‘Nutcrackers’ Review: Ben Stiller Gets Saddled With a Farm and Four Rowdy Kids in Easy-Target Heart-Tugger

The Janson Brothers: A Wild Bunch on Screen

In real life, the Janson Brothers – Homer, Ulysses, Atlas, Leicster, and Arlo are known for being charming and well-mannered kids. One can suggest that there is no producer who would be ready to take on the task of directing children if in daily life the children are unmanageable. However, in the latest movie by director David Gordon Green, ‘Nutcrackers’ the brothers go against everything else that their characters represent in real life. The film that opened the Toronto Film Festival portrays this quartet of siblings as unruly orphaned kids who run wild after they lose their parents. The characters are shown as total and absolute chaos in a ‘wolfpack’ sect supervised by their uncle, Michael Maxwell (Ben Stiller).

Michael Maxwell, a high-flying real estate businessman and lover of premium fashion and high-end lifestyle, finds himself displaced when he is made to take care of his nephews. Driving in a bright yellow Porsche into the scene, Michael interestingly doesn’t fit in with his late sister’s countryside conveniences. Furtively brushing his shoes before entering the house, he perceives how his shoe soles come into contact with fresh manure, a rather unfortunate first day on the job. It is quite a major career opportunity that awaits Michael back in Chicago, where he plans to get his nephews’ future sorted out in a few days, at least after Christmas.

How different of being Michael is from the boys and how he tries to fit in, particularly with the boys in contrast to how they behave which is the primary source of the film’s comedy and action. Michael’s arrival in his high-end clothes and sleek car immediately sets him apart from the world the boys inhabit. Used to closing million-dollar real estate deals and living a meticulously organized life, Michael is entirely unprepared for the chaos that comes with his nephews. 

The Orphans: A Wolfpack Untamed

The boys, who have been left to their own since their parents’ sudden passing in a car accident, are practically feral. Animalistic instincts can be seen in the way they behave since they act like a mob, making them uncontrollable in every way. Their antics range from mischievous pranks to outright disobedience, creating havoc for their uptight uncle at every turn. While Michael’s primary concern is ensuring the boys are adopted into respectable homes, the boys seem more interested in testing his patience and pushing every boundary possible.

Unmounted though, Michael has his own plans for them – he does not stay in town for more than three weeks looking for an apartment and arranging the estate to find new guardians for the boys. The death of his sister caused disarray to his life, however he would do everything not to let that impede his career as a realtor in Chicago. While waiting for days to help the boys in the meanwhile, which is indeed the main purpose of the wait, his secondary goal is to go back to the city where the life is at a million miles per hour. There is also the additional factors because of the impending deal in Chicago causing further complications to the already stressful situation.

On top of the current distress, Christmas is just around the corner.  The festive season, typically a time for family and togetherness, feels like an added burden for Michael, who is focused on making a quick escape. The boys, on the other hand, are not particularly worried about the Christmas holidays or the idea of being adopted; they are busy doing what children do best – they’re too busy running wild, leaving Michael to scramble between taming their behavior and preparing them for a life without him. The combination of Michael’s detached business instinct and the warmth and disorder provided by the boys’ world serves as the narrative propulsion.

City Life vs. Family Responsibility

Within the film, the more it progresses, the more conflicts with his nephews emerge because of arrogance in the gentleman’s image as well as the glitzy life he leads. When he tries to relocate them to different families, he encounters logical as well as emotional barriers, not just from the boys but also from the fact that it is a confined society. This dichotomy between Michael’s family obligations and his quest for self actualization in the corporate world lies at the heart of the narrative, dragging him to a painful re-evaluation of his ways with the eve of holidays drawing close.

“Tomorrow when I wake up, will you still be here with me?” The line belongs to Justice played by 12-year-old Homer Janson, who has no problem delivering it in justice’s childhood voice. Justice’s question brings tension of uncertainty and abandonment, addressed toward Uncle – a man distant from the family ties Justice longs for. Junior (Ulysses Janson) and the mischievous twins, complacent about rude behavior as they are flower-child-like, stagnate with the uncaring boys Samuel (Atlas Janson) and Simon (Arlo Janson). In contrast, justice is different.  His soulful brown eyes and lost-puppy expression reveal a deeper longing for security and affection.

Homer Janson’s take on Justice in ‘Nutcrackers’ grabs one’s attention instantly. Justice is different from his careless-looking siblings because he possesses certain emotional qualities. The large deep eyes and thick, dark eyelash seem innocent yet yearning, enhancing the impact of his performance. It is from the very beginning that the audience knows that Justice is to all intents and purposes the emotional core of the story with his quiet but firm demeanor. There is even the faintest nepotistic bias in Homer Janson but rising star Jacob Elordi bears some visceral and subtle likeness which is more noticeable in Nutcrackers; however, it is the chemistry with his off-screen brothers that makes the right dynamic on screen. Hence, the rendering of their brotherly antics is natural, joyous, and credible, adding to the beautiful family theme within the movie.

A Narrative of Forgiveness

This is not the last time he has to face his uncle because of the pressures on his conscience like the question that Justice asked: the next best line is this one, “I guess what Mom said about you is true. She said you’re incapable of love.” This allegation is the turning point in Nutcrackers not only for Justice but to his uncle Michael Maxwell (Ben Stiller). Justice’s words reflect the harsh reality of a family grappling with loss, while also pushing Michael to confront his own emotional barriers. It’s a critical turning point in the film, where the viewer can sense the possibility of transformation—for both the orphaned boys and their estranged uncle.

More than anything, Nutcrackers would guarantee the promise of the second chance. Justice’s crudest rebuke incites the uncle into action to prove otherwise against such claims. The anticipation builds as viewers are left to wonder whether Michael will rise to the occasion and show that he is, in fact, capable of love. For audiences rooting for heartwarming family dynamics, this moment marks the beginning of what could be a delightful holiday surprise—a chance for healing and reconciliation during a season known for togetherness.

Yet, some viewers may not be entertained by Nutcrackers, for those with a more cynical outlook, the film might appear as something else specifically. It’s hard to ignore that this project looks downright like some sort of recent flashback of the “one for me” style of filmmaking wherein the director gets to please themselves with their pet projects. For director David Gordon Green, ‘Nutcrackers’ is a chance to step away from his recent, more controversial work in horror, such as his reboots of “Halloween and The Exorcist”. In this film, he returns to the kind of storytelling that reflects his childhood favorites—films like “Six Pack and Kidco”, which Green himself describes as “lost treasures.”

A Tribute to Forgotten Family Classics

So, the film Nutcracker is a clear shift from his previous attempts at horror; a clear tribute to a genre that ignited his passion for cinema at his young age. In Nutcrackers he is able to showcase, without any hesitation, his passion for such family films as Six Pack or Kidco. Nutcrackers maintains the same tone of adventure, trouble, and dramatic intertwining.

In Green’s point of view, this movie is a sentimental nostalgia depicting the longing for the good old days of the film making, that is, the questing child and the apathetic parent story without making it unnecessarily multifarious and cynical. There are audiences who are looking for the predictable redemption and emotional subtext that a feel good holiday movie promises to give. Nutcrackers satisfies that desire. Justice’s declaration of love, the funny sibling relationships, and the dysfunctional family relationships are elements that will please the enthusiasts of family relations drama films. However in the case for the audience, the picture will look formulaic or too sentimental with self-indulgent tendencies on Green’s part.

Of this, there was a period when movies had rebellious, mischievous children who dared any authority and cared less about the rules. Such characters, of Paper Moon or The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, had a spirit with which the audience was in tune. But, this era of a bad kid in kids’ movies started to change with the emergence of filmmakers like Steven Spielberg. Spielberg’s trademark Amblin films, E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial and The Goonies, managed to provide young viewers with heart-throbbing experiences whilst attempting to advice on the appropriate behavior of children. These films celebrated the values of friendship and courage, as well as ethical behavior, gradually replacing the more anti-social and realistic depictions of children who had once occupied the center stage.

The Spielberg Influence on Youth in Film

The Spielberg effect fundamentally transformed the representation of youth in the cinematic world. His films made a stunning impact and sought adventure by almost redefining the very nature of promoting it to children. Characters that were wild and going against the streams more often than not began to possess some moralistic tendencies. Children became more responsible in the plot-focused and central direction of the young protagonists in Spielberg’s films rather than more rebellious and anti-establishment. The same change has been observed in films as society underwent changes – instead of children, who act like outlaws seeking for adventure, the story portrayed children as future satisfied and fit members of society.

Nonetheless, it seems that Director David Gordon Green intends to go back to those ‘go wild’ types of cinema where children were allowed to ‘go wild’. By making Nutcrackers in 35 mm, Green tries to reach out to a lot more innocent time, when children getting out of the hand or being disapproved were not much of a worry for the adult in charge. His aim is to borrow the raw chaotic energy that early films were associated with in making this movie. Still, this intention notwithstanding, the outcome is much closer to sentimental drama which Cameron Crowe in ‘We Bought a Zoo’ rather than gritty rebel feel of ‘The Bad News Bears’.

One of the pivotal scenes that captures the clash between Michael Maxwell’s uptight persona and the wild behavior of his nephews comes after his first night at the Kicklighter home. Michael, who is still in the process of getting used to a guardian role, wakes up to an unpleasant sight as the two disorderly boys are mud-dogging with his favorite Porsche. The splash scene of the boys, all muddy from head to toe, cruising through mud in his brand new bright yellow car, which has been so well taken care of, is a microcosmic representation of how all his orderly life have been turned upside down.

A Reluctant Guardian’s Path to Growth

What is more interesting than his search for the source of evil would be Michael’s outlook on the whole situation. He does not care what happens to his nephews. The first thing that worries him is the condition of the car. It is evident from the beginning that Michael has less regard for relationships and is more attached to material things. In particular, there is a challenge for Green and screenwriter Leland Douglas to change Michael from a toxic urbanite, for who caring over his nephews is the least remotely important, into one who accepts the fact that he has a responsibility and makes sure that his nephews are well taken care of. It is not that this change is not important to the plot. It just so happens that it seems too sudden because Michael’s character development requires an intense emotional reset.

To further facilitate this change, Green brings in the character played by Linda Cardellini who is a social worker looking for a foster home for the boys. Cardellini’s character acts as a sufficient motivation for Michael to finally show concern for the fate of the boys. Her position of actually caring for the children puts Michael in a position where he has to face the realities of being a parent and how he feels about being responsible for the children. With her, Michael is encouraged not to think of himself and his problems. They start working with him, and they force him to relinquish such selfishness and worthlessness thinking about his only additional wish – his practical and emotional caring for his nephews.

There is a central thread in Nutcrackers that runs through the whole of it, and that is Michael’s difficulty in making a choice between the boys and his belongings. He owns a Porsche, but his love for material things is constantly in conflict with his responsibilities as a parent. Michael’s attempts to balance four active boys and his luxurious way of life are illustrated well by the movie which shows the struggle within Michael. The father-nephew bond of self-absorbed real estate tycoon and a caring uncle to boys seems to be one of the core elements of the story, but this transformation is rather quick almost unreasonable given the gravity of the circumstances.

Nostalgia Versus New Storytelling

While “Nutcrackers” aims to tap into the nostalgic charm of films where children ran wild, it ultimately walks a fine line between honoring that spirit and succumbing to sentimentality. Green’s attempt to recapture the magic of an earlier era in filmmaking doesn’t quite land as intended. Instead, the film often feels like it’s more concerned with tugging than fully embracing the rebellious energy it seeks to evoke. The result is a movie that offers moments of humor and warmth but lacks the edge of the films it attempts to emulate.

Some people can’t have children. Their bodies won’t let them,” she gently tells Michael, attempting to get him to understand that what he sees as a burden—his sister’s four wild nephews—could actually bring joy to someone else. But for Michael, the prospect of changing diapers and wiping noses on those kids feels more like a chore than a privilege. Hardly has he come without him looking for some means that does not include him being there. He is much more bothered about how his life was back in the city and how fast he could get someone, anybody, to take the boys for him.

Finding a Way Out

During the time of holding on to the farmhouse that belonged to his deceased sister, Michael resolved that he would liquidate the boys as quickly and as efficiently as possible. His first target is Aloysius Wilmington, a rich local character represented by Toby Huss. As far as a man is concerned, Aloysius has it all except for the children. For Michael, this man is the ideal candidate to promote the boys to, picturing to himself that the mans wealth and lifestyle could offer the kids the security that they desire. But something feels off and Michael’s instinct tells him that it is not quite right and that just maybe, Aloysius may not be the answer he is searching for.

Lastly, there is Rose, the character played by Edi Patterson, who is a local resident turned business woman and feels that fostering has its chances. For her, every child that she fosters earns her $800 monthly and she is ready to take in four more boys more to her appetite. Its clear there is a financial benefit in taking an interest to the children, but what drives her to them is rather….peculiar. Her offer is tempting, but again, something about it feels off, as if the boys would be more like numbers on a spreadsheet than part of a loving home.

Michael’s Dilemmas

There are no two ways about it; the pain of looking after the boys is so intense that he wishes to be free from ever having to do so again, however, both choices do not appear to sit anywhere comfortably. Nutcrackers does not directly state however that Michael himself for that matter is a better option, either. Michael is selfish, he knows little to nothing about parenting and country life, and is out of his league in all of these. The film is also clear that whoever house the boys will be required to maintain the whole farm, expecting anything from them is baffling. Michael is not only unfamiliar with raising children, but he’s also clueless when it comes to managing the farm’s animals.

Along with the problem of managing the boys, Michael is also confronting the fact that keeping the boys also entails adopting their collection of pets. There are so many farm animals that Michael does not know how to tend to, from pigs and guinea pigs to goats and chickens. In one scene, he’s particularly horrified by the prospect of killing and cooking one of the chickens for dinner—a task that seems worlds away from his polished city life. The presence of these animals adds another layer of complexity to Michael’s dilemma, underscoring just how unprepared he is for the life he’s temporarily stepped into.

The Uncertain Future

As Nutcrackers progresses, how is one going to get rid of the Kicklighter boys is a question that lingers. Michael is clearly not ready to assume this role for the long term, and the other solutions he thinks of do not appear much better. There is no definitive resolution offered in the film and that is where the viewers want to know if there is a possible third resolution that would meet the boys needs more effectively. The other value here is that whoever takes these young kids in is going to have to be ready to take care of the farm and the number of animals that come with it which is a daunting task for any individual more so a novice like Michael.

As for the humor in Nutcrackers, it’s pretty bland and stereotypical employing over-the-top slapstick gags. Most of the time, Michael gets himself into foolish situations mostly involving falling into ponds, mud, among other silly circumstances. These are designed for the audience to guffaw and they are as boring as they are and do not contribute comprehensively to the elements of comedy. The film relies heavily on these comedic antics, but it fails to give anything more enjoyable than expected.

It is due to the homeschooling of the boys as to why this one lesson Michael gives is one where he almost touches on sex education, but it comes awkward. This implies that when and if he manages to adopt the boys, he will have a lot of things to do and they are going to be overwhelming. He needs to find a way to make a living, get the boys in school, run the boys through the basic lessons of how to behave, and look for some work among other things. It’s not as simple as that but this march towards becoming a responsible caregiver could have been more fun if it was span for more days rather than the few days that it takes for Michael to transform from a Scrooge.

The Significance Behind the Title

To those curious about the outlandish title of the film, this is a vague reference to the Christmas performance the boys were rehearsing with their mother before she passed away. She was a popular dance teacher in the area, and the boys were about to perform their own take of The Nutcrackers. Despite the chaos surrounding him, Michael takes it upon himself to help the boys see the production through, turning this performance into the film’s climactic finale. 

While the idea of a Christmas pageant adds a heartwarming element to the story, it doesn’t deliver the emotional depth the film so desperately needs. ‘Nutcrackers’ skims over the profound grief these boys must be experiencing after losing their mother, and Michael’s mourning for his sister is similarly underexplored. The film builds toward a lighthearted and somewhat shaggy performance of *The Nutcracker*, but what it really needs is a moment of true catharsis—one that acknowledges the pain of losing a parent and sibling. Instead of focusing on healing through shared grief, the movie wraps things up with a festive bow that feels too neat for the emotional stakes at play.

When one considers the body of work already amassed by David Gordon Green including premiere titles like “George Washington” and extended titles like “All the Real Girls”, it stands out that David is rather adroit around the emotional aspects of loss. In those films, he showed a great deal of familiarity with pain and the range of feeling. Nevertheless, with Nutcrackers, Green seems to correct himself and does not go deeper into loss anymore. Instead of going for the sadness that these people must be feeling, he goes for what the family gains by being there for each other. This choice makes the picture more upbeat in nature, but on the other hand, it also limits the emotions that one would have used to make the movie more touching.