Dallas Buyers Club

August 22, 2013
Share This Title

Review by Remy Wilkins

  • And you, my father, there on the sad height,
    Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Dylan Thomas, who is known as much for his poetry as his alcoholism, wrote these words for his dying father. It is a forceful polemic against a weak cessation into death. Though there be no hope, curse/bless, show me that life is worth the fighting, be angry that life ends; these sentiments cut to the core of humanity. Would that there were half as much verve as in Dallas Buyers Club as in these scant few lines.

    The story focuses on two serial fornicators, a rough and tumble weekend rodeo cowboy named Ron Woodroof (Matthew McConaughey) and a transsexual christened Raymond now Rayon (Jared Leto), both of whom are stricken with HIV and then AIDS. In order to manage the symptoms (since he’s turned away by the medical establishment for treatment), Ron explores alternative medicine and in the process decides to found a “buyers club” (a legal loophole exploited to get unapproved drugs into the country). He recruits Rayon in order to tap into the homosexual crowd and a friendship of sorts develops. As the FDA enforces and tightens their regulations, Ron brings a series of lawsuits against them, all of which fail and after the last one he is given a round of applause before unceremoniously being offed by a title card. If it sounds unsatisfying perhaps you should join the Dallas Not-Buying-It Club.

    The film, directed by Jean-Marc Vallée, undermines itself at nearly every turn. Unlike the sentiments in Mr. Thomas’s poem, the film is not a diatribe against death for the condition is meekly accepted and the only goal is to manage the symptoms. Neither is the film a buddy pic between the coarse, homophobic Ron and the prissy Rayon. The film waves that flag, an affection arises between them, but this too is undermined when Rayon succumbs to death and Ron’s first response is anger toward the medical industry. He goes to confront the doctor, charging him with murder, but later he’s reminded that it wasn’t the treatment or lack of that killed Rayon, but the fact that she was a drug addict. The film can nary muster a shrug before Rayon is forgotten.

    So then the movie is about the crimes of the FDA. Indeed most of the screen time is devoted to this, but it too is compromised by the fact that his call for unregulated medicine out of desperate need is the very reason why the allegedly poisonous AZT is railroaded through the approval process. So perhaps it is the greed that is condemned for, as one renegade doctor puts it, “the only people that AZT helps are the people who sell it.” This is surely the prayer of those behind the movie, but it comes late in the film. Ron turns from profiteering and opens the Club to anyone giving one of the most mixed “inspirational speeches” in recent cinema: “You ain’t sick, you ain’t sick. Period. You tell a guy he’s got a week to live? Shit, he’s already dead. You tell a guy he can keep on goin’? He’ll find a way. Remember, ya ain’t dyin’. But if you think you are then you ain't got nothing to lose.” At this point in the film it has expended all of its red herrings and moved into the other primary colors.

    But Matthew McConaughey is outstanding and compensates for the thinness of the story. The last time something so dead was brought to such life was when a Volleyball co-starred in a movie with Tom Hanks, but McConaughey sells the script on pure Texan charm. Due to his penchant for shirt removal and preference toward lighter fair, he’s been underrated as an actor, but as he’s aged he’s taken on more mature roles and this combined with his emaciation will garner many awards.

    The supporting cast is also strong with Jared Leto, equally gaunt, taking the vacuous queen cliche and injecting an element of pathos that admirably attempts to counterbalance the running gag of a prissy homosexual. Also worthy of recognition is Jennifer Garner who is quickly becoming the go-to actress for earnest compassion. She oozes concern and care and is frequently the heart in many a heartless tale; although as Dr. Eve Saks she isn’t used for much outside of someone for Ron to heap abuse upon and schmooze, but she does what she’s called to do.

    Jean-Marc Vallée is not devoid of skill as the competency of his previous films attest, but because Life does not conform to the ABCs of Hollywood scripts and because Biopics are so often craven attempts at Oscar fodder, they are the lowest form of dramatic film. To coerce a biography into conventional story form warps the joy and truncates the sorrow, reduces a life to a small theme and often times bloats the sentiments to bathetic proportions. The sins of the genre are many and Dallas Buyers Club commits them all willfully and unabashed. It is a staggeringly empty film, and it is as lurid a film bent at being Oscar-bait as you’ll ever find. Avoiding the root of the problem to treat the symptoms injected a timidity into the film that even the pagan bleakness of Dylan Thomas would rage, rage against. At one point Ron says, “I’ve only got one life. I want it to mean something” and in this we can hear also the earnest plea of the screenwriters.

  • Genres
  • Release Date
    August 22, 2013
    • Dallas Buyers Club Review | The Mouth House
      February 24, 2014

      […] My review of Dallas Buyers Club is up at the FilmFisher. […]

    • IncPick
      April 17, 2014

      I haven’t seen this yet, but from reading the review I couldn’t find anything that justifies a 1.5/5 rating. The final paragraph essentially says it’s bad because it’s a standard Hollywood biopic. I was interested in what a Christian review would make of a movie with homosexuality and transgenderism as a theme, and this review felt evasive. I want to know why the reviewer recommends Christians to avoid DBC, there has to be more to it than what you’ve offered so far.

    • Remy Wilkins
      April 17, 2014

      While I do think biopics one of the more thin genres, my chief complaint is that it is an unsatisfying movie. It’s handling of homosexual and transgenderism was much more deftly handled and I thought compelling. However, the compassion of Woodroof is undermined by his exploitation so even there my praise would have to be tempered.

      I don’t view the ratings as recommendation to avoid. There is much to recommend in it. In fact, I wrote another article on DBC on it’s use of the rodeo as metaphor. Like I said, Vallée is talented, but the flaws in the script severely harm the film.

      • Remy Wilkins
        April 17, 2014

        Twice I misuse “it’s”.

        It’s killing me.

      • IncPick
        April 17, 2014

        Have you read your rating system?

        The 1.5 Fish Rating: “…the kind of film you would encourage others not to see.”

        In contrast the tomatometer is at 94% and imdb gives it 8/10. Not that I’m faulting you for giving it a low rating as I like seeing contrary opinions. The 1.5 just doesn’t seem to match up with your written impression of the film.

      • Remy Wilkins
        April 18, 2014

        I agree with that. I would not recommend DBC because it’s poorly done. However, to recommend “avoiding it” makes it sound devoid of all merit. But I consider my job to talk about the movie, not to tell people whether they should like it or not, or even whether they should see it.

        As for Rotten Tomatoes, I think it’s safe to say that if we felt they were doing a bangup job we wouldn’t need another review site. The reason I believe it is highly rated is because RT and Metacritic read the reviews and assign points, hardly an accurate method. The movie traffics in some hot topics (homophobia, alternative lifestyles, the medical industry) and people have deadlines and it’s easy to write about these things whereas breaking a movie down is hard and takes more time.

        I’ve read a few of those reviews and most of them make some comment on how the movie is flawed, even if they don’t note how deeply incoherent it is. Most readers just do not care, to be honest. They want to know if it will make them feel good and if the acting is Oscar worthy.

        As for whether my critique matches the rating, I can’t see how my review could possibly be construed as anything but, this is a deeply flawed movie with some nice performances to mitigate the disaster. But I will also confess that I am deeply apathetic to five star ratings. I think it’s an uninformative scale and I would prefer to abandon it, and I’ve made this clear to the fine editors of this site, but the reality is, people like ratings.

        Now, if you have a specific critique of my review that’d be great. It’s not like I love being a negative nancy. I prefer to praise a film, since praise is always more enlightening that to pan something.

    Leave a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Movie, TV Show, Filmmakers and Film Studio WordPress Theme.

    Press Enter / Return to begin your search or hit ESC to close

    By signing in, you agree to our terms and conditions and our privacy policy.

    By creating an account you agree to Noxe's our terms and conditions and privacy policy.


    Mechanicsburg, PA  17050

    Center Office

    Mechanicsburg, PA, USA

    All Right Reserved 2022 FilmFisher.com.