Beeswax (2009) User Reviews

Grew on me...

[runamokprods · 7/10 · 4 January 2015]

Intelligent, very low key mumble-core comedy/ drama that I liked better on reflection than while I was first watching it.

While I was viewing, the lack of plot and forward motion seemed frustrating. But looking back I found all the little honest moments of human weirdness that Bujalski captured with his (apparently) semi-improvised style gave me more of a real look into the lives of these late 20 somethings than I would have gotten from a more plot driven narrative.

And there IS a plot – about careers, about commitments, and about friendship. The tension over whether two friends who co-own a shop are actually going to sue each other over how the store is run is palpable, if not heart pounding. It's just the focus is more on details than on the big picture -- which is actually a lovely change from most films out there.

Kudos too for having a lead character in a wheelchair and a) not making that the most important thing about her, and b) allowing her to be sexy, sexual, funny, angry, grumpy – all the things people with challenged lives rarely are in movies.

I enjoy it

[petr-kalafatic · 7/10 · 15 February 2011]

No super.. (unrealistic stories, heroes, models etc.), it may happen next to our neighbors, I appreciate that..

+ believable actress + camera + story flow

= good for me :-)

---------

Your review does not contain enough lines - the minimum length for reviews is 10 lines of text. Please see the guidelines. Attempts to pad the comment with junk words can result in your account being blocked from future submissions.

---------

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn

[eli173-712-486403 · 2/10 · 14 April 2010]

I cannot believe i watched the whole film (actually i didn't, normally i would pause when making a cuppa, but i just let it run because it is clear that i was not missing any thing)- what on earth is the point of this film?? There is so much, "Oh MY Gaaawd", americanisations and up turning cadences in sentences, when i shut my eyes, i thought i was watching South Park - (no disrespect to South Park!).

It is a fly on the wall film type and i give it a two because the actors do that quite well. Not much story or plot and i am sure there should be a beginning, middle and an end! Skip or excuse yourself should this ever be offered to you to watch! Sorry Sisters!

The So-Far Best of the Mumblecore Movement

[GWilliamLocke · 10/10 · 15 March 2011]

By the time the movie Chop Shop ended I wanted to move to New York and befriend writer/director Ramin Bahrani, simply because his movie was so good and made me feel so much. I thought that would be a one-of-a-kind reaction, but the moment writer/director Andrew Bujalski's third feature, Beeswax, ended, I was looking around online, trying to find his contact info.

I gave up on that quickly, instead opting to start the movie over from the beginning. If you've seen Bujalski's other works, you know what to expect: artfully told - and small - stories that feel very authentic. Beeswax, even more than his other films, feels very, very real. And while the story is simple, there's so much nuance in the performances and production style that you feel as if you've seen some grand tale unfold.

So, the story. Two twin twenty-something sisters living in the city of Austin, Texas work their way through two very different struggles. Jeannie (played by Tilly Hatcher) is an overachieving boutique clothing/thrift store owner who is worried that her business partner, Corinne (Katy O'Connor), is planning to sue her; all along she spends time with Merrill (Alex Karpovsky), her on-again love who attempts at every turn to help her through her legal woes. Jeannie's sister, Lauren (Maggie Hatcher), is kinda/sorta looking for work and, more or less, just sort of breezing through life - hanging out, getting high and just being all around socially pleasant and fun. We get the impression that Lauren's only real concern (aside from maybe money) is her need to be around for her sister, who, in addition to having problems at work, is a paraplegic young woman with much stress in her life. Both sisters are incredibly kind and soulful people who I came to love through the movie - especially Jeannie. (Also, both of the sisters are absolute knockouts who resemble Juliette Binoche, which can only be a good thing.)

I won't say too much more about the story, aside from mentioning that, at most times, you simply feel like you're hanging out with the sisters and Merrill, who, despite tense times, seem to almost always be enjoying themselves - joking and teasing each other in loving ways. The dialogue never feels too much like a movie and the story just sort of falls into place - less a framework than it is a reason to talk. All that said, Bujalski's script is wonderful, and brought to life very well by the solid, very natural cast.

I kept thinking that, at some point, I'd feel the wear of Bujalski's style-over-substance approach, as this was my experience with his other two movies (which are both worth checking out). Didn't happen. Not even close. I was very into the story of the two sisters at every moment, not so much caring about where the story was going as I was excited to see what I'd learn next about these girls and their world.

And then there's the end. Ohhhhhhh what an ending. I won't say a peep, other than that it was the very rare conclusion that had me simultaneously screaming, shouting, howling and smiling. It was, in a word, perfect. Major, major kudos to Bujalski, his crew and the Hatcher sisters. Great, great work all around; okay, time for a third viewing!

Reminded me of watching boring liberal hippie people at my old college

[scarletminded · 1/10 · 10 January 2012]

Don't tell me I don't get mumblecore. This film is boring and I can watch avant garde films which are only static frames of buildings and I like talking films like Metropolitan. Nothing happens. OK, someone hit the record button and people move and talk, but it never goes anywhere. It's like being a fly on the wall at the most tedious hippie indie store ever, with people who act like they have something to say or go to rallies for equal rights in marriage. But those things they seem not to have a real opinion on. The struggles of the film are as follows: one of the owners of the store might be sued by the other but there is little to no development of that plot line, then the clerk of the store gets the tape suck in the machine but not in a funny way, just in a normal "I don't know what to do" way, later she is crying...but I am not even sure why...I think no one even cares to ask. Is that the point of this exercise? It reminds me of an unscripted movie like Paranormal Activity, but with no action whatsoever, no ghosts, nothing to talk about except the most banal things. No opinions. No ideas.

It's not even shot that well. It is sort of like the director got people together, hit the record button and released whatever came out, because it would be mumblecore genius and someone would watch it. I watched it, but kept leaving the room to do things here and there, because it was like being around boring sort of liberal hippie college types that smoked too much to create thoughts of any meaning. The average person will have a profound thought now and then...or even more. If the director is making a point about reality TV and superficial people...it's been done to death, hundreds of times and better. People's heads are even out of frame for long periods of time. It's odd, but not in an intellectual way.

I noticed there was a piece of the actual 16mm film in the DVD I got from the library. No one bothered stealing it because it might be worth something. It isn't! :)

Mind Your Own Beeswax (or...the fly on the wall approach)

[druid333-2 · 9/10 · 12 November 2009]

'Beeswax' is Andrew Bujalski's third feature film after two other independent features dealing with young,urbane 20 & 30-something hipsters (his two other feature films are 'Funny Ha,Ha' & 'Mutual Appreciation',as well as a short film,unseen by yours truly). This time,Bujalski's lens is turned to an area of Texas that may well be Austin. Two sisters,both fraternal twins,Lauren (played by Maggie Hatcher),and her wheelchair bound sister,Jeannie (Tilly Hatcher)share an apartment. Jeannie operates a vintage clothing shop that seems to be on the brink of collapse,due to the fact that Jeannie's business partner,Amanda (Anne Dodge)seems to want to drop out as a partner,but not before she decides to sue Jeannnie. Jeannie is getting very close to Lauren's ex boyfriend,Merrill (Alex Karpovsky),a would be lawyer who is just a breath away from passing his bar exam. Other characters drop in & out of this finely written & directed film (by Bujalski himself,who also wore a third hat as editor)that has to take it's time to sink under your skin to get the very real & true "fly on the wall" feel to it (the pacing is somewhat slow,but it's worth sticking with it until the end). Comparisons to the French film director,Eric Rohmer,or even John Cassavetes will be duly noted. This is a film with characters that are more real than the current dredge of cinedreck,conjured up by Hollywood...and certainly WAY more real than any of the (so called)reality TV shows that one can rot their brains on television with, can do. No MPAA rating,but contains some brief strong language & adult situations that would probably only land it a PG-13 rating if it was submitted,at the most.

Like a peek into the unremarkable lives of some random, average people.

[imdb-726-882796 · 3/10 · 30 April 2010]

I just watched this movie, and I'm not even sure what I saw should be called a movie. It's seemed more like a voyeuristic peek into the lives of some unremarkable people. Watching it felt like being a bored fly on the wall. It was slow to get going, and once it did, I felt indifferent about the plot (what plot there was). It really was no more exciting than folding my laundry, and once I did start to finally take a little interest in the characters and what was happening to them, it ended with no resolution of the conflict. The only reason I'm even giving it a 3 is because the actors are actually rather good at playing the part of average people. Then again, perhaps they weren't acting at all.

I love independent and low budget films, but the production of this one was just a waste of equipment and editing time. I'm having a hard time believing it was actually written instead of made up as the filming progressed. Pass on it, and instead, go eavesdrop on a random stranger's conversation. You will get the same experience.

Why I gave this a 1...

[rustydinglekamp · 1/10 · 28 June 2010]

.... because IMDb won't let me rank it any less.

Aimlessly directed and written with a ham fist, Beeswax is a movie that relies far too much on automatic indie film credibility and too little on making a cohesive story.

I understand that this was meant to be quasi-documentary style, and film snobs might tell me that I just don't "get it" - that it's a slice of life, and that life doesn't read as smoothly as a movie script. But there's a REASON that movie scripts go smoothly: Because it's painful to watch a story like this get mired in minutia with no accountability for pacing or telling a complete tale.

The cast did the best they could with what they were given, but this plays like someone's film school project. Self-indulgent, loaded with an unwarranted confidence that greatness is unfolding, Beeswax is strictly amateur night.

A Successful Cinematic Experiment

[foldedspacemonkey · 8/10 · 22 January 2013]

Jeannie (Tilly Hatcher), a girl in a wheelchair, owns a vintage clothing store. Amanda, her business partner, is deeply unsatisfied with how she runs the business and is considering a legal battle for ownership. Merrill (Alex Karpovsky), a young law student tries to help Jeannie by offering emotional support and legal advice, as well as introducing her to potential buyers. In the meanwhile, Lauren (Maggie Hatcher), Jeannie's slacker twin sister, looks for steady work and a general direction in her aimless drifter lifestyle. Finally, a new clerk is a welcome addition to the store but things get complicated when she turns out to be a tad too sentimental.

Heralded as the King of the Mumblecore movement, Bujalski's films are uneventful "slices of life" naturalistic depictions of youth in shambles. Each story is a tragic tale of emotional teetering on the edge of madness. For this he has been compared to Cassavetes, but Bujalski's life depictions are actually sexless, unrooted, and deceptively intellectual (but not in a negative way).

His characters recede inside themselves as they attempt to grasp for an adequate language to express what might be a conditionally repressed intensity. In a sense, they are the opposite of Cassavetes' bombastic, larger than life, overexpressive characters. But his means of examination are the same: full shots of bodies, matter-of-fact depictions of communicative behavior (mannerisms, tics), faces chosen for their anti-cinematic potential, so plain that they make our expected systems of dramatic representation collapse. Along the way we discover new modes of being, and an almost ethnographic look at human presence.

Above it all, there is a kind of hidden essay on filmmaking and creativity:

The sisters are twins. ('Same face, different bodies')

The clothing store is called Storyville.

Jeannie, paralyzed from the waist down as an audience surrogate, the "sitting down" metaphor, the watcher/observer, and the "real" manager of Storyville. She's involved in a legal dispute over the ownership of the store. The differences with the other owner are creative ones.

Merrill, a law student, interested romantically in Jeannie, but also an artist, a kind of surrealist writer, always commenting on situations with non sequiturs, exaggerations, cartoonish excesses.

Lauren, the second twin, her introductory scene sees her breaking up with a "boyfriend". She appears confused, or fickle. But she's obviously a lesbian. Throughout the movie she looks for work, speculates on possible futures, hangs out with drug addicts. The closest thing to a 'drifter' character in the story. She's the quantum fulcrum. It is through her presence that everyone else can feel anchored.

Bujalski is popularly misunderstood. His desire to shoot 16mm, "small" stories and his use of first-time actors, tie him to a deeply experimental and innovative tradition of art cinema (Cassavetes, Jem Cohen, Andy Warhol, Pedro Costa). One can only hope he keeps on working without being too affected by the lack of popular approval. In my mind, he is constantly refreshing, layered, and dangerous, if you see cinema as a kind of schizophrenic simulation machine.

Trying to be Woody Allen-esque?

[rpennyw · 4/10 · 8 March 2011]

I won't say this is the worst film I've ever seen, but it sure won't make it to the top of my recommended films list. I saw it at a film festival in North Carolina. The thing that kept me in my seat for the entire film was that I was fascinated with the actresses. Having only seen them in this one film, I don't know what kind of range they possess, but it seemed to me like they were (or could be) very talented.

The problem with this film does not lie in the acting, whatever they were doing was working! It was the story..or screenplay, if there was one. Mike Mellon posted in an earlier review that he was "having a hard time believing it was actually written instead of made up as the filming progressed." I absolutely feel the same way. Was there a screenplay written? I was also disappointed in the ending. I'd made it all the way through the film and then...it just...ended. What happened there? Another reviewer joked that the film may have run out. Yeah, where was the structure here? What was the point? The sisters were interesting characters (or people), I just wish they'd been given a more interesting story to portray.

I watched it as a vote for Indie filmmaking. I wish I could take back my vote.

[rationalreviewer · 3/10 · 19 December 2010]

An earlier reviewer, Dom-Donald, wrote: "There were no developed characters, there was no plot, no beginning, middle or end. There were no interesting relationships, no questions asked of the audience, no explorations of ideas or emotions. There were no challenging subjects, nothing shocking or controversial. Nothing actually even happened, so there were no events for the characters to even discuss. Even the relationship between the two sisters wasn't explored in any way.

"The movie just started and then a bit later it finished at some random point (the camera ran out of film?) .... I challenge you to watch it, for that is probably the only valid reason for doing so!"

I accepted his challenge. He is right. The movie would have been better had they run out of film earlier. In fact the earlier the film ran out, the better it would have been.

Another reviewer, Mike Mellon, wrote: "I'm having a hard time believing it was actually written instead of made up as the filming progressed. Pass on it, and instead, go eavesdrop on a random stranger's conversation. You will get the same experience."

Mike is on the right track, but is not quite correct. I eavesdropped on some customers at a 99 Cents Store to test his theory. It was not the same experience. My experience at the 99 Cents Store was more entertaining and the strangers on whom I eavesdropped were more interesting.

The characters in Beeswax were dumber than they would have been in real life. The aspiring lawyer could not have gotten through law school without a sharper intellect than his character displays.

Like others who were disappointed in this film, I am not a consumer of mass market culture and I tend to favor the avant garde. So I don't think the people responsible for this film should have their artistic license revoked... just put on probation and be required to attend boredom management training, and make restitution. I think there are a lot of victims who want their 100 minutes back.

Maybe its genius, but I didn't spot it!

[dom-donald · 1/10 · 14 May 2010]

I am trying to think what I can say about this so-called movie, but no matter how hard I try I really can not come up with much. Perhaps I can better explain what it didn't have, rather than what it did. There were no developed characters, there was no plot, no beginning, middle or end. There were no interesting relationships, no questions asked of the audience, no explorations of ideas or emotions. There were no challenging subjects, nothing shocking or controversial. Nothing actually even happened, so there were no events for the characters to even discuss. Even the relationship between the two sisters wasn't explored in any way.

The movie just started and then a bit later it finished at some random point (the camera ran out of film?). I am still stunned 12 hours after watching it. If you don't believe my review to be accurate, I challenge you to watch it, for that is probably the only valid reason for doing so!

The worst movie I have ever seen

[jeffreydotfong · 1/10 · 18 July 2010]

I have never been so awkward for 100 odd minutes in my life. The dialog was pointless, there was no story and the characters were not interesting at all.

Most scenes I was pressing up against the cinema chairs so hard in an awkward squirm I think I may have bent them.

The film revolves around flighty no-hopers that you can only feel sorry for. Otherwise, they were so annoying and agonising, I just felt like clawing my eyeballs out with a spoon.

I understand this was an alternative film. And I guess a pointless, boring and frustrating film is alternative. But it was by no means enjoyable.

Best quote I heard after the film "Eh? I don't get it", "Come on I'll explain on the ferry, hurry up I don't want to miss it. This night has been enough of a disaster already".

Thanks to the NZ international film festival for wasting 2 hours of my life. Pretty disappointing.