Reviews

I made a complete, 360-degree, about-face on this movie.

I came across The Power of the Dog while scrolling through Netflix and, having heard some vague buzz about it, decided to give it a look-see. Two hours later, I was downright angry. I HATED it, and was literally resentful of the fact that I had seemingly wasted two hours of my life on it. I found it deadly dull as well as poorly acted, maybe even somewhat inscrutable.

Then a funny thing happened.

Perhaps in an attempt to validate my negative opinion of the film, I started reading some of the reviews. To my surprise, not only were they largely positive, but they were quite eye-opening as well. Then I took it a step further: I downloaded the book onto my Kindle and spent the next few days immersed in that, looking for clues to a greater appreciation of the movie.

And NOW I see what all the fuss is about!

The Power of the Dog tells the story of Phil, a closeted homosexual "cowboy" and his mean-spirited reaction to the arrival on the scene of his brother's new wife Rose and her effeminate-appearing teenage son Peter. Phil becomes resentful of Rose for intruding into the family and into his way of life and seeks to intimidate and destroy her, but ends up being destroyed by Peter, who sees it as his duty to protect his beloved mother. What makes the story so edgy is the unspoken nature of the relationship - laden with tension - between Phil and Peter.

It is very rare for a movie to be better than the book on which it is based, but now having partaken of both, I would have to say that Jane Campion did a commendable job transferring this story to the screen. What I initially took as "deadly dull" plotting and "poor" acting in fact simply mirror - to a T - the content and pacing of the book. This was not a book full of action. Rather, it was an in-depth character study, as well as a view into personal motivations and inter-personal dynamics and machinations.

The plotline of the movie certainly "tweaks" the storyline of the book. For instance, the scene with Phil and the scarf is nowhere to be found in the book. But I feel this addition to the movie was necessary to accentuate an aspect of his character that was even more nuanced in the book. For the most part, however, despite a few additions which I thought to be essential to the understanding of this character study, the movie was remarkably faithful to the book in both plot and in tone.

A word about "Bronco Henry." He is the "ghost" character of this movie, if you will. (And I liked the fact that he does not appear as a casted actor.) Yes, his name is mentioned innumerable times in the book, but the movie makes a greater insinuation than does the book about his true role in Phil's life. Again, I felt this to be essential to the story.

The movie makes skillful use of foreshadowing techniques - even more so than did the book. The mention of anthrax and of the cuts to Phil's hard-working hands, for instance, could very easily have gotten lost in a 300-page book, but were put into better focus in the movie, although the subtlety was not lost and the ending still came as a surprise.

Notwithstanding my first impression of this movie as a whole, Benedict Cumberbatch was superb in the role of Phil. I thought - at first - that Jesse Plemons and Kirsten Dunst were the two worst actors that I had ever seen on screen, but then I came to the realization that they were both PERFECT for the roles as expressed in the book, the taciturn George and his fragile wife Rose. I almost feel like I owe them an apology. Kodi Smit-McPhee was also perfect as the "sissified" but calculating (and possibly sociopathic) Peter.

I recall reading somewhere that the book on which this story is based, having been published in 1967, had been out of print for many years. And that is a pity. I am glad to know that the release of the movie has pushed the book out of the shadows. Most people will not have the inclination to read the book - either before or after viewing the movie - but I found it to be an illuminating and worthwhile endeavor.

This movie is a western, a psychological thriller (even though truthfully it might not seem particularly "thrilling") and a tense family drama all rolled into one. A well-crafted movie (even if I did not think so at first) full of subtleties and nuances. In this movie, what goes UNspoken is everything! Definitely a thinking person's cinematic experience. SO glad I gave it a second chance!

OMG, this was one of the saddest, most depressing movies I've ever seen.

That's not to say that it wasn't a good movie, or even that I didn't like it, but this movie is definitely not for everyone.

John May is a nebbish, a cipher, an anonymous clerk in a ministry office whose job it is to settle the affairs of those poor souls who die without family or anyone to see them off to the great hereafter. I suppose his job might be considered to be the equivalent of the American public administrator. But John goes beyond the bare necessities of his job. If he is unable to track down any family members of the deceased, he sees to it himself that the deceased has a decent funeral and burial, even if that means that he and he alone is in attendance at the service. And if no family is found, John makes that individual part of his own (seemingly non-existent) family, painstakingly and reverentially placing photographs of the deceased in his own family album.

Seeing John in his daily life I could not help but call to mind Henry David Thoreau's famous quote to the effect that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." John May personifies that quote. We see him every day at work in the same drab office, and then going home to the same drab house and eating the same drab meal. His only interactions are with those in his job capacity, as there are no family members of friends in sight. He is quite well on the way to becoming one of the lost individuals he himself serves on the job.

He is a male Eleanor Rigby.

After John is terminated from his position (for being too "slow" and "inefficient") and things begin to look even bleaker for him, there is one ambiguous scene where it appears that he may even be contemplating suicide.

Toward the end of the film, one of his cases brings him together with a possible love interest and John – someone who appears never to have taken a chance or risk in his life – reaches out his hand (and his heart) and tries to forge a connection with this person. But just when it looks like his life may turn around for him…..Wham! Well, I won't give away the ending, but there is one scene that literally made me gasp "Oh no!".

I saw life in this movie: the absurdity and unfairness of life. It certainly does not present an optimistic point of view. And if you're looking for a happy ending, this is not the movie for you.

Although this is a quiet, slow -some (not I) might even say boring - movie, the final scene brought everything to a head, calling to mind the final scenes in both "Titanic" and "Schindler's List." Extremely moving. Extremely poignant. Bring your hankies, folks.

"Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close," while perhaps not the worst movie I've ever seen, was certainly one of the most disappointing.

I went to see this movie with great expectations, together with a friend who was "brave" enough to want to see it with me, another friend refusing to attend, fearing that it would be too emotionally wrenching. As it turns out, this movie was anything BUT emotionally wrenching. While aiming to be emotionally affecting, it was in fact just plain FLAT. I saw the film in New Jersey, an audience with close connections to the 9/11 tragedy, and while I could hear some viewers crying softly afterwards, I couldn't help but think that an audience that lacked the same nexus to the actual event could never have had such a visceral reaction to such a manipulative story.

The movie revolves around Oscar, son of the Tom Hanks character who dies in the World Trade Center. (Hanks plays a lowly jeweler in a run down neighborhood who owns a shop with pull-down metal security gates; it's a stretch to think that he would be having a "business meeting" at Windows on the World, but that's just one small implausibility in a movie chockful of them.) A year after "the worst day," as he refers to 9/11 throughout the film, Oscar cannot come to terms with his father's death and tries to maintain his link to him by obsessing over his personal possessions. One day while rummaging through his father's closet, he comes across a mysterious key in an envelope labeled "Black." Without going into too much detail, this discovery sends him on an odyssey through New York City to solve the mystery that this key will unlock, some clue that will hopefully bring him closer to his father.

I am all for suspending belief in the context of a motion picture (after all, what's wrong with pure entertainment?), but what follows is the most implausible, unbelievable, ridiculous storyline you can possibly imagine. For one thing, that Oscar's mother (played by the always sympathetic Sandra Bullock) would allow a mentally challenged young boy to traipse around NYC on his own is simply inconceivable. When we learn later on that she had figured out his bizarre, off-the-wall strategy and was actually shadowing him all along on his wild pursuits, it becomes even more absurd.

This movie had no climax and positively no resolution. My companion said she spent the entire movie "waiting for something to happen." Alas, nothing ever does. At the point in the film where the audience discovers what the key unlocks (which should have been some grand revelation), we hit a brick wall as the plot does not even disclose what is contained within the mysterious box! There is a tender scene where the owner of the box covers Oscar's hand with his own in an attempt to calm the distraught boy, which leads you to expect that perhaps the man will become an important part of the fatherless boy's life (a mentor, if you will) - which I think would have added nicely to the storyline - but nothing of the sort happens.

Similarly, you might expect that among the literally hundreds of people the boy meets in his quest, he might forge a few meaningful friendships that would bring him out of his neurotic shell, but that doesn't happen either.

Likewise, the concluding scene of Oscar swinging on a playground swing leaves potential untapped. In the wake of an earlier scene with his father, you would have expected something significant to happen at this point. Nothing does.

There is also a subplot about a mysterious, mute "renter," who turns out to be the boy's biological grandfather. But what was the intent or purpose of this character to the plot??

And all those references to a "sixth borough"?? What was THAT all about??

This movie went absolutely nowhere and had absolutely no resolution, or at best an unsatisfying one. I can only hope that the book on which this film was based fleshes out some of these themes and fills in some of these gaps.

The only redeeming features to this movie (and the reasons why I didn't give it fewer stars) were the excellent acting by the young actor in the role of Oscar and the cinematography.

One of the reviewers on this site dubbed this movie "Extremely Dull and Incredibly Pointless" and I would have to heartily agree with this assessment. I keep hearing that this is "the best movie of 2011." If this is the case, I think I'll skip the next Oscars presentation.

As soon as I heard about the new movie Insidious, I said "Oh boy, this is a MUST-SEE." For as long as I can remember, I have been a fan of this genre. I'm not talking about the Freddie/Jason slasher-type films or the torture/amputation sicko-flicks, but the truly psychological twisters that do a number on your head.

This is the story of a young family whose oldest child, Dalton, after a seemingly minor household accident, slips into a mysterious coma that medical science is unable to explain. Doctors and hospitals not being able to do anything for Dalton, his parents are forced to take the not-quite-living-but-not-quite-dead boy home where he lies in his room completely unresponsive. Spectral entities are soon haunting the house, or so it seems, but when the family moves to a new home, the haunting continues; hence the tagline: "It's not the house that's haunted." Turns out little Dalton has entered The Further, a sort of nether-world where evil spirits vie to inhabit his body. At some point his grandmother (played by Barbara Hershey) hires a psychic who sends the boy's father into The Further to search for him and hopefully bring him back via some sort of astral projection or out-of-body experience.

Insidious did not disappoint. Although highly derivative, that is not a bad thing here. It has elements of every one of my favorite ghost stories: The Haunting (haunted house, unexplained noises), The Innocents (possessed child, ghostly apparitions, eerie weeping), The Others (creepy climactic séance), Flatliners (crossing over into another realm) and Carnival of Souls (pale-faced ghoulies coming to get ya).

Very much like the aforementioned The Haunting, most of the early scares in Insidious rely on sound, lighting and camera angles. Because of the way tension builds up (like in Paranormal Activity), the sight of a face eerily appearing in a window, or a sudden loud noise, can make you jump out of your seat. The beginning of the movie is all about suggestion, mood and atmosphere, and what you don't see, which are the elements of the very BEST ghost stories.

Special commendation for the excellent editing. As much as you might want to shield your eyes in anticipation and dread while watching this movie, you won't want to miss some of the split-second spine-tingling images.

My only complaint is that the last one-third or so of the film was almost over-kill. The scares were so relentless toward the conclusion of the story, you barely have time to recover from one fright before another is foisted on you. Nevertheless, there are some truly frightening images in this movie.

I have seen many many such movies (and have read even more such novels) and I consider myself pretty jaded and not easily frightened, but I am a little embarrassed to admit that one scene in particular actually made me scream out loud in the movie theater - a first for me! By film's end, my heart was literally pounding.

If you are highly suggestible or prone to nightmares, do not see this film, but if you are truly a fan of a good ghost/haunted house story, do not miss Insidious. Got to be one of the scariest movies of all time.

"There But for Fortune" is an excellent documentary on the life and career of the over-looked folk/protest singer Phil Ochs.

Overshadowed by his contemporary (and idol) Bob Dylan, Phil Ochs never received his due. And this is greatly surprising since his music was more melodious and more "palatable" than Dylan's.

Watching this movie, I am astounded that he never achieved greater notoriety. For someone who seemingly had everything going for him (good looks, a gorgeous dulcet voice and a rare gift for writing songs that alternated between beautiful and biting), it's amazing to me that he never became a bigger name.

His songwriting was masterful, often touching upon topics of the day (e.g. "A Small Circle of Friends" being inspired by the Kitty Genovese story). His voice was haunting and beautiful. Songs such as "Changes" and "Pleasures of the Harbor" are simply exquisite.

Phil Ochs spent the 1960s writing and performing protest music, much of it targeted at the Vietnam War ("The War is Over," "I Ain't Marchin' Anymore," etc.). Tragically - and ironically - upon the ending of the war, he became un-moored. Perhaps feeling that he had lost his purpose, he sank into a deep depression and, within a few years, was dead by his own hand.

This is a very well put together film - including interviews with his brother and sister, his wife and daughter, and numerous friends in "the cause." And, luckily, there is a surprising amount of footage on this individual who never really reached a great measure of fame.

Even I, someone who was always "into" popular music, had not become familiar with Phil Ochs until after he was gone. If you ask me, why this supremely talented individual was not a bigger name in American popular music is one of the mysteries of the ages.

The producers of this film have done the viewing public a great service. It's just unfortunate that only those people who already know of Phil Ochs will likely go out and see it. On the other hand, this movie paints a portrait not only of Phil Ochs the singer, but of America in the 1960s. So, by all rights this film should have wider appeal as a piece of history, with Phil Ochs at the center of a very tumultuous period. One can only wonder in sadness what kind of music he would be writing today at the age of 70, given the fact that we find ourselves once again embroiled in another questionable war.

I just recently finished reading Never Let Me Go. I have very rarely been so intrigued by the subject matter of a book and at the same time so bored by its style. Never Let Me Go, the book, was deadly dull. Still, I was so intrigued, as I say, by the plight of these characters, that I was compelled to see how the book translated to the big screen. You might say I felt this novel and original storyline deserved a second chance.

All in all, I give the movie adaptation a thumbs up, with one big caveat: I think those who did not read the book first would be left scratching their heads. While the book was slow and plodding (and devoted MUCH too much detail to certain occurrences in the storyline), nevertheless it offered the opportunity for reflection on the subtleties of what was taking place. Given the pacing of a typical movie, if you blink, you might miss something momentous and I think that was the case with this movie, so it certainly helped to have read the book prior to seeing the film. The screenwriters did an excellent job of condensing the book, and I felt, after having read it, that condensing was precisely what this otherwise compelling and poignant story required.

Never Let Me Go was a lyrical and visually beautiful production. The accompanying musical score was appropriate to a sad and heartbreaking story. The acting was terrific - especially by Cary Mulligan whose sad eyes reveal the melancholy of her character, and Keira Knightly, especially in the hospital scene where she portrays a nearly depleted "donor." I didn't care much for the male lead, but his one outbreak of emotion upon having his hopes of a "deferral" dashed was very significant. And the character of Miss Lucy comes across as more sympathetic in the movie than in the book.

My criterion for a good movie is this: If it stays with me once I hit the sidewalk in front of the theater, rather than evaporating like smoke, well, that's a good movie. Never Let Me Go has stayed with me. The ending left me with a feeling that although these fictionalized characters were little more than lab rats, we all, in a sense, share a similar fate. Life is short, loss hurts, live and love while you can.

It rarely happens that I enjoy a movie adaptation more than the book on which it was based, but I would have to say that was the case here. Bravo.

I just caught this movie last night on IFC. I found it totally engrossing and liked it very much, although I can't quite say why. All I know is that with its quiet realism, this movie was the perfect example of why I prefer "indie"-type movies over blockbuster-type mainstream American films.

To me, this movie had a theme very similar to the recent "500 Days of Summer." Although "500 Days" was more in a comedic vein, in both movies, the male lead - try as he might to get the female lead to love him (or stay in love with him) - ends up getting his heart broken.

Flannel Pajamas is about the quick spark but ultimate disintegration of a relationship. It had no readily recognizable climax; in fact, I spent most of the two hours tensely waiting for one, but the fact that one never materialized only served to underscore that real life often does not contain such obvious turning points. In particular, I kept expecting Stuart to have an emotional meltdown - on the heels of both his brother's suicide and his wife's departure - but that never really happens (although the heart-wrenching scene in Times Square of Stuart watching from the sidelines as a child happily runs into the arms of his waiting father comes pretty close).

Some of the reviews I've read on this site speak of neither character being "likeable." To the contrary, I liked Stuart very much. From the way he is introduced in the opening scenes, I expected not to like him, but by film's end, I was scratching my head as to why any woman would want to leave a man who is handsome, rich, thoroughly in love with her, and eager to please her in every way. In contrast, I found Nicole flaky, utterly selfish and impossible to please. The fact that she whines over Stuart's never actually having said "I do" at their wedding made me want to gag. And the fact that she chided him for never wanting to hold hands anymore - this when he just tenderly takes her hand - made me want to slap her. More significantly, the fact that she would intentionally try to get pregnant despite her prior agreement with Stuart to wait two years is one of the most under-handed things I can imagine taking place in a relationship. Much is made of Nicole's dysfunctional family, a family marked by divorce and abuse. Perhaps this is the root of her inability to maintain a stable relationship. It must be, as I find no fault with the sympathetic Stuart. To me, Stuart is the aggrieved character here; it broke my heart to see him so broken-hearted.

I must say I was baffled by the last scene of Stuart being brought to laughter by the sight of a pinwheel. The movie would have benefited greatly from the opportunity for that final "Aha!" moment, but alas one was not forthcoming.