My first encounter with Mike Mills’ Thumbsucker was shortly after its release, just before his breakthrough with the celebrated Beginners that established him as one of the most exciting new voices in independent filmmaking. His adaptation of the novel by Walter Kirn, which tells the story of a teenager struggling to navigate the challenges of adolescence and the process of growing up, was seen as a pleasant and intriguing comedy that delivered exactly what it promised, but not much else. I was excited to revisit it, as the memories of the first viewing were mostly positive – but whether it is maturity (since I was of a similar age as the protagonist when I first saw it), or just the fact that we’ve seen several better films made on this subject in the subsequent years, it was quite unfortunate to discover that it has not aged particularly well, and that it is a borderline challenging film to watch, entirely due to the execution rather than the subject matter, which is paltry at best, a sentiment that brings me very little joy to express. Several elements are very promising, and it is certainly not some blight on the history of independent film. Instead, it is a directorial debut by someone who had not sharpened his narrative tools enough yet to be able to helm such a film, having previously only made short films that were not particularly well-regarded or widely seen, which meant that Mills was taking a risk with this film, and one that unfortunately didn’t pay off. Thankfully, this discussion is less about him as a filmmaker (since everything he has made in the subsequent years has been masterpieces), and more about some of the teething problems we can find with this film, which is a moderately successful independent film that tries to be a heartfelt comedy about challenging issues, but ultimately becomes more of a middling effort that has some good ideas, but not enough consistency to see them through in perhaps the way that the source material deserved. Thumbsucker is serviceable at best, which is unfortunately bound to happen, especially during an era in which this style of independent film was at its peak.

One of the reasons Thumbsucker attained a relative level of acclaim is also the same aspect of which we are most critical today – the premise is extremely obvious in how it presents a very different idea on a common subject. The film plays on the idea of the relationship between a teenager and his parents, but rather than the traditional nuclear family, we have an instance where he has to navigate life with a mother and father who are almost as immature as he is, refusing to grow up in their own right and acting so erratically, he somehow takes on the form of the more world-weary of the clan. This in itself isn’t a bad premise, and it can be very promising -, there are moments throughout this film where it genuinely feels extremely potent and interesting, and Mills is not a bad filmmaker when it comes to telling these stories. However, it is in the small details that we find the most significant flaws, which prevent this film from actually being dedicated enough to its premise, which had a lot of potential but struggled to be anything more than entirely obvious. The characters in Thumbsucker simply don’t act like ordinary people – they are plucked directly from the most twee, nightmarish independent comedies possible, and forced to co-exist in what can only be described as 90 minutes of existential instability, which in itself is not a bad approach (since anyone who wants a film to be composed entirely out of flawless, endearing characters have the wrong idea on what cinema is supposed to be when it comes to developing on its ideas), but one that needed an assured hand at the helm, not someone who has a good eye for these stories, but was relatively untested in exploring them. While I may not have read Kirn’s original novel, the general sentiment is that Mills seemed to be on the right track, but something along the way derailed it slightly, and steered it off course in a way that loses sight of the main ideas, which leads to a more inconsistent film that isn’t entirely sure of how it can explore this very promising concept. 

Even from a contemporary perspective, it is difficult to deny that Thumbsucker has a very impressive cast, with the assemblage of some of the greatest and most eclectic actors working today still being exceptional by today’s standards, which I would suspect is the reason this film was so notable in the first place. It is led by Lou Pucci, who is a very gifted young actor, and he delivers a good performance, albeit one that isn’t nearly as complex as the ones on which it was modelled. The main attraction is the actor occurring around him – his parents are played by Tilda Swinton and Vincent D’Onofrio, both of whom are extraordinary actors (the former needing very little praise from me, as I have made it extremely clear the level to which I admire her work), but who aren’t delivering particularly strong performances, at least not as we would expect from actors of their calibre. Keanu Reeves turns in another charming comedic performance as the hippy orthodontist who plays an unexpectedly large part in the life of our protagonist, while Vince Vaughn is his dedicated teacher who helps instil a sense of pride in the wayward young man. Thumbsucker is proof that even the best actors can’t necessarily elevate middling material, and that even though this film has a terrific cast, they are only at the mercy of the script and the director, both of whom promise them great work, but don’t necessarily deliver on it in the way we may have hoped. Ultimately, the problem lies in the fact that they aren’t playing people with whom we particularly want to be spending time – it isn’t a matter of having widely likeable characters, but rather ones that are at least interesting, which is where this film is at its most flawed. Mills can’t decide if he wants these characters to be unlikable (which is a solid artistic decision), or if he wants us to adore them, and in the process of not being able to choose, they become hopelessly boring, just tragically uninteresting characters without any real consistency or sense of urgency for us to care about their experiences, and the actors aren’t able to do much to boost our investment in the story, which is quite unfortunate when working with such a tremendous cast who seem to genuinely want to find something meaningful in these characters, but fail constantly.

There is something amiss from the very first moments of Thumbsucker, and pinpointing it can be quite challenging, but it eventually becomes clear precisely where the film goes wrong – or rather, we realize that there isn’t a singular major problem with this film, but rather several small aspects that don’t function as they should, and ultimately prove to be extremely inconsistent and frankly not all that endearing, not nearly as much as the filmmakers seemed to expect. The film struggles with tone – it is marketed as one of the several dramatic comedies that populated this era of independent cinema, but oddly seems to fail in both criteria, being neither funny enough to be an actual comedy, nor having enough depth or complexity to be a drama, so it instead occupies a tonally vague middle-ground that is not immediately disqualifying of having merit, but comes across as extremely dull and listless in this film. It’s attempts to balance the humour with pathos feels flat and uninteresting since it doesn’t feel willing to do the work required to live up to these almost impossibly high expectation we have for the material, and it is not even close to as heartfelt or complex as it seems to believe itself to be, which may not be entirely the fault of the filmmakers (since these quirky comedies were at their peak during this time, almost to the point where they became their genre that was often parodied), but does make us feel entirely indifferent to the whole experience. The tone is very important for a film like Thumbsucker – it needs to establish an atmosphere that is captivating and inviting, which is never the case here. We spoke about the performances, and while it is difficult to criticize these actors for doing their best, the problem comes in the film’s singular inability to develop these roles to be anything but vaguely insufferable, mistaking this for complexity and genuinely believing that what it is doing is incredible and insightful, which is not the case at all, and one of the major flaws we find throughout this film.

There are several reasons why Thumbsucker has not stood the test of time particularly well, and while we can attempt to justify and decode every detail to understand everything that makes it not nearly as endearing as we may remember, the reality is that it just doesn’t do anything that hasn’t been done better and with more consistency in the subsequent years. Mills has mercifully grown as a filmmaker – it isn’t a surprise the three films he made after this are some of the best produced in the last decade, since he has an active investment in all of them, drawing from his own life and making them vaguely autobiographical, which gives them the depth and nuance that was sorely missing in this film. This isn’t some egregious, unbearable film, but rather one that doesn’t do enough to elevate itself beyond being mainly pleasant, which indicates a level of laziness, almost as if the filmmakers were not interested in doing anything unique, instead banking on the belief that audiences will see the supposed wit and candour of this film and fall in love with it, which is the complete opposite of reality since we expect something more from such a narrative. Thumbsucker is the very definition of a middling independent comedy – a few good scenes and some solid performances from great actors do make it at least passable, but does very little to linger with the viewer longer than the time it takes to exit the theatre or turn off the television. This leads to an overrated experience that is neither funny nor heartfelt, and mostly just forgettable in a way that feels like a missed opportunity. We have seen several better coming-of-age stories, and Mills has grown into a great filmmaker, so it isn’t too harrowing to cut the losses and dismiss Thumbsucker as nothing worthwhile, and best kept in the mid-2000s, where it belongs both artistically and tonally, a harsh but necessary criticism for this uninspiring jumble of promising ideas and missed opportunities that offer us very little worthy of our time.