town Mud has plans for both of them to make a clean break. Making this a more difficult prospect however is the fact that the father of the man he killed has hired a group of bounty hunters to track down and kill Mud.

On the face of things this may seem like an odd thing to say but I believe that Mud is one of the best fairytales to hit the big screen in many a year. For anyone who has not seen the film that may cause a furrow of the brow, but in a whole host of ways this really is classic fairytale material. It's a story of a great but seemingly doomed romance. It's a great love between the characters of Mud and Juniper , but there's a man determined to keep them apart; King. So determined is he that he tasks a group of men (the king's men if you will ) to kill Mud and keep them apart. This is classic Disney; not a million miles away from something like Aladdin, minus the flying carpets and genies of course. Which is not to say that the film doesn't have its own dose of magic sprinkled throughout. The initial event that sparks the whole story into life, a boat sitting at the top of a tree, is quite the fantastical image that could be straight out of a children's fairytale book. Then there's the character of Mud himself, a rather mercurial and even mystical entity who has a bit of an otherworldly quality to him. When the boys first encounter him he seems to appear out of thin air and he is a character driven by superstition. He constantly wears the same shirt over and over again (a supposedly lucky shirt that has a wolf's eye sewn into the sleeve) and he has put nails in the heels of his shoes in the shape of a cross because he was told that it wards off evil spirits and that it will make him turn into a werewolf. Sadly that never actually happens during the movie.

Taking on the role of this unique character, the titular Mud, we have the shirtless wonder that is Matthew McConaughey and he proves to be a very smart piece of casting. His charisma and easygoing charm prove a nice fit for the character whose words could either be the product of a wise man or a bum. Those qualities also help to explain why the young boys would find themselves so ready to help him. There has been much talk of late about McConaughey's rise from the world of the rom-com to being one of the hottest actors currently plying his trade; a rise that has coined the term 'The McConnaisance', and reached its zenith recently when he was awarded the Best Actor Oscar for Dallas Buyer's Club. While Mud does serve as another cog in this recent renaissance I don't think it's his performance that is the real story here. While McConaughey does impress, the absolute stand-outs in my eyes would have to be the two young kids at the heart of the story, Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland. Both boys are just so natural in the roles, bringing a great sense of richness to their performances. I think a large part of the reason for this is down to the fact that they aren't really 'screen kids.' They've not grown up in Hollywood and acquired the traits of child actors so their showings are exceptionally genuine. Sheridan had only one previous credit under his belt, Terrence Malick's Tree of Life, while for Jacob Lofland this was his first ever stab at acting. Sheridan is so sweet and endearing as the well-meaning and honest Ellis while Lofland provides a nice counterbalance as the foul-mouthed and extremely forthright Neckbone. He provides much of the film's comic relief and elicits strong memories of River Phoenix's turn as Chris Chambers in Stand by Me. In fact coincidentally I even felt there was also quite the strong physical resemblance between the two. There is strong support across the board from the rest of their adult co-stars, with Ray McKinnon being particularly impressive as Ellis' father.

The crux of the story which sets everything in motion is how Ellis reacts to and deals with the news about his parents' impending divorce. As a young boy who is experiencing his own first taste of love he finds it to be a crushing development, one that he cannot comprehend. It is why Ellis is so ready to help Mud in his quest for love; he is trying to hold on to this romantic, ideological and rather naïve view of love. While he may be young in years his ideals are very much that of an old school romantic. We see him twice coming to the defence of a damsel in distress, one of whom then becomes his girlfriend, at least in his mind. On their first date he gives her a gift of a pearl bracelet and asks so sweetly, “want to be my girlfriend?” Just like Mud however, his is a doomed romance. In fact Mud and Ellis are alike in a great number of ways; so much alike in fact that if this were a sci-fi film it would likely culminate with the revelation that Mud was actually the future version of Ellis! In fact throw in his parents' crumbling relationship and the film is a tale of three doomed romances; with Ellis caught in the middle of the differing views of Mud and his father. He hears Mud tell of his epic, unending love for Juniper while at the same time listening to the warnings of his father running down love, telling him that he can't trust women and that “you can't trust love.”

Film Trivia Snippets - The film was quite the boon for the Arkansas economy and its people. Of the film's 1000 strong crew about half of it was made up by Arkansas residents, while the production also hired over 400 locals to act as extras. In fact at the time of shooting Mud was the largest production ever to be filmed in Arkansas. /// Prior to the start of shooting Jeff Nichols described the film as Sam Peckinpah directing a short story by Mark Twain. /// Jeff Nichols started work on Mud's script back in the 1990s and ever since then Matthew McConaughey was always his first choice for the role after seeing him in Lone Star. Despite this Chris Pine was actually in talks to take the title role in May 2011. /// Having worked together on both of Nichols' previous films, Shotgun Stories and Take Shelter, Nichols was desperate to once again cast Michael Shannon. Shannon's involvement with Man of Steel almost made it impossible, but he was eventually able to clear a few days in his schedule to take on the role of Galen. /// The film features a character called Tom Blankenship in a nod to Mark Twain. Tom Blankenship was the name of the real person that Twain based Huckleberry Finn on. /// When it came to the role of the two boys Nichols wanted to cast kids who already knew how to ride dirt bikes and pilot a boat. For the role of Neckbone over 2000 boys auditioned before Jacob Lofland landed the part. /// At the Independent Spirit Awards Mud received the Robert Altman Award which recognises the film's director, casting director and ensemble cast.
In addition to the crumbling of his parent's marriage, the film in its entirety really is about the theme of transition. It's a coming-of-age film about growing up and the unavoidable changes that will affect your life. In the film Ellis is 14 years old, and while most people would argue that it's 12 years old, that age really does feel like the last bastion of childhood. The passing of his childhood is represented symbolically by the passing of a particular way of life; the time of the river is passing, as his father puts it, “this way of life isn't long for this world.” The film places great emphasis on the river throughout, its fluid nature representing that of love and life. The camera frequently takes the opportunity for loving gazes across the river; a river that people call home but where they also earn their living. With its coming-of-age narrative and Southern setting there are a number of touchstones for the film, with Mark Twain's Huck Finn and the classic 80s film Stand by Me perhaps being the most obvious. Beyond that I found the film summoning up memories of the Harper Lee masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird. It's quite a famous fact that Lee only ever wrote that one classic tale. Had she ever written a second book, you could easily imagine it may have looked something like this.

Following on from the rather excellent Take Shelter this is another terrifically impressive and assured effort behind the camera from Jeff Nichols. Just as with that film, Mud often unfolds at quite a leisurely, sedate pace with Nichols taking his time to lovingly gaze at the film's surroundings. In general that would most likely be an issue for me but in Nichols' hands he is able to turn it into a captivating, almost hypnotic experience. The most impressive aspect of Mud I felt was just how wonderfully Nichols was able evoke a particular sense of place. Events unfold in a small town in Arkansas, and there really is no mistaking the setting for anywhere else other than the Deep South of America. The two young actors, including Arkansas native Lofland, and the dialogue in Nichols' script ensure that the film has such an authentic flavour to it. Nichols is also able to capture the tone of such an area, or at least how I've always imagined it. With its swamps, dense forests and vast rivers there is something beautiful but also haunting about it; a mythical vibe but tinged with a darkness. Coincidentally it's a similar vibe currently being exploited by Matthew McConaughey's TV show, True Detective. So the film evokes a particular place but the same certainly cannot be said however of it evoking a particular time. Aside from the modern cars that populate the town this is a world and a story that feels pretty much timeless. Remove the cars from proceedings and this really could be taking place at any point during the last 100 years. In a rare instance these days there's also not a single mobile phone in sight, with the two boys communicating in that most old-school of ways - walkie talkies.

Between the direction of Nichols and Adam Stone's beautiful cinematography the film really is just gorgeous to look at. Stone brings a terrific crispness and clarity to the images as he really revels in the beauty of the surroundings, delivering a series of lush greens and earthy browns as he builds up this wonderful sense of nature. The film is set almost exclusively during the day with Stone utilizing natural light predominantly for proceedings. The sun is shining just about constantly across the film's running time but Stone shoots it in such a way that it always feels like a hazy sunshine, which certainly for me at least evokes memories of childhood. I'm probably remembering it wrong (hell I grew up in Scotland so I'm definitely remembering it incorrectly! ) but in my mind every tale and adventure I embarked upon as a child was set to sunshine, largely during those summers away from school that felt as if they were never-ending.

Conclusion - While it may not have had quite the powerful impact upon first viewing that Take Shelter did for me, this is still one terrifically crafted film from Jeff Nichols. And when taken in conjunction with Take Shelter this film confirms Nichols as one of the most interesting directors plying his trade today, and marks him out as someone who could potentially be very special. The film is supremely well-acted, features a series of deep and complex characters and looks quite gorgeous. Its pace may be rather quiet and slumbersome for some (though it does explode into action at the end) but for me Mud is an extremely rich film. While it may not have floored me like Take Shelter did off the bat, I could certainly see this one growing on me.