Why I liked it


We just saw this film last night and found it to be a nice little gem.
Stormare is - like always- brilliant, he truly carried the film.

Not sure why so many in here disliked it. It had a good premise, told a story, had a tight atmosphere and the soundtrack was awesome.

Everything is relative, so is the taste of moviegoers - you can´t please everyone - and our opinion is subjective.

But I found that the music was strong and a thread that kept the theme in the film together: a mix of folk and gospel: strong themes in the film: folk (the microcosmos of the small town) and religion (gospel).

I didn´t see much Coen brothers in it, nor too many lose ends.
There was some ambiguity as to who Stormare beat up earlier, but I found that irrelevant. Who did it, in the end, wasn´t obvious, but nicely hinted towards by the director.

And to create a film like this, within 75 minutes of running time, approx. 75 pages of script, is rare in these days of massive explosions, car-chases and one man versus everything .



--------------------------------------
"One day my log will have something to say about this."

reply

I agree that the script was incredible. Very tight, well-written; the protagonist was superb. I hate to sound like those reviewers who do not take the time to write grammatically, but unfortunately: What was Mr. Gass/Donnelly *thinking*? The old-gospel chant worked--once--but finally became so intrusive as to make me ask if the film were written in the service of the music.

When that happens (and here, it was a downright tragedy), a viewer isn't blithe saying that the film fails. Very unusual, this situation, but nevertheless true. The music destroyed whatever atmosphere of suspense the film was supposed to build.

Finally, the seventy-five minutes' brevity betrayed the mystery genre. The brevity called to mind last decade's A History of Violence. WAS this film supposed to be a mystery and character study? If so, it fell short of both in that much more development and red herrings could have been cast--within the excellent cast. I wanted to know if the sheriff's/constable's deputy could have done it. If not, why the scenes of his family life? They weren't contrapuntal to any of the brilliantly acted scenes between Stormare and Plimpton. What was their purpose? Or for that matter the purpose of other locals, such as the elderly woman with the beautifully expressive face?

I wanted to love this film but couldn't.

reply

I think you're on to something...as I reflect I kind of saw it as a character study of redemption...or perhaps true conversion. There were many red herrings in the film: the other deputy; the night-laborers; the odd religious community; the new boyfriend; and even the main character. I found myself wondering throughout when the other shoe was going to drop. Nice tension.

I found myself asking throughout: Did he really change? Is he framing his enemy? Am I seeing the truth? In the end, it's a pure film. We've become so cynical. Here's true redemption: not in words, but deeds. He proves he has changed by his choices. We would have all understood (or expected) if he had chose differently.

reply

It wasn't a mystery.

This film is about Walter and his violent past. Can he overcome it? Can he act in a way that befits his new way of living? Can people truly change or he is the same person as he used to be?

The "mystery" is a sideshow. The real conflict is within Walter.

I loved the music. I felt like it was absolutely perfect and totally made the film.

I don't think this film could be any better. It's rare that I feel that way.

reply