I disagree. I thought this was an amazingly well crafted and acted movie, full of nuance. No, it wasn't a Hollywood blockbuster, nor an action film. No sound and fury. I suspect that it may resonate more with an older audience, those who have had full and long lives with the inevitable "what if" questions about the turn of events and the unfolding of their own lives and those of others they knew when they were children. Those who, having reached a certain age, find many of the people they cared about, parents, children, friends, have passed away, leaving them with the lingering question of "why me? why did I survive?" and the sense of doubt of purpose fulfilled, with the way your own life turned out, that you may have misused the gift. How difficult it must be to see again for the first time in 40 years people you shared such a strong bond in the face of terror, to see people who not merely shaped your life, but saved it. And how courageous. I also really liked the central plot device of a shared meal, the preparations for it, the cooking, the crown roast, the meal interrupted, and finished, with a certain uneasy but joyful resolution, in the morning for breakfast. "If you want to live, you must eat," taken from a meal of mere imagination to one so delicious you could almost taste it. "Single malt. Drink up." "Nutmeg." I loved the scene with the son cooking the apples, each turned so carefully. I also liked the way the natural world was linked to the meal, in some frightening and sacramental way hunting brings you in touch with the wild, with all of the contradictions in that. "I used to be a hunter." "I killed a man." As opposed to the raising of cattle for slaughter and consumption and disconnectedness of the grocery filet wrapped on a plastic try. And the simple beauty of a grandparent sharing his grandchild's delight with another his own age.
You could be right.
But maybe I was yawning a little too hard to actually notice the symbolism and stuff...