It is quite possible that I am simply a contrarian. I love indie music
and I generally have little tolerance for what’s on the radio. I prefer smaller
budget films that have restraint versus films that seemingly have a limitless
budget. It could be that simple. Maybe
I am destined to hate a thing unless everyone else dismisses it, but there is
no way that Mud should be on a single
list at the end of this year for best films of 2013.
At the beginning of this year I found out that Nichols and Shannon were
working yet again on a film together. So, I came into this with certain
expectations based on my affection for Take
Shelter and Shotgun Stories. Matthew
McConaughey was also included in on the cast and if you’ve seen Bernie and Killer Joe you know yourself that McConaughey has been on a tear
lately, but unfortunately he is also wasted by backing into a character we’ve
seen him play all too often. The only new edition to McConaughey here is his
receding gum line, which is attributed to a fantastic job by the makeup
artist(s).
Take a moment and visit rottentomatoes and do a search for Jeff Nichols.
On this director’s page you’ll find his filmography and among his films the
highest rated is now Mud. By no means
is Mud a bad film, but compared to Take Shelter it is slight. Mud is a straightforward, unchallenging
coming of age story set on the Mississippi. Take
Shelter challenges the viewer and begs for interpretation. Even the
performances are superior, which only reminds me of the utter lack of screen
time Michael Shannon gets in Mud.
So, why the 98% of the compiled critics on rottentomatoes felt like this
deserved more than the 92% of critics that loved Take Shelter is beyond me. Take
Shelter may very well be the best film Jeff Nichols ever directs and I
could easily see it making “the best of the ‘10s” list. Can we say the same for
Mud? Again, maybe I’m a contrarian.
Or, maybe critics heard the buzz coming off the festival circuit and had their
minds made up before they sat down to watch the film. Did they go into the
screening, take off the critic’s cap, and just enjoy a predetermined “great”
film? Or, is Mud so unchallenging and
serviceable that it leaves the critic no choice but to approve as opposed to criticize?