It is a slow yet interesting movie with a surprising ending. My only complaint is that I wished for more insight in the main character’s past, reasons for some reactions and relationship with his brother.
Beware. Boring, artsy, long, and mostly pointless. Kind of movie critics say they like to have artsy cred, but is terrible. It was well acted. That’s it.
Lord have mercy on my soul this was mind numbingly boring and it’s actually making what is left of my brain cells wonder how they’re campaigning for the awards categories that they are.. 2 hours of nothing. Nothing at all. Benedict for Best Actor? Sure, maybe. Best Director + Best Picture? No. Maybe I’m missing something the critics are seeing perhaps.. or perhaps not
[8.3/10] I spent most of The Power of the Dog thinking the movie was nigh-plotless and not really minding. It’s not as though there was no story to speak of. People married. They adjusted to the new arrangement, as did their children and siblings. Friction and addiction ensued.
But it didn’t seem like a film driven by story. Instead, it was centered on the relationships between the characters: Phil, the gruff but jealous rancher; George, his simple but sweet brother; Rose, the caring but troubled woman George marries, and Peter, her effete yet scrupulous son. More than the ongoing lurch of the plot, the movie is built on the tangled, conflicting relationships of these four individuals.
That would have been enough on its own. Phil loves his brother but is emotionally estranged from him. He resents Rose for “stealing” George from him and psychologically attacks and undermines her at every opportunity. He's initially cruel to the effeminate Peter, compensating for his own insecurities over his sexuality, but eventually takes a shine to the boy after projecting the ghost of his lost love upon him. Phil is not the protagonist of the piece, but he is the main character, and there’s more than enough complexity and nuance in his psychology and his dynamics with the other characters to sustain the film.
George is a reserved character, but a unique one. Socially awkward, naive to the point of obliviousness, and a step slow to boot, there’s a gentle soul beneath his fumbling demeanor. His care for Rose and Peter speaks to a compassion Phil lacks. His tearful confession to his wife of how wonderful it feels not to be alone is sweet in his feelings for her and an indictment on his relationship with the brother he lacks the strength to stand up to.
Rose is, like so many others of her gender and station, the plaything of other forces who have the funds and position to give them an agency she almost entirely lacks. She is, arguably, the film’s most sympathetic character, who feels uncomfortable when plucked from her humble circumstances, and turns to substances amid both the weight of her feeling out of place and her brother-in-law’s tireless efforts to mentally destroy her.
Peter is the protagonist, the characters whose words we first hear in the film, and the one whose actions ultimately have the biggest impact on the story. But he is an unassuming, diffident, retiring figure. Lithe and unmanly, he is demeaned by the rough-and-tumble ranchers he finds himself surrounded with. He loves his mother dearly, in ways that verge on the concerning in a film with plenty of questionable family subtext. And in Phil, he finds both mentor and dupe, someone who attempts to show him how to be a man in this world despite the sense of difference, while learning, in grave terms, how well Peter’s able to protect himself and those he cares about in the final tally.
All of that would be enough on its own. There’s a different version of The Power of the Dog -- one that’s a pure kitchen sink drama about this unusual blended family in the 1920s Montana, and the intricate dynamics that emerge from so many worlds colliding and so many long-held attachments threatened from without -- which would still have been excellent.
The acting would remain a strength. Benedict Cumberbatch takes on arguably his most challenging role, that of a comprehensible monster. He straddles the line in his performance between pure menace and contemptibleness, to something pitiable and even sympathetic. Jesse Plemmons has the unshowiest character, but finds layers within his taciturn demeanor. Kirsten Dunst expertly communicates the sense of alienation for Rose in her new surroundings, and the quiet desperation she experiences which makes her turn to drink. And Kodi Smit-McPhee cuts the image of unlikely vengeance, an anti-villain whose shrinking presence masks an unsuspecting effectiveness in his chosen tasks.
So would the film’s impeccable craft. The Power of the Dog is awash in scenic beauty, with sweeping shots of the New Zealand frontier doubling for the fields and canyons of old Montana. The visuals within walls are just as striking, with sharp compositions and stagings that sell the thorny relationship dynamics amid the main quartet. The score perfectly suits the Western atmosphere, with dulcet guitar strings and other acoustic accompaniment setting the tone, as discordant notes emerge when situations go sideways.
Most importantly, writer-director Jane Campion and her editor, Peter Sciberras, aren’t afraid to let scenes breathe. There’s a recurring sense of dread in the film, as a judicious approach to cuts crafts a certain tension whenever two characters share the frame. At times, the film proceeds at a languid pace, but that makes room for the acting to truly thrive, and for the unspoken affections and strains between the different characters to grow and contort as a scene, and the movie, progress.
All of these elements would allow The Power of the Dog to succeed whatever direction its narrative took. At heart, the film is a character study, as interested in delving into what’s in the hearts and minds of its four leads as it is in advancing any central story. But there is a ghost in the machine, a central conflict that affects all of their lives when you step back and gaze at the bigger picture, which comes into focus in the film’s final act.
There is something of a feint when Phil takes Peter under his wing. It’s easy to believe that the two men have formed an unlikely bond, born of shared differences from the accepted sexuality of the era, lovers and mentors who faded away, and father figures who chose to leave in multiple ways. Their scenes are compelling, as ones which not only offer a softer side of the film’s most significant figure and antagonist, but which suggest he’s luring the boy away from his mother. There’s something both heartening and tragic about the suggestion, something to give Peter strength that comes at a terrible price.
And yet, Peter already had a hidden strength, or at least the strongest of convictions which Phil could never shake, in which this bond appears to be a mere cover. It is an opportunity for Peter to eliminate the man who was cruel to him in their first interaction, who is, if not the source, than certainly an accelerant for his mother’s unhappiness. Ironically, in the shadow of Phil’s performatively toxic masculinity, it’s Peter who defends his family, using methods of trust and attention to detail that allow him to get the upper hand on the man who so underestimates him. It is righteous yet terrifying, the birth of a killer made by a combination of brilliance and homegrown horrors.
The plot emerges almost as stealthily as Peter’s scheme does, only revealing itself once the time is way, but snapping into place in hindsight. That is the greatest strength of The Power of the Dog, a film that stands on its own with the strength of its craft and characters, only to tell a surprising yet sound story that emerges, slowly but surely, in the spaces between them.
Jane Campion makes me guess what’s happening the whole time - I don’t like it that much, but I respect it. This may not be my best picture of 2021, but if it receives the honor, I respect it, because the cinematography, the acting, the art direction is solid here.
The Power of the Dog lies in the sun for hours, and the jumps up and bites you in the face!
Story: 8...subtle, maybe too much so
Script: 8...words good
Performances: 6...I know he's getting great reviews but Cumberbatch was so acty-acty sometimes that it was humorous
Misc.: 8...holy shit the score and camerwork are amazing. Pace is excruciating
Influence: 6...it's artistic alright, but doesn't have much that lands a lasting punch
Overall: 7
most of what i want to say about this would count as a spoiler so instead what i'll say is, this movie (and its source material) is unsettling and ominous in a number of ways but once the movie is over and you sit with it for a minute, you'll realize that what felt like twists and unseen motives were all served up to you on a silver platter—which is perhaps the most important theme and what makes it so effective.
also—bunnies do not have a good time in this film. the dog doesn't die though.
If anything the movie is just insanely beautiful to look at. Hard not to get lost in the world with those scenic shots.
Helps that the rest movie is quite interesting as well. Fantastic performancs throughout and a story with characters that while very slowburning is very engaging and rewarding/satisfying.
One of those films you have to watch at least twice as the final scenes change your perspective on the story and characters. I was expecting a sort of western thriller with homoerotic subtext, while it was in fact a David and Goliath kind of story where it's implied that even Goliath used to be a David. There is no big turn of events, but there are for sure many details that can only be noticed on a second viewing.
The plot moves along slowly, but the characters' ambiguities, as well as the beautiful photography and music, are enough to keep you engaged and slowly let you fall in love with the film's world. It's all very minimal and elegant, except maybe for the fall of Kirsten Dunst's character, which felt a little exaggerated.
My religious avoidance of trailers has undoubtedly had a positive effect on my film going experiences. Watching trailers creates expectations, both regarding the quality of the film, as well as the story, tone, and style. I have found that removing these expectations leads to a much more satisfying watch, where every plot point can surprise you and pre-conceived notions don't poison your assessment. Unfortunately, even without watching trailers, expectations sometimes are unavoidable. This is certainly the case with The Power of the Dog, where even just the knowledge that it is a Western was enough for me to have expectations. As a simple example, going into a Western, I expect guns to be going off at some point in the film. Well... spoiler alert: that expectation was not met. And that doesn't make this a bad film. In fact, I believe the lack of shoot outs has no bearing on its quality. But, because I had this expectation going in, it created a very real disconnect while I watched.
Moving past my misguided expectations, this Best Picture nominee is an incredibly well made film that just isn't in my wheel house. That said, I had no trouble recognizing and appreciating the quality. The acting is spectacular all around, with Benedict Cumberbatch's performance being absolutely masterful. The film is just dripping with tension, equal parts aggressive and sexual. Every exchange is full of nuance, often with just facial expressions and silent exchanges doing the heavy lifting. The dramatic relationship conflicts at the heart of the story are surprising and the execution unconventional.
As far as criticisms go, the significant shift that occurs in Cumberbatch's character midway through the movie felt oddly rushed. The ending had a similar problem, with plot points feeling forced to manufacture the dramatic resolution. As one last very minor complaint, I was disappointed that Thomasin McKenzie didn't have a larger role. After seeing Last Night in Soho and Leave No Trace, I've definitely become a fan, so to see her relegated to glorified extra felt like a waste of talent.
Benedict Cumberbatch was in full command of his role, throwing moody faces and slurs in every direction - Cow or cowboy, he’s x-rayed you already. His deeply complex performance alone is enough in the slow burning ‘Power of The Dog’.
The performances are solid and we get to spend some time with some gorgeous scenery, the movie builds to a point where we have to rethink a lot of what we’ve seen before but it I still don’t really buy it.
What an utter waste of time. I love Benedict and Kirsten, but it’s better to stare 2 hours at a wall than bearing this.
Two :v: hour waste of time from my perspective.
“I want to say how nice it is not to be alone.”
‘The Power of the Dog’ is a triumph return for director Jane Campion after a 12-year absence from cinema. The movies pace is steady and patient, so some people will take issue with that and find the movie too slow and uneventful, but for me, I was never bored by it. Instead, I was captivated by its eeriness and complexity. It’s a movie that never explains itself and nothing is articulated, but you can pinpoint the long-troubled history just from reading the characters faces and actions.
This is one of Benedict Cumberbatch’s best performance of his career and it’s my favourite role from him. He plays Phil Burbank, a repulsive and cruel human being, who deep down has this boiling rage inside of him that he unleashes by abusing animals such as horses. However, I also found the character fascinating, because you never really know why he does the things he does. The expression throughout the movie was irritation, as if the western wind said something that got under his skin. His got the personality of a misbehaved child, sometimes mimicking and mocking those around him. Sulky and strange, with a thousand-yard stare.
But man, Jesse ‘mother fucking’ Plemons, who plays George Burbank, the brother of Phil Burbank. I mean, holy shit what a natural and gifted performer. His relationship with his brother is complicated to say the least, and George is powerless to Phil’s constant insults towards his weight, appearance, and his new love for a female hotel keeper. Even then, the two brothers would still share a bed together. As I said before, it's complicated.
Kirsten Dunst plays Rose, a local hotel keeper who romantically falls for Jesse Plemons and gets thrown into the ranch life, something she and her son are not suited for, which sets the story into motion. Her son is played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, an awkward kid who stands out for the wrong reasons. Dunst and McPhee, both child stars who grew up into maturity on film and both deliver effective performances. Just from the facial expressions alone they manage to convey some much hurt and curiosity that the characters experience when in the presence of Phil Burbank. It’s one of the finest roles.
The use of music here isn’t something you will remember after the movie ends, but I feel that when re-watching it, the score, along with the scenes playing out, makes the experience more hypnotizing and oddly mystical.
The movie was filmed in New Zealand, and it never looked more beautiful until Jane Campion is behind the camera. Even with the muted colours and harsh quality to it, it still felt dreamy.
Although, if you’re a massive lover of animals, then beware because there’s a couple of scenes in this movie of animal abuse that may upset you. It’s not on screen for long, like a few seconds, but man those few seconds are rough. Or just cover your eyes.
Overall rating: whistles menacingly
Snob movie for people who thinks they know about cinema. Behind a artsy apparence and a good cast, Jane Campion tries to hide a slow, boring, meaningless and absurd movie that only gets success stealing 2 hours of your life.
I wonder why this movie is a golden award best picture winner, that's why so many people stop caring about this awards...
(Benedict Cumberbatch as a cowboy?! You have to suspend disbelief to even enter this world.) This plodding, painfully bleak story depends on you being invested in saving Rose. I think that was its first failure for me. I wasn’t drawn to Roses plight, or any other character, despite the stellar cast. They were all black and white cardboard cutouts. There was peril but no suspense or thrill. The title is a puzzle with a cryptic clue in the final scripture verse. But it doesn’t take a biblical scholar to see the allegory, it is pretty straightforward. Identify the dog of the story, then the power that the dog has, and then watch how his power is turned against him. Phil is the dog, his power is gained by finding a person’s weaknesses and destroying them with it, Peter sees Phil’s weakness and exploits it to save his mother from being destroyed by Phil. . I think the film wants to lull us into believing there is something profound afoot here. There wasn’t. There was no arch, just a steady, depressing slope. Critics will love this film if they buy into this being unique or having a profound bent. I give this film a 5 (meh) out of 10. [Western]
I thought it would turn into another Brokeback Mountain. Another cliché of a toxic man being gay. I'm glad the film is not that obvious. It's more subtler than that.
Of course, this being Netflix, this will be criticized for being slow and boring.
Wow, what a waste of time!
Acting is alright I guess... The story is extremely boring, no doubt this was a complete waste of time.
I give it 5/10 only for Cumberbatch's hard solo carry.
A perfect example of "show don't tell", the movie doesn't explain everything to you, it let's the viewer discover things for himself. A great piece of cinema.
A unique, thought-provoking and well-directed family/psychological drama film, with great visuals and splendid performances from cast.
Beautifully made and not at all the western I was expecting. Of course, Jane Campion is behind the camera, so I should have known that this wouldn’t be the cookie cutter western that most of us are well used to.
Terrible. Completely disconnected from anything. Over-acting, under-acting... Lousy soundtrack.
if Peter did that to Phil, i bet he killed his father.
This was. A slow moving movie but not a bad movie. More of a character study in the ability to change over time with the right catalyst. Good performances and a solid movie
The movie was well crafted and visually beautiful even if not fancy, but personally I didn't feel any emotional rapture, neither positive (empathizing with the characters, loving them) nor negative (despise, disgust, fear..). I could feel Rose's uneasiness, but it was not really explored, delved into.
Also the final death didn't carry much to it, no significance or growth for the others, no tension release. Meh
It deals with toxic masculinity through the 3 male figures: george, peter and phil
Phil is toxic masculinity itself, he makes fun of others who do not reach his standards and feels threatened when rose enters his life, to indicate the fear of femininity and therefore non-masculinity, which completely upsets his habit. . Phil finds himself in peter, as a young man he was taught by Bronco how to be a real man, even if in addition to a guardian figure he is his lover, and here we find the trope of the repression of oneself brought by toxic masculinity
The same concept of toxic masculinity is explored with George, george is in the middle, he is not toxic but continues to ignore the abuses perpetrated by his brother, this analysis made by the director makes us wonder if there is another form of masculinity, if the toxic adjective is necessary for the definition of masculinity or if this is implicitly toxic, there are no other types of masculinity that are not toxic.
Finally peter, rejects masculinity in all its forms, tries to help his mother get rid of this, harshly understanding phil's fragility and using it to kill him then to eradicate the power of the dog, that is the primordial instinct that dogs have, characteristic of toxic masculinity. Phil dies intoxicated by his own masculinity.
The film is about how the loneliness of men can lead to a problem, such as the perpetuation of masculinity must end in order to ensure that the environment in which one lives is healthy. It is only after the death of the one who would have continued the chain of abuse that the family can be reunited and the mother can live in peace.
Kudos for the acting, which is fantastic on all fronts, however, this is otherwise, drawn-out, boring and predictable. Not the actors' fault, but that doesn't make this any less of a waste of time.
Albeit not the type of film that I connect to normally, it still kept me gripped throughout much due to Campion’s powerful and confident handling of tension, timing and suspense. An incredible original score elevates it even further. And one of Cumberbatch’s best performances. A must watch for the season.
The worst part of being so pretentious is giving such a predictable ending.
Boring all the way through. Creepy and uncomfortable to watch.
I watched this from start to finish without getting bored or dozing off. I enjoy very much emotional movies but this thing went completely over my head.
At the time of watching it felt random things happening at random times. The main character disappeared for a long time. Not much connected to each other. At the end I can see the overall story but it is not in a strong cohesive way. I didn't feel connected.
And what was that music choice? Music itself was great but it was a very sombre and maniac score more appropriate for Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho.
For the first bit I wanted to like it more than I did. What it became was a superb slow-burn. Psychological masterpiece in parts and a touch uneven in others. 7.8 and a recommended viewing for certain.
Like home smoked beef jerky, it's a satisfying slow burn.
What a story. I liked it. Benedict Cumberbatch does as always an amazing job, in this case giving life to a hateful man. Some people say it is slow but I think it could have had more things because the abrupt changes from one moment to the other are in some points confusing. The music is delightful because it engages you with the images shown. The production design is great and it enables you to focus on the story and not so much in the inaccuracies.
One of the most boring westerns I have ever seen.:sleeping::wastebasket:
I am at least a little bit surprised that this film is being mentioned as a possible award winner. Don't get me wrong - I mostly enjoyed the film. However, it just left a bit to be desired. I think my main complaint is that I really didn't sense anything dramatic about the movie. Cumberbatch is excellent as the antagonist and Dunst is excellent as the boy's mother (and Plemons is good at being.... well, Plemons). Towards the end of the movie the music kicks in to tell us that something dramatic is happening or about to happen. But it just felt.... odd.... because nothing dramatic was really happening on screen or in the story. It didn't feel like the drama was earned. Anyway, extra points for an excellent ending.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
I get why some people would appreciate this for what it is but it definitely wasn't for me.
What I disliked passionately about this is the absolutely horrendous score.
It was like torture throughout the whole thing culminating with the 'hides' scene where the composer obviously couldn't make it any worse himself so he just decided to record a rabid rat running across the keys of a piano.
I am willing to admit I fully missed something in people’s rapturous love of this. https://boxd.it/2DYC7V
Benedict nailed this one.
What a great actor
Powerful as one would say. Takes you back in time and gives a great immersion in ranch life. Might seem slow to some people, but even if Jane Campion takes her time to install the settings, each shot is carefully thought and adjusted with beautiful lighting and sets.
The plot is nicely handled and never reveals itself, everything is insinuated until the very end.
Me: Phil Burbank you need to get you’re anger until control.
Also me: :sparkles: scream at me daddy :sparkles:
I enjoyed this so much more knowing every person that watches it angers Sam Elliot that little bit more
What a clever critic against the machismo and the toxic masculinity. The movie explore practically all the aspects of the topic, how this affect the life of everybody... besides that, the movie has a very interesting drama that never let the movie be boring, it is always playing with your expectations.
The cinematography is beautiful, the score is amazing, Benedict Cumberbatch and Kodi-Smith Mcphee are great here wonderful here and the only thing that bothered me a little was the expository ending, they don't need to explain what happened in that way.
Is it a good movie? Well, kinda, yes. Brilliant direction, great acting, marvelous cinematography, and really well-done production design. The only thing here is the script. The first half of the movie is just slow without reason, tbh I only found the last 40 minutes of the movie to be actually compelling and worth my attention. ONLY 40 MINUTES OUT OF 127. The movie does not say a lot during the first hour; there are a lot of scenes that could be cut out of the movie without damaging the plot.
Anyway, would recommend it if you have the time and are aware that you'll be bored beyond belief for the first hour or so.
I've cried at the kerchief scene.
it takes a while to pick up the pace and i found myself almost falling asleep at the beginning, but by the end i was enthralled, the tension between phil and peter was almost cringeworthy but cathardic in a weird way.
Not so qood as i expected and for sure one of the most slow paced movies i have seen in a while.Still has something to show. 6.3/10
anxious. so anxious. that’s all i really have to say.
This movie is slow. I had no idea where it was going at first. We seemingly don't have a true protagonist. Benedict Cumberbatch gives a stellar performance because he truly made me loath his character. And yet I can't stop thinking about it. All because of that ending and delicious twist that made the whole experience so very worth it.
Good ending, but man the movie is really slow.
Eggs Benedict Cummerbund (thank you honest trailers!) was great. I think I need to watch it again to appreciate it. It was very slow and felt like 200 small scenes were glued together. Missing for me was a family back story. I gave it a poor rating because it was very slow, and at the end I was left wondering what the hell I just watched. The story and plot, if you can call it that, is typical but it isn’t spelled out for you which is why critics will find it artsy and imaginative.
Slow burn that wasn’t the film we felt like watching but we persevered. I won’t be rushing to rewatch or recommend..
It is a slow yet interesting movie with a surprising ending. My only complaint is that I wished for more insight in the main character’s past, reasons for some reactions and relationship with his brother.
What does the Phrase "the power of the dog" mean? Read this interpretation somewhere, and found it to be apt: "The Power of the Dog, the power of the evil man and the evil choice, of corruption over honesty and lawlessness over law."
The original quote that Peter read from the book in the movie : "Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog."
Great film! Fantastic acting! Slow burner for sure. If you think you can predict what's about to happen next, ha! Your gladly mistaken. Jane Campion's masterpiece will keep you guessing. Do yourself a favor and watch this film!
I didnt really like the main cast before pushing play lol
Excruciatingly slow pacing but the payoff is worth it. Hang in and enjoy the slow burn.
The power of the dog
A film that tells little, but does so decently. The setting is good, I enjoyed the extreme long shots, showing us everything around the ranch. The soundtrack is not bad either. As for the acting, I liked the asshole Cumberbatch, playing psychologically with a not super performing Dunst. I would have eliminated a few scenes, which for me were unnecessary to the point of losing focus towards the film, but nonetheless it remains a watchable and cute film
5,5/10
Put this on your "do not watch" list. Sloooooooow and poor story.
Hated it, pretty passionately. Everyone felt miscast–even New Zealand felt miscast. The whole thing fit like a bad pair of pants, and I thought it was truly dreadful.
I had really low expectations of this movie... and it met them.
Long slow burner with a surprise at the very end.
This movie starts off slow, but by the second act I was totally invested in these characters and their developments. Cumberbatch does an excellent job in this film, how is this man so good at acting. He one hundred percent sells that he is man torn between what he should be and what he wants to be. His dynamic and evolution throughout the story was a treat to watch. I found Kirsten Dunst very sympathetic. As someone who has had alcoholism in my family, it was really hard seeing her go down that path but it was a really genuine portrayal. The movie was a tad long, but it was worth it for the characters to get the room to breath and evolve. The end of the film struck home with me and drew some tears.
Score: 85%
Verdict: Great
Premise: 5/10 - "A domineering but charismatic rancher wages a war of intimidation on his brother's new wife and her teen son, until long-hidden secrets come to light." A period piece about a ranch? Not usually my bag.
Cast: 9/10 - Benedict Cumberbatch and Kirsten Dunst got me, Jesse Plemons was great, and Kodi Smit-McPhee did a great job.
Characters: 8/10 - Boy, Phil was a dick. The toxic masculinity thing really makes me shake my head, but look at the time period. 1925 ranch hands? I can understand. Rose and Peter were vulnerable characters, but not everything is as it seems. George was good as the complement to Phil.
Story: 8/10 - I was wondering where it was going to go, like maybe he would fall in love with Rose. Nope...but would he fall in love with, you know, a different character? When all is said and done, did that even matter? The twists and character developments were superb.
Dialogue: 5/10 - Not much here. Much of the plot was read between the lines, not on the page.
World-building: 7/10 - At the beginning, I didn't care about ranching; well, I guess I still don't. However, you learned enough to get invested, and the characters did the rest.
42/60 - 70/100 - 7/10 - 3.5/5 stars - It has so many boiling sub-texts that you can choose your own adventure. Once it ends, you're like, "Yup, that's one way to go...but I didn't figure that was the way it was going." I like that. Good movie; I'd recommend to anyone looking for a well-acted, well-directed drama.
Wait, the boy killed him?
I just watched a 2 hour movie that could be fit into a trailer.
Fuh-uck me. That was s-o boring.
Watching this was like "edging" only for nothing to come (no pun intended) of it.
Spend those 2hrs doing something (anything) else.
Secret passions in early 20th century Montana
Yes, it's a very slow burn, and yes, the acting and cinematography are interesting. I just wasn't convinced with the story line. Worth watching though.
I will not deny this movie its strengths. It is a thing of beauty to behold, the score is perfect and Cumberbatch's performance really is something else. Subtleties, metaphor and foreshadowing are strong and used to great effect, and I'm sure another viewing will highlight many of the details missed during the wonderment of the initial viewing. However, I can't shake the feeling that the pace of the plot is all over the place here, as well as the actual depth of the story being about as shallow as a muddy puddle. It seems to speak in riddles, only to beat the viewer over the head with the message shortly after. It builds tension and strife between key players, only to have it fizzle out in the last 5 minutes. Impact is lost completely for nearly all pivotable moments, and I can't help but feel this movie is a series of whimpers after some of the best build up in the business.
Maybe another viewing will shine some light and make me appreciate this the way that others seem to be, but as it stands right now it's just a gorgeous movie with some solid acting and a captivating score, marred by a threadbare story and some atrocious pacing that lets everything it's built down at the last hurdle. Good but a far cry from greatness for me.
Shout by Miguel A. ReinaBlockedParent2021-12-04T11:42:33Z
[Netflix] The film masterfully handles subtext, it has an emotional background that is expressed without the need for dialogue. The filming in New Zealand gives an almost dreamlike aspect to the landscapes of this anti-western, a kind of reverse of the genre. There is a constant tension that is shown in the distorted strings and sepulchral winds of Jonny Greenwood's music.