Reviews Nov 10 2008 @ 08:00 am
REVIEW: Beer For My Horses
Directed By: Michael Salomon
Written By: Rodney Carrington & Toby Keith
Starring: Toby Keith, Rodney Carrington, Tom Skerritt, Willie Nelson, Ted Nugent
Running Time: 97 minutes
Rated PG-13 for some violence, sexual humor and dialogue, language, drug content and brief nudity
This review was originally published August 8th, 2008.
When the film’s publicist asked me if I would like a screening copy of Beer For My Horses to review, I said yes and immediately regretted it. A vehicle for country singer/writer Toby Keith, I had seen the ads and knew that it was targeted at a demographic that I was not a part of in any way, shape, or form: I don’t listen to country music; I don’t dream of driving a bigger truck than the truck I currently don’t drive; I never watched Blue Collar TV because I never laughed when I did. Yet here I was, agreeing to deliver a critical opinion on a film that combined all three of those elements. This wasn’t going to end well.
Films that 1) star musicians in the lead role and 2) are ostentatiously named after one of said musician’s hit songs/albums/stage names can go either way. On the positive end of things you have Prince’s Purple Rain, a certifiable hit both cinematically and musically. The negative end of the scale, however, weighs a metaphorical ton with such career destroyers as Cool As Ice and Glitter, which Vanilla Ice and Mariah Carey (respectively) probably continue to have blood-curdling nightmares about. Fortunately, Beer For My Horses (named after a hit single by Toby Keith and Willie Nelson) falls into the former category. By the time the credits had rolled, the film had managed to win me over, and while I wasn’t lying on the floor in a state of euphoric awe, I had thoroughly enjoyed its humor, quirks, and shockingly competent supporting cast. Consider me mildly charmed.
Toby Keith and Rodney Carrington star in the title roles, beer-swilling deputy Rack and his dopey sidekick Lonnie, who hold court in a small Oklahoman town. After foiling some fertilizer theft, they inadvertently anger a Mexican drug lord by imprisoning his caricature of a brother. The drug lord, understandably upset, kidnaps Rack’s love interest and demands an exchange, sending the two deputies on a cross-country rescue mission, complete with idealistic hookers and sideshow carnies.
The carnies in this film blew my mind. In a good way (I think).
While the story is painfully recycled, the script (by both Keith and Carrington) is surprisingly spry. It sparkles with down-home colloquialisms like “swelled bigger than an 8 legged dog tick” and features an incredibly diverse roster of eclectic characters. There’s the elderly department secretary (Tish Rayburn-Miller) who is both a manners nazi and a twilight sex fiend; Willie Nelson pops up as a moonshine-brewing carnival ringmaster in one of the film’s most surreal side trips (a midget named Merriweather lights himself on fire and a woman named Two Ton Tina gives Lonnie a bear hug. No, seriously); and Ted Nugent (in what is easily my favorite role) plays an uzi-toting mute named Skunk who was raised on a reservation, has his ‘badge’ tattooed over his heart, and shoots arrows into various posteriors (both man and donkey).
And how do you explain the musical interlude at an interstate rest stop where Lonnie sings “You Make Me Want To Shout” (while urinating) and a posse of gang bangers (who just happen to be lounging in the bathroom) spontaneously break out in harmony? Beer For My Horses is chock full of such bizarre moments and asides, and while I’m tempted to suspect that Keith and Carrington were downing Nelson’s moonshine during most of the writing process, I’m more inclined to believe that this is a cult classic in the making. If Napoleon Dynamite was for the hipster set, Beer For My Horses is for the good-’ole-boy one.
The heart of the film, however, lies with Toby Keith, who manages an effortless aura of self-deprecation. Although it’s obvious he would like to spin this off into more meaty leading-man roles, he conspicuously lacks the pretension that most stars would bring to such a part. Lesser films would have the roadside bombshell flutter her lashes all “come-hither” like at the strapping hero; here he just gets the finger. Keith isn’t taking himself too seriously, and that decision earns the film untold dividends.
Keith and company lounge around the film's hero-car, a ginormous blue truck with airbrushed lightning bolts.
Sadly, the directorial skill behind Beer For My Horses does not match the cleverness of the script. It is barely cinematic, having been shot in wides and mediums (probably due to time and fiscal restrictions); the sound design is uninspired (the gunshots during the final shootout likely came from a royalty-free sound effects library); and the green screen work is woefully amateur. And although Keith effortlessly exudes unpretentious charisma the majority of the film, whenever director Michael Salomon asks him to get serious, he ends up grimacing like a child who just realized that the Halloween candy he’d been saving for 6 months went bad. Since both director and star’s previous experience is almost exclusively limited to music videos (excepting a single dramatic turn by Keith in ’06’s Broken Bridges), that might explain the mediocre quality of the dramatic elements, but it doesn’t bode well for either of their future careers.
But does any of that really matter? To the film’s target demographic, probably not. Beer For My Horses fetishizes big trucks with gaudy airbrush jobs, features a soundtrack of country hits I couldn’t identify if my life depended on it, and mixes romance and corn dogs without a trace of irony. I don’t understand any of those things, but I can appreciate that others do. If you can fill in the following blank (”______________________, beer for my horses”) without missing a beat, then purchase a ticket posthaste.
on Aug 08 2008 @ 4:57 pm 1. Kristena said …
“Whiskey for my men…”
From the bit that I saw, I think this is pretty great for its intended audience and anyone who can appreciate said population. I, for one, grew up near the town of Aynor, South Carolina, which is the Southern equivalent of wherever these folks are in Oklahoma.
on Aug 08 2008 @ 8:54 pm 2. Phillip Johnston said …
Evan, you are a better man than I am. Judging by the first picture, I don’t think I’d be able to withstand 5 minutes of this one.
on Aug 09 2008 @ 7:59 am 3. Sam Juliano said …
I’m not sure what I put in that blank, but I think this one will readily be consigned to the “unseen” category. I am forcing myself to see PINEAPPLE EXPRESS as it is. But you once said yourself that bad to mediocre films (and to be fair you do point out the film’s more entertaining allure for targeted audiences) yield fine reviews, and your most astute treatment here is better than the film itself probably is.
on Aug 09 2008 @ 8:02 am 4. Sam Juliano said …
Of course, as somewhat of a disclaimer you are suggesting here of possible “cult status” maturation. That prospect in itself takes the sting out of your initial lamentations for accepting the screening pass. I will await the DVD though.
on Aug 09 2008 @ 8:12 am 5. Evan Derrick said …
Yes, I think you can safely stay away from this one Sam.
As someone who wouldn’t mind being a full time critic (actually, I am full time…I just have another full time job that actually pays me money), watching films like this and writing on them is important. We are somewhat blessed in that we get to choose what we want to see and what we want to write about. Professional critics often do not have that luxury. Manohla Dargis was able to write about The Dark Knight and In Search of a Midnight Kiss, but she also had to watch and write about Step Brothers and Journey to the Center of the Earth.
If one intends to do this professionally and get paid for it (an opportunity that is quickly drying up, I realize), one must learn how to watch and write about movies like this and not go crazy/bitter/cynical. Otherwise you’ll begin to hate film criticism, because for every amazing, life changing film, you’ll have 2-3 soul-crushing turds.
And just for the record, Beer For My Horses is not a soul-crushing turd. I actually found quite a bit to like about it, even if it isn’t ‘my kind of film.’ It’s almost worth watching it to see the musical harmonizing between Lonnie and the gangbangers in the interstate reststop. Like something out of Rocky Horror Picture Show.
on Aug 09 2008 @ 8:44 am 6. Sam Juliano said …
Indeed Evan, indeed. The other problem with a prospective film critic’s gig is that there’s little money there unless you are Ebert or A.O. Scott. It’s a thankless job in many more ways than one. But it’s still a lot of fun on this level, as you yourself have delightfully evinced.
I will see BEER eventually though.
on Aug 11 2008 @ 8:27 am 7. Rick Olson said …
So, Evan — you’re a better man than I, also. I can’t think of a better reason not to be a professional critic than having to actually watch crap like this.
But one question: how is it not cinematic? Many of the greats (see Kurosawa after he went widescreen) shot primarily in medium and wide shots, and if you want to hear bad sound design, look no further than one Federico Fellini. And Ozu shot with a stationary camera from a single low angle, and used the most static establishing shots you’ve ever seen. So, what is cinematic?
on Aug 11 2008 @ 8:37 am 8. Phillip Johnston said …
Oooh! I smell a dissertation.
on Aug 11 2008 @ 8:49 am 9. Evan Derrick said …
It would be easy to get into an academic discussion that would eventually end with us saying that “anything put on film” is cinematic simply by virtue of existing on celluloid, but that would get tedious. As used in my review here, the film is shot like a movie of the week or a Lifetime film. There is nothing inherently interesting in the lighting, camera angles, lenses used, music, sound design, etc.. It is not ‘cinematic,’ at least as I’ve defined it (of course, that is a subjective term, but I’m fine with standing by my hard and fast definition).
In regards to the filmmakers you’ve mentioned, I’d be willing to say that Fellini and Ozu were not particularly cinematic either, at least stylistically. However, they were working with complex and fascinating themes, which is where the real value of their films lie. I don’t watch an Ozu film for the camerawork; I don’t watch it for its ‘cinematic’ aesthetic. There are other, very valid reasons why I watch it.
In regards to Kurosawa, wides and mediums are fine as long as what is placed within the frame is interesting. Kurosawa was cinematic in numerous ways that this film was not, even if he did eschew closeups.
Beer For My Horses, however, doesn’t have much going for it, period. Being more ‘cinematic’ would have gone a long way to increasing its worth and my ability to recommend it. The style is lazy and most of the elements are shoehorned into the film. And while Keith and Co. are entertaining at times, it doesn’t help matters that they look like they’re in a direct-to-video release.
on Aug 11 2008 @ 9:17 am 10. Luke Harrington said …
I would say the “cinematicness” (that’s a word, right?) or Kurosawa and Ozu (I’m not ready to claim extensive knowledge of Fellini — give me another year to watch more of his films) comes not from cinematography as such, but from their deft touch with mise-en-scene and editing. The three-second sequence of paper lanterns blowing on a porch in Tokyo Story says more than half a dozen Hitchcockian camera angles.
Somehow, I doubt the makers of Beer for My Horses gave anywhere near as much thought (or any thought at all) to their set decoration and cutting, regardless of the camerawork.
on Aug 11 2008 @ 9:19 am 11. Luke Harrington said …
While I’m here though, I should add that it’s interesting that you bring up Napoleon Dynamite in your review, as I consider that one a particularly “cinematic” film — its angles and editing are idiosyncratic enough to comment meaningfully on the action, but subtle enough that they don’t dsitract. Am I right?
on Aug 11 2008 @ 12:40 pm 12. Rick Olson said …
Hey, Evan — I’m not trying to be academic, I’m just curious. “Cinematic” is one of those words that gets bandied around, and I have no idea what it means. As you use it, a film that’s not cinematic seems to be something that has poor production values: you mention lens focal length, sound design, and bad green screen work. With the possible exception of focal length, these to my mind are all just lousy production values, not stylistic choices.
I guess I lied: I have an idea of what I mean when I say cinematic. To my mind, something is cinematic if it does its business (tells a story, imparts a theme or idea) in a way that is unique to the cinema; i.e., in a way that only film could.
For instance, the old canard that film should show rather than tell.
But, as usual, your mileage may vary. Anyway, fine work on my fave film blog.
on Aug 11 2008 @ 1:33 pm 13. Evan Derrick said …
You’re probably right, Rick: everyone’s mileage is going to vary on what they think ‘cinematic’ means. Your definition might be more apropos than mine, however. When I think cinematic I do think in terms of technique and cinematography, the parts of the film that impact you on a visual and audible level. This obviously all ties into the experience as a whole, but a film that is ‘cinematic’ is one that is (for lack of a better way to say it) pretty to look at and pretty to listen to.
Essentially, that is production values, as you mentioned, although it also has to do with style and directorial vision.
If I was to discuss a film’s storytelling or thematic strength I think I would use different words, rather than ‘cinematic.’
Aye yai yai, I hate semantics sometimes.
on Aug 11 2008 @ 4:02 pm 14. Rick Olson said …
Ain’t it the truth!
on Jan 19 2009 @ 9:59 am 15. matt said …
its an ok movie. not the best but its kinda funny. i just really watched it for the 09 f150 kr and the sick f350.
on Apr 26 2009 @ 8:27 pm 16. Richard said …
I’ve watched this movie a number of times and still laugh my butt off.
Yes, it may be low budget but I also feel that a good cut of steak grilled the right way at home, is better than most high dollar restaurants.
on Oct 02 2009 @ 1:18 pm 17. Brandon Hutch said …
I have watched this film a number of times and have enjoyed every minute of it, although it does happen to be low budget. It was cast very well to my taste and keeps you interested for the most part, Lonnie (Rodney Carrington)in my opinion was the only reason to watch this film. I hadn’t heard about it until a friend of mine brought it over and I was actually impressed, Rodney has always had a great stand-up bit although his TV show crashed and burned. I give it a 7 out of 10 just for the cheesy comedy. Oh and that F350 happened to be AMAZING!!!
on Apr 26 2011 @ 1:25 pm 18. Fritz Mckines said …
hey and appreciate the information – I’ve certainly picked up new things through your blog. I nevertheless noticed a few techie difficulties using this website. I was wondering if your internet hosting is fine? Not I am filing a complaint, but poor loading times could very likely influence your position in google and may harm your top quality content on this site. Well I’m adding this RSS to my personal reader and will look out for more of your helpful content..
on Sep 11 2011 @ 10:40 pm 19. Yer Skarphol said …
Excellent info it is really. My friend has been waiting for this update.
on Mar 10 2012 @ 11:01 am 20. spil spil and vinde said …
Yikes, Ogle troll on the loose! Of course his spam has nothing to do with the post. Surely he could be kept from spamming?
on Mar 14 2012 @ 3:09 pm 21. Baby Scales said …
hello there and thank you for your information – I’ve certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical issues using this site, since I experienced to reload the web site lots of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and could damage your high quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Well I’m adding this RSS to my email and can look out for much more of your respective exciting content. Make sure you update this again very soon..