The Boys Are Back

source: The Boys Are Back

If Clive Owens accepted the role of Joe Warr (based on the autobiography of Simon Carr) as an attempt to break away from his type casting as a blood and thunder action hero, he at least proved that he is able to step beyond his usual screen presence. Though the story of a happily married sports writer to a beautiful young second wife Katy (Laura Fraser), enjoying their one child Artie (Nicholas McAnulty), who abruptly becomes a single parent when Katy dies from metastatic carcinoma, placing him in the uncomfortable position of becoming a single parent, is not unique among the tearful novels that have also made their way to the screen, this film survives on the quality of the cast. Not only does Joe have to overcome the treacherous terrain of tending to housekeeping along with the tenuous gap that occurs when a parent dies and the remaining parent must tend to the grief of the remaining child, but he also must cope with the young Harry (George McKay), his son by his first marriage in England (his second family is in Australia) who feels deserted and asks to come to live with Joe and his half brother Artie. The film lingers over the madness of a household of males, tinkers with tricky problems with inlaws and his exwife, but in the end the message is that with 'growth' on the parts of each of the three males in the tale, happiness is possible. The film's intent is admirable and the cast of characters selected to portray these people - Owens shows real potential as a serious dramatic actor, George McKay is particularly excellent as the elder son - is very well selected. The film is long, and could be easily edited without altering the impact of the story. Director Scott Hicks allows the film to become predictable and overly saccharine: less could definitely have been more. But it is a good evening's entertainment. And Clive Owens CAN do Hallmark-type films for TV! Grady Harp

OK, yes, I admit it and anyone who knows me can guess that what first attracted me to this movie was........ Clive Owen. However, I was impressed to see that this was a serious film and actually sounded very good. Clive Owen departs from more banal roles in recent thrillers such as The International or Duplicity to play a grieving widow and father of two. His intensity and naturalness are earning him lots of praise and talk of a first Oscar nomination. Owen's character loses his wife to cancer very early on in the film and is faced with the task of raising their particularly rambunctious child on his own. To add to this, another son from his previous marriage comes from the UK to Australia to live with him and the boy. Clive inhabits his role with ease, playing an understanding and tolerant father who lets his boys engage in unconventional activities (presumably to make up for their lack of a mother) who can also become suddenly impatient and irritable under stress, taking some questionable decisions. There are lots of sympathetic father/son scenes as well as endearing moments between the two half brothers. However it pains me to say that the movie failed to truly grip me or Fabio and merely coasts along, like a beautiful Australian landscape. An enjoyable film- touching but not moving, nice but not memorable. My rating: 7/10 Fabio: 6/10 Total: 13/20 For more movie reviews visit and become a follower at: http://paulinasmovies.blogspot.com

Finally saw this film from beginning to conclusion. Had caught bits and pieces (on Showtime) and it made no sense. Now I can reflect…with some competence. The screenplay begs for "competence." The nagging, continuing "ghost-wife" is a cliché. The lost, near-forgotten teen son from the first marriage played evenly by young George MacKay has but one or two scenes of any value to the overall script. This character is written as an uptight, boarding-school, Brit teen seeking acceptance from his father. I get that. But, considering the numerous wasted scenes as the second wife drifts into death is long and boring. With that said; the film offers some promise. The younger son is wonderfully, cheerfully portrayed by Nicholas McNulty. The director had to have rewritten parts of the script to infuse the energy of this little boy-actor making the film a bit more realistic. Clive Owen, a very good actor, does his best to muddle through the disjointed script. However, his character is far from believable. An award-winning sportsman in his youth, he is now an aging, sudden single-father, sportswriter in Australia. (Of course, the film was produced by their government.) When he leaves the boys alone to attend a major tennis match some seven hours drive away – well, you might already guess what happens. The huge glitch in the script is that he could've taken the boys with him. They might have ended up locked in a hotel room for a day or two; but, that in itself would have given the screenplay/story some extra leg room for character development. When he goes to England to retrieve his run-away teen ranks as the highlight of the film. The interactions between father and long-lost son are realistic. They are not heartwarming. No swell of the angelic chorus. The very last scene when young MacKay looks at his father is the only heartwarming moment. It lasts for about 3 seconds, but only makes sense if you can sit through the entire movie.

this was a very interesting film to watch but by no means gripping. Certainly a lighter role for clive Owen after Duplicity and The International and he is of course faultless in his execution of the role as journalist Joe Carr showing great vulnerability in his relationship with women in general, notably his two wives and then his two sons Arty and Harry who live apart. There are a lot of sensitive moments and much is overplayed, though personally the death of his wife I think is not played enough and the grief of the family seems somewhat hollow to me. Laurel seemed too available and not involved enough in the story and can someone explain what the party was all bout at the house when Joe Carr was away. Who were the uninvited guests and how did they get into the house? Didn't get that at all, not at all! Another film which promises a lot but delivers little, touching on serious family issues but not really addressing them.

This film is about a husband who grieves the sudden death of his wife, the way he copes and the unexpected complications that follows his decisions. "The Boys Are Back" is a touching drama that slowly unfolds but constantly captivates the viewer. It is a sad tale to be felt and pondered on. It is not easy to cope with the sudden loss of a loved one, even more so when compounded with job pressure and coping with family duties. What strikes me the most is the incongruence between Harry's behaviour and feeling throughout the feeling. He wants his father and yet he keeps pushing him away. Fortunately, the ending is satisfying and has adequate closure of issues. I enjoyed watching "The Boys Are Back".

This was an excellent movie, from the story to the acting, to even the camera work. It was a very touching piece. Mainly it was about how different people deal with the loss of a family member. And this didn't mean the death of one for all the characters. Clive Owen gave a brilliant performance as (Joe Warr)a grieving and now single father or a precocious little boy. He did drink heavily at first, but once he realized he had to deal with being a father he decided to become more mature. You couldn't ask for more from the six-year-old Nicholas McAnulty that played Artie. He was funny and cute and ill-tempered in just the right ways. He was the embodiment of how children do not know how to deal with the death of someone close. As for his older son from his first marriage. His name was Harry, he was played masterfully by George MacKay. This character was supposed to be moody and burned by his father's leaving him with his mother, who was now moved on with her life and had very little room for Harry in it. This is why he was so angry with his father. George portrayed all of this emotion quite brilliantly. He was the right person for this role. And has a promising future as an actor. He was angry and teen-age "I'm mad at my father" moody, and mature, and pleasant to his half brother... all in just the right ways. The only thing I hold against this movie, is that Joe was seemingly interested in another woman and it was never pursued. Although it would have been hard on Artie if his dad had moved on that quickly. For performances and for the movie overall I give it a 9.5/10.

This movie was disappointing. All of the emotions and values seemed rather predictable. The situations the people got into were not realistic. For example the mother in law refused to look after the children when the main character (Owen) had a business trip to make. Just wouldn't happen the way it was portrayed. A bunch of teenagers arrived for a party and wrecked the house, but although there was a teenage son, he was of a different age group than these people who came from nowhere. This was fabricated to create a situation of tension while the main character (Owen) was away on his business trip. Totally unbelievable. The girlfriend refused him when he asked her to look after the kids for a few days. Wouldn't happen. The son couldn't look after his younger brother yet could get himself from Australia to England alone. This was an attempt to make a weepie with a very unbelievable story. Acting was good, story and script not so.

This is one of the poorest movies I've seen - I'd no idea what it was about, but generally liked Clive Owen, so thought I'd rent it. It's the only film I can remember in which I actually yelled two or three times at the TV screen "End. END!" Owen plays the most Uriah Heepish parent I've ever seen. Extraordinarily passive - yet deceitful in many ways (Not least, as a top newspaper's sports editor who lies to all at work, and to the nation about covering the biggest international sporting event held in Australia each year - one can only hope he was fired, though there's an odd failure to mention the consequence). I've never seen a parent apologize each time his child deserves punishment. Child throwing things? Apologize. Child hits him repeatedly in the head? Apologize. Child refuses to get in the car to go somewhere? Apologize. Child won't get up from having a tantrum on the floor in public? Apologize. Child wants to throw things in the house? Apologize. Child cries because he wants to swim instead of be in school? Apologize. Say that you're deeply deeply sorry for every breath you take, every move you make - you get the idea. This is a creepy movie - the parent abandoned his vows to God, his son and his spouse to be true until death - and is somehow not made to feel the terrible consequences of his abject despicable treatment of his spouse. Why did he leave her? "I got (this sexy babe) pregnant". I constantly wished the worst for the protagonist - which I don't think the film intends. I loathe this movie.

Clive Owen, I find, utterly boring. His voice, his eyes, his mannerisms--boring. This storyline was plain DRIVEL for me. I am probably the only one who feels this way about Clive, but I just don't get him--ever. And especially in this pathetic presentation. It played like a 1960s 'made of TV' or 'Lifetime Movie'. I don't need 10 lines to re-express, but for whatever reason, IMDb has this '10 line' minimum requirement. Sorry, I even took the time, but I wasted my time by watching this thing, and felt I deserved to voice my opinion. I suppose 'boring' was not exactly correct. Perhaps ANNOYING would be a better choice.