Nichols's understated, intelligent approach to storytelling is as always appreciated, but in this case things didn't really seem to come together or have any deeper impact. The story just felt kind of thin and slight, never quite capturing the palpable urgency it was clearly trying for. Perhaps it would have been better if the film had started at an earlier point, laying more groundwork instead of entering at the point where the kidnapping had already taken place with our nominal heroes on the run (it might have also given more weight and substance to the whole deal with the "funny farm" - something that's discarded and forgotten about almost as soon as it's introduced). It also doesn't help that Michael Shannon turns in a performance that's not as compelling as one is used to seeing from him - although this seems to be more like the writer's fault. And ultimately there's the inevitable question - what's it all amount to? What's the takeaway, the point? No great answer to that seems to emerge.
Anyway it's not a bad movie exactly, but based on Nichols's previous Shotgun Stories and Take Shelter, more was expected. 6-6,5/10.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
reply
share
EyeInSky
8 years ago
Jeff Nichols was both the director and the writer.
I didn't feel the "loss of impact" with the story... mainly because I was able to sense the transition of the main protagonist. Initially we (the audience) thinks it's centered around the boy but in actuality it is centered around the boy's father... and the loss of both parents. There were a few subtle moments that really drove an emotional punch (the family hug scene in particular).
I think most people are accustomed to the crying scenes to illicit an emotional response from us (as the audience). But here I felt Jeff Nichols (and the cast) succeeded in achieving it without resorting to a "tear jerker" scene... something I'm certain films like Manchester by the Sea would have (not to discredit them).
Nichols's approach is different, and certainly not for everyone. The best comparison I can make (again) is like the movie Hugo. If you "got" the dramatic shift from the boy to the old shopkeeper you will have a good chance at "getting" the shift from the spellbound boy to his father.
Two other scenes I thought were subtle, yet amazing. When the father first loses his son he is near suicidal. He almost steps in front of moving cars on the busy street. Also the other loving embrace when it was just the father and son out in the field... and the father was obviously very nervous about his son possibly dying from the sun exposure right then and there.
So many "wow" moments that are done intelligently and subtle. While other wow moments were in-your-face (the nighttime driving scene, the crashing of the satellite, and the shooting at the hotel, etc.).
My advice is to give this film a 2nd look... even if it didn't quite "click" with the nay-sayer the first time.
reply
share