Explain why this movie is good


I had a lot of expectations but I have to agree with other nay sayers. Nice photography and music. But really the storyline? No more than what's been done so many times.... I was kind of dumb founded at the end. I am a big fan of R Mara and C Affleck and became a fan of Ben foster, plus the little girl was adorable but again... There is nothing interesting going on in this film. I love Malick movies and this movie will remind people of Malick movies but Malick movies work because they have ideas and simple ideas but explored further than they have been before. I love long takes, wordless scenes, scenic inserts, and most of these in this movie are nicely done by the actors and cinematographer but for what?? For just another outlaw, bonnie and clyde story plus the heroic antagonist. I almost feel short changed/scammed by the director as if he disguised this boring movie with visually aesthetic photography, good acting and music. If I missed something and anyone wants to shed a light on it is welcome to do so.

reply

It's not good. Flat characters, standard acting, pedestrian pace and thoroughly lacking any thought process into a plot. For my it was almost like an overview concerning a few years of the characters life, d r a g g e d o u t for 90mins - at a pace (again I know) that could be described as slow at best. I agree however the photography of rural texas was fantastic.

I was hoping for so much more; and with some proper character development, a good script writer, and a direction in which to take the film, those expectations could have been met.... Not much to ask for eh?



I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this is the Internet BOOK Database.

reply

[deleted]

The storyline was weak. One had to buy that the Mara character never wrote her husband while in prison. One had to buy that the only time she invites the sheriff over is on her child's birthday AND knowing that her husband is out there *somewhere*. One also had to buy that the sheriff gets off a shot at a killer standing around in the middle of a neighborhood looking like a cowboy and being a oh so convenient target. (All those killers were pretty stupid about getting themselves wounded or killed for that matter).

I could have accepted that somewhat, but the dialog between the characters was so contrived and weak. I usually love Affleck but his timing seemed off as well in a few of the scenes. Foster stumbled around with some his lines too, (a hole as big as the Texas sky?).

Beautiful imagery and music, but the movie failed me when it had to get the characters a'talking. I have been watching some of the early silent movies-Sunrise and City Girl. Maybe this movie would have been better as a silent film evoking *yearning* and *coming home* with nary a word said, using the cinematography and mood to get the story across.

reply

[deleted]

Another smug post which puts forth the idea that one reviewer is the only one who *gets* a film. I watch foreign films too and of what I have seen of the newer French films, they pretty much have a faster pace than they used to have. This is true about most modern *foreign* films.

Vibe was good, imagery was good, long tracking shots were wonderful. Story and dialog supporting the story were weak. But then I guess you are saying only people who like slow moving French films of old would realize they should/would like it?

Lordy.

reply

I'm not sure what response you are looking for. Do you want to know why others liked it or why you are supposed to like it? If you want the former, you can simply browse through this topic and you will find explanations. If you want a more polished review of the film, find a critic who liked it (there were a number of them) and mentally jab with them. If you want to know why YOU are supposed to like it, then there is no answer. Maybe for you it wasn't a good film. No response will be satisfactory to you because given your own tastes and biases the film will not work for you. End of story.

reply

The movie ain't good. So there is no need to explain anything.

reply

[deleted]

At the end, I thought it would have been so much better if Mara just looked into the room where Affleck sat stricken from his gunshot wound. After longing for each other throughout the movie, she just turned and left with their child to start a new life. No sweet embrace and no passionate last words. She just sees him and leaves with a tear welling in her eyes. The love they shared was too painful to endure the last moment of his life and so she chooses to go on without saying goodbye and dealing with his loss. That way she can fool herself that he may still be alive.


Wow, you'd have Ruth be cruelly callous, eh!! I think you missed something in Mara's portrayal of Ruth if you believe she could have done that...

I also think what a horrible resolution to have to the film when you've spent over an hour yearning for Bob to see his family one more time (even if you may simultaneously not want him to, knowing it is not the best thing for Ruth or Sylvie, surely everyone yearned for it at least a bit?)

I'm curious why you didn't like the ending though. Did you not like how emotional it was? Did you think it didn't fit with the characters or film?

But, we all enjoy different things anyway. I mean, for me this scene:

the scenes where Affleck momentarily stops brooding and starts a dialogue seem out of place in the movie. Notably where he recalls his friend wearing a jacket that didn't fit.


Was easily one of my favourite in the film! Certainly it is my favourite dialogue-based scene!!! Also, I may add, one of the most emotional dialogue scenes in my view.

Anyway, the film is more about the feeling and mood it creates in itself and within the viewer in my view. For me that worked so beautifully that this film is incredibly powerful, but anything where it's strength is in it's tone and mood and feeling is unlikely to be beloved by everyone because while everything is subjective, this kind of thing is a lot more subjective than, say plot, character and dialogue: it has a lot more to do with personal taste. And, if you don't feel something, you just don't feel it.

Aaanyway!

reply

[deleted]

I don't think Ruth is the kind of person to deny reality in that way, though. I mean, "The love they shared was too great for death to intervene." just seems like words to me. Had Ruth done something like this she would have denied Bob any sort of resolution and last moments with her and the chance to see his daughter (other than in the arms of another man) so, if you imagine that since Bob got so close, had he just stayed well away he probably could have lived somewhere anonymously and had his freedom for the rest of his life... then essentially Bob though not intentionally in the end of the ilm sacrifices his life for Ruth (as she and Sylvie will be better off without him) yet she'd just ignore him? Also, if she ignores his death she certainly won't move on in the future. She'll be stuck in some way that though tragic and awful now, at least she has chance to move on from in the end.

In my view, the only way to have the ending you would like (I do see why you think it would be powerful) would be for Patrick not to have driven Ruth back to the house: to have instead insisted that he would go there first to make sure it was safe and to have Bob die while Ruth is still far away. I'm not sure why I am still spoiler tagging this because if anyone is still reading I am sure they have seen the film! Anyway...!!! I think you'd need to physically keep them apart to have your ending.

For me, I find the ending perfect because you both get that resolution you have been craving for the whole film, and yet also you don't get it. Bob glimpses his daughter; Ruth holds him; but that's it. It's both satisfying and unsatisfying and most importantly, in story-terms it is the way it has to be which, for me lends the ending a Shakespearian quality: you know, tragic endings but also the right ending for the story in question. I find the ending utterly beautiful: not just in what happens at the end, but in how it's woven in with those memories of Bob's vision of his family's future: a vision that even here Bob is still clinging to.

In terms of Ruth: of course she is conflicted in her feelings. She knows Bob puts her daughter in danger, and she has grown up where he has not, but at the same time I think the film is clear how much Ruth still loves him. It doesn't show Ruth as for example not loving Bob any more, but starting to love Patrick passionately and feeling only that she owes Bob. Bob knows a part of Ruth that despite that she ha changed is still a part of her; the love they had for one another was in a sense the way Bob describes it in that mirror speech - it is Romantic notions in a way, yet in another way the film seems to show Ruth sensing when Bob is close; Ruth tells Sylvie stories about her Father - keeps him alive in her mind and Sylvie herself must wonder about the man; Ruth even has a draw full of all the items that are Bob's: his shirt, the letters, the new letter he writes and so on.

I don't think the film is totally clear on whether, say, had Bob arrived at the house that first time and Patrick had not been there, might Ruth and Sylvie have actually gone with him? Ruth was certainly conflicted in what she wanted to do. She told Bob to stay away in the letter he never got and at the same time that she wanted nothing more than for him to come. All this created more yearning for me as around that time when Bob comes to the house, he's just given the speech about all their connection and love and you've also just seen they have new identity papers - it's really the single place in the film that you feel maybe there's a tiny chance they could all get out of this together and start anew.

Also, on top of all the love that I think is genuinely there on both sides, despite the fact that Ruth sees the world in a more realistic way whereas Bob does not... Ruth does feel she owes Bob. Alright, returning to Ruth now is not the best thing for her, but he did go to prison for her. He did protect Ruth and Sylvie then. She does owe him too in a way.

I am sure I read somewhere that there was at one stage a different ending in which everyone (as in Ruth, Bob and Sylvie) died. Perhaps it went the way I imagined above? So, though I longed for Ruth and Sylvie to have had a chance to go with Bob (I know it was wrong for them really, but I couldn't help long for it anyway) if they had done this, well after that Bob headed to his farm - so if they'd either gone there with him to pick up his money or met there like in his letter, they'd have all happened on those bounty hunters rather than just Bob. And, I guess it's likely enough that all of them could end up dead. So really, the way I desperately wanted it would likely have resulted in the most tragic ending imaginable.

Aaanyway. Yes, that ending: what has to be, a tiny amount of resolution, Bob's final sacrifice, the possibility for a future for Ruth and Sylvie and most of all the juxtaposition of this tragic-est of realities and Bob's vision not just for their immediate future, but this dream he had even of their life together when old was the perfect ending.

reply

[deleted]

I see your point. It is a mythic tale in which even though I have much to say on the characters, they remain slightly out of grasp, not quite substantial. For me, the ending is poetic, but I do see how your ending gives Ruth a fairytale aspect to keep in her heart. I suppose it could have kept that yearning ache going past the end of the film in a different way.

For me, as well as responding to the direct events, I felt Bob's death was also a kind of death of fantasy itself. With him die his dreams. And the film is cut as though it's Ruth who is remembering in this moment Bob weaving that future (in my view at least: the way the ending is intercut with flashbacks of the car - it's like those flashbacks are Ruth remembering their last happy moment together and indeed Bob's dreams). Which makes it feel like his dream is there somewhere in her heart too. It heightens the gulf between tragic reality and Bob's vision of their future.

I feel it's important for Ruth to be there: for Bob, to resolve his ache for her (and ours as the audience! I don't think I could have coped had they not even seen each other again!!) and to repay him a little for his sacrifice for her freedom, but most importantly for Ruth - it paves the path for her to move on, for no matter how much she knows the reality of her life now, how can you let go of such beautiful (if impossible) dreams?

I kind of feel that the way the film ends allows Ruth a resolution and the audience the chance to feel there could be a happy future for her and Sylvie. At the same time, her memory of Bob as it's shown at the end does I think convey an endless love she'll hold for Bob. Maybe Bob would call it a kind of love that could transcend death? Ruth would perhaps be more practical and just know she'd never forget him.

In a way I can't articulate the end of the film also made me feel something about imagination, fantasy, dreams and the stories we all weave... and indeed the storytelling in film. I don't know: something about our dreams and the stories we read, watch and tell and our realities and... what's important? Their power? That made loads of sense, haha!!

reply

I liked the whole movie because it was thoughtful and complex. I liked the ending most of all. It wasn't too depressing nor too upbeat, not too sappy nor too nihilistic. Also I thought the little girl was adorable. I am tired of drama movies with screaming instead of acting and crazy things that would never happen in real life. This movie seemed rooted in reality.

reply

What purpose did the inept Ben Foster serve in this film,other than to drag the real actors down and why was a morally bankrupt wife stealing coward doing in book or film.
That Foster is one homely son of a gun.

reply

[deleted]