Reviews

What a waste of money and all the effort that went into creating this dull, unimaginative, predictable, amateurish production. From the beginning the ominous music dominated and was very off-putting and was like a poor indicator over-trying when the acting and dialogue simply could not build any tension or believability.

The two 'actors' enturing into the forest totally unconvincing they were scientists, the dialogue for the half hour I watched before abandoning the film was so prescriptive, full of platitudes and stupid content, the whole thing reeked of unreality, it totally put me off. After the man cut his foot in the forest, why did the two of them abandon everything they owned and carried on tramping through the forest barefoot and with no indication where they were going?

Sadly, three errors undermine the reality of this film which otherwise had great pathos.The first glaring error was when the opthalmologist became frustrated with Bardem who understandably because of his condition/illness could not understand or take instruction as a normal person, the error being that his daughter clearly did not explain before the exam that her father had dementia as shown by the opthalmologist asking her if her father was 'all there'. How could a caring person (the daughter) not warn anyone dealing with a parent with dementia be so unthinking as to not do this? The second error is a repeat of this, when in the clothes warehouse the security guard tackles Bardem to the floor and all the daughter can say is 'my father is confused'. That doesn't help her father or those dealing with his unusual behaviour--anyone with a bit of sense would make it abundantly clear that Bardem was suffering from dementia, so that others would then treat him more sensitively. The third error concerns the daughter repeatedly excusing herself from an important meeting at her work which involved an important project she had undertaken. It seems that because she didn't make it into work that day, someone else or their work was chosen above her(s). At no point does she explain the truth about why she couldn't get into work ie that she was having to deal with her very ill father; instead she gave mumbled, ineffectual excuses which most likely sounded very lame to her boss or whoever was calling her from her work. Why the hell wouldn't she convey the gravity of her situation when she might then get some understanding and sympathy from her workplace? These are clearly errors in the script, odd that neither the director nor anyone else picked up on them. For em there were jarring, unrealistic moments in the film which accordingly undermined its plausibility.

Such an exceptionally breathtaking film, visually that is; I found the orchestral soundtrack so distracting that it spoiled the experience and I had to shut off audio. Poor writing of the music score, it is far too demonstrative, like it's continually crying for attention instead of its role as a support for the film -- after all a film is overwhelmingly about visual experience, audio should play a supportive part and not be trying to dominate with, as here, a continually strident, demanding presence. The score is too energetic for a film which inspires awe and wonderment. And, sad to say because I absolutely love his film acting, it was a mistake to use Willem Dafoe as narrator. He just doesn't seem comfortable or natural to me, this is an inspiring, superbly made film which demands a relatively anonymous voice which will not distract; using a famous voice like Dafoe's or George Clooney's begs the question--why? Alongside the fact that the first five minutes I listened to of the soundtrack before muting it, presented a wholly vapid, useless narrative. There are so many wonderful voices suited to this work by a large cadre of voice-over artists, who add to the effect of a great documentary, why on earth don't actors stick to their primary skill? Such a shame, such a brilliant film otherwise.

Very sad that as much as I am absolutely crazy about dogs, and had looked forward to watching an inspiring film, I just found that the seemingly endless sledding by Willem Dafoe just too far-fetched to be believable. All the constant cracking of the ice (hooray for CGI) as he and his dog team raced across the bay was so CGI-overladen that it positioned itself alongside the plethora of like films which over-use CGI to such an extent as to lose all sense of realness. Especially the scene where the lead dog Togo stop inches away from a huge precipice after an out-of-control rush down an implausibly steep mountainside, this was just so unreal(istic. Odd also that throughout the hour or so I watched of the film not once did Dafoe feed his dogs, which seems a huge error. The obvious play of emotion using children likely to die of diphtheria was again so Hollywood, and let's face it there are few films out of Hollywood which approach anything like believable. FIlms of course are about imagination, creativity, adventure, etc, but instinct tells me before the words come into my head that a film is just not crafted well enough so as to persuade me and carry me along in its story. Sad that a great, inspirational story didn't attract the right director who could have honoured it by making an inspiring, believable film.

I stopped watching this film less than 10 minutes in after the scene of an idiot beating mercilessly a young dog, not necessary, gratuitous, does nothing to validate whatever else is good, if anything, about this film or all the positive reviews it has garnered. This just shows the insensitivity of this director and introduces an irredeemable flaw to his work. Also, other hugely annoying things within these first ten minutes were the stupid portrayal of a very young girl left seemingly alone in a field with a pack of large dogs, including what looked like one of the most idiotic dogs alive and which any vaguely intelligent country would ban (the UK has, the US tolerates and encourages them, but then again the US voted for an empty-headed moron for its president), ie a pitbull plus German Shepherds, which any sensitive person would be concerned over for the child's safety. And to let this pack of dogs harass cows and horses or mules is again a demonstration, albeit a film, of stupidity. Also hugely annoying was the antiquated format of the film, and the ridiculous distortion of the edges of the film's frame as though it's trying to emulate that of a smartphone video. I've deleted this film from my collection and will approach Reygadas's other films I have with scepticism.

Wonderful cinematography and quality, however, after numerous attempts to understand what was going on in the film, I eventually gave up and deleted it from my library. Too abstract and non-linear, all the acting and staging elegant but if it's incomprehensible, then what's the point?

Just a few minutes into this film and the storyline destroyed all authenticity.

The very fact that when Julia Stiles complained to the local sheriff about serious, criminal harassment and attack on her person together with the killing of her cat by a man well known to the sheriff, and he shrugging his shoulders saying that nothing could be done about it, is absolutely ludicrous and destroys any authenticity for this story from the very outset.

The sheriff is not a moron, he showed empathy for Stiles' recently died mother, so the writing of this character really needed to be more realistic. Clearly the book's author wanted to create a story where Stiles is further pursued and bothered by this maniac, but surely he and the screenwriter should have been aware of the massive improbability of a sheriff reacting in this way.

I was unable to continue watching what looked like a promising movie, with great actors, beautiful cinematography, and score, such a pity, it looked really promising, sad that the poor plot destroyed it at the very beginning.

Whilst the film started out well ie atmospheric tension built well, I soon discovered a major flaw which undermines its principle premise of the family not being able to talk with each other. Why on earth can't they whisper in each other's ears? Then all the ridiculous gesturing and pseudo-sign language becomes redundant. The lethal creatures out there don't react to the gentle shuffling of human feet on the floor, walking through vegetation etc, gentle whispering has an even lower decibel count than these and would not attract a lethal response. I got as far as Emily Blunt stepping on the nail in the wooden stair tread, then thought this so ridiculous that I ditched the film. How come there is a big nail suddenly sticking upwards at least an inch out of a stair tread when the family will have been up and down those stairs endless times prior? And for a nail to be sticking UP means it was hammered from below, another totally implausible idea. And the idae that this was a bent nail which was straightened upwards by her pulling on the caught bag doesn' work either, a nail that size/thickness would not un-bend so easily. When she went up the stairs the bag she was carrying had caught on this nail and, stupidly, she just yanked on the nail to free the bag. Another stupid action which common sense dictates you would not do given the scenario of needing to keep totally silent. And the momentary glimpses of some long-limbed horror creature is dumb also, much better to have not shown the source of the killings of people and of animals, the human imagination works wonderfully when things are not obvious but hinted at.