MovieChat Forums > Green Room (2016) Discussion > There's something tonally wrong with the...

There's something tonally wrong with the film; or, What did I miss?

posted 8 years ago by calvintoronto
2 replies | jump to latest

I had heard a good deal about how tense this film is; that it's "horror"; that it is tightly edited and well-acted; that it's different; and so on. I'd like to address these and get some feedback.

[SPOILERS]

1) Tension and horror: I will state right off that I do not and cannot watch true horror films (such as Hostel et al), although I have in the past. Tension I can handle, and *in that context* I can handle (some) gruesomeness and violence. But I found that "horror" aspects of the film -- particularly the dogs munching at the necks of the victims -- were gross more so than they were frightening or even tension-inducing. This is where the tonal problem arises for me. I'm trying to figure out how I'm supposed to care (more) about the musical quartet and thus be affected. The film clearly sets them up as relatively decent people in contrast to the Nazis and drug dealers they are up against. But when they get knocked off, it's as though the film switches and tries to be "horror", with the result that such scenes were like outtakes from horror films in the middle of what is supposed to be a thriller. (The genres may be complementary but not synonymous IMHO.) I know that in horror films, the victims are usually 2-D; but this film appears to want to make them 3-D yet they end up with 2-D deaths. They die -- and it's out-of-sight-out-of-mind.

2) The leader (Patrick Stewart) is a great actor, classically trained etc. But here he's supposed to be a sociopath, and he frightened me about as much as My Little Pony. I'm wondering if he misplayed the role. All his minions are so afraid of him, but I just didn't buy it. With that in mind, his marshaling of killing off the musicians, comes across as far less ruthless than I expected from someone like him. I didn't find, either, that his minions were true believers, especially Gabe, who initially comes across as politically smart but turns out to be a wuss. If this was meant to be a commentary on how idiotic these neo-Nazis are, well, fine; but it makes the film read as afraid of its convictions.

3) So much of what happens, happens in the dark. When Tiger and Reece are killed, I couldn't figure out what was happening (or even that it was happening to them, in particular). When the film decides that it's going to be turn-the-tables, Pat and Amber settle on the couch for a chat about paintball etc. Pat's arm has been hacked brutally and he should (still) be just groaning in pain, thus the "why am I not panicking" comment, meant to allay such questions. Then Amber takes out a marker and, we later find, she's marked up their faces. Is this a comedy now? From here on in, you know that the two will survive: Pat's paintball story tells you as much. Then you see the dog trotting away a couple of times, and it's almost funny. Of course, you realize later why the film has given some attention to the dog; but at these earlier points it's almost, like Amber-and-Pat-the-warriors, somewhat comical. So much for tension, or at least maintaining it.

In sum, what I'd say is interesting attempt, but a failure at trying to be any one thing. Comments?

[–] Movie-Jay 8 years ago

I've seen it twice. It did nothing but make me depressed the first time. Saw it a 2nd time 9 months after I first saw it at TIFF just to see it with fresh eyes, and left depressed again.

There's no there there. What starts out as a movie that could go the way of Paul Schrader's "Light Of Day" about a regional band turns into a half-hearted slasher pic. It's not particularly entertaining or suspenseful or scary or thrilling or anything.

If you sell things right, you can take an audience anywhere, even if the world of the movie works in an alternate, parallel kind of universe to our own. I just didn't buy the club owner's decision-making. I mean, it's friggin' Capt. Piccard for chrissakes. He oozes natural thoughtfulness, moderation and intelligence. With a dead young woman on his hands threatening to potentially blow the cover of his drug operation, would this person really be noodling around with some rinky-dink, out-of-town punk band when he's got bigger things going on? They saw what they saw; he knows they saw what they saw, and....so what? There's never any doubt the kids just want to go about their way.

These characters don't ever get to be real characters. They're too busy being forced to do things according to machinations of the plot. It's downbeat, dank, sometimes rather listless, obvious, and with little energy pushing it along.

In the end, I can't say that this movie is saying anything. It's just a whole lot of ugliness and nihilism. I don't think there's another movie this year where I've deviated as much from the general consensus than I have on this one. I think this is an ugly little movie.

[–] neilcrossland 8 years ago

Have to agree with you here.
Very disappointing effort from the director of Blue Ruin.
There was no tension, the villains weren't scary (cardboard cut outs really), I couldn't have cared less for any of the band members and I was never engaged with the story or the characters. The only positive was the graphic violence, which was well done.
All quite easily forgettable, in general.