...the story was ultimately pointless, IMO.
Too much narration, too many time jumps, too convoluted, and the emotional payoff wasn't there for me in the end. Or, more accurately, not at the level it needed to be to justify sitting through this.
I thought the narration in this was pointless. It added nothing to film and mostly just described what you were watching. It's like they didn't have faith in the audience to follow the movie they made.
share
I just read that the movie was narrated by the author of the novel himself, and that the director felt very strongly about having him narrate.
But yeah, I don't know, I personally just didn't feel that it worked.
But overall I give the movie a 7 out of 10 for some powerful performances. đź‘Ť
They were just kinda wasted on this particular story.
It may be meandering and ambiguous, but it’s not pointless. You just have to be braced for a slow drama, degenerate characters, lots o’ narration (by the author of the book), time jumps, convoluted storytelling and a muted emotional payoff.
It's a slow-burn Southern Gothic psychological drama with crime thrills in the mold of "Undertow" (2004) mixed with the dismal rural tone of, say, “Winter’s Bone” (2010), “Mud” (2012), “Joe” (2013) and “1922” (2017).
The bleak story emphasizes the deep mysteries of life, like man’s brutality to fellow man, premature death, unanswered prayer, religious misbelief/error, justification of sin, corrupt authority figures, the downward spiral of a criminal lifestyle, divine justice (whether you perceive it or not), hope and, maybe, redemption. For me, it didn’t become compelling until the last 50-55 minutes (it runs 2 hours, 16 minutes).
The movie doesn’t ridicule people who believe in Christianity, as some have criticized, but rather realistically shows how certain individuals with mental issues can misinterpret the Scriptures or the Spirit’s leading, as well as use their position to serve their carnal interests rather than serve people.
There are weird and disturbing aspects that are gut-wrenching or disgusting, but the author based these things on real-life cases.
It’s a quality production with convincing acting/costuming/sets/locations, but the snaky downbeat story isn’t for everyone.
Of the films you mention I saw Undertow and Winter's Bone, and outside of that I also saw A Dark Place (a/k/a Steel Country) which I watched purely for Andrew Scott. Yeah, definitely not my kind of genre. I specifically remember all the hoopla surrounding Winter's Bone and Jennifer Lawrence at the time, and was very underwhelmed and thought it was hugely overrated.
Yeah, after all the hype, I thought "Winter's Bone" was overrated too, but Jennifer looked good in tight jeans. I still appreciated it though for what it was -- a bleak backwoods crime drama.
share