Mud-deid Critic Meter

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?