After a pile of disparaging reviews at Cannes, I was skeptical after seeing this film's trailer. The film's reception had led to only getting limited theatrical releases throughout early 2015, and the movie otherwise was placed straight-to-DVD and video on demand. These are very bad signs for almost any movie.
Despite these factors, there seemed to be tons of promise in what was presented. I anticipated the movie with a skeptical mind until I finally managed to catch in the 10th. The result? Well, I'm glad I saw the movie.
The film's narrative is split between two different plot lines that rarely intersect, but still have a deeper connection. The first plotline is about a boy named Bones (Iain De Caestecker) trying to help his mother (Billy) pay off their mortgage. He does so by scavenging copper from abandoned houses, but eventually, a man by the name of "Bully" proclaims himself the ruler of this unnamed Detroit-like dystopia. Bones drops his bag and runs after a brief stare down between the two.
Bones foolishly goes back to get his copper back and succeeds. Yet, he finds that he can't sell it, and he learns that Bully can do much more than scream through a megaphone declaring kingship.
(Matt Smith as the chilling and unhinged "Bully")
This plot line offers both stronger and weaker aspects to the film. While there's plenty of memorable stuff in here, including a monologue by Bully about "Living life like a bull in the wind", the audience is subjected to an incredibly tedious scene involving Bully arguing with some random lady in a parking lot while Bones and his girlfriend Rat (Saoirse Ronan) are hiding from one of Bully's henchmen. It's... terrible. Really. One of the stupidest, most ill-placed scenes I've ever seen in a movie.
But the film manages to quickly bring it back with a scene that closely resembles one from David Lynch's "Blue Velvet", where Ben Mendholson's character sings Bob Nolan's "Cool Water". This is far from the only similarity to "Blue Velvet" in this film, but it's probably the most obvious homage, especially in the context of the film and the horrifying scene that follows.
On the other side of the movie, you have Bones' mother Billy (Christina Hendricks of Mad Men fame.) She loves her old home and she's willing to do almost anything to keep it for the sake of her two boys. This includes taking a vague job from a partially-deaf, ill-mannered banker by the name of "Dave".
The job she takes is at a violence-oriented nightclub that features a fantasy-like hologram/projection device that allows women to "mutilate" themselves whilst sealed within a shell device. The banker seems to have an interest in Billy, and his creepy demeanor serves to make the scenes at this nightclub even more disturbing than they already are.
(Ben Mendholson as Dave, a slimy banker with ulterior motives.)
Like with Bones' storyline, Billy's has its own scene that felt unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps the fact it felt so out of place is because it's a scene where explicit amounts of blood is shown, which is something the film otherwise doesn't go for. It's a movie that likes to show a split second of a violent act happening before cutting away, then cutting back to show an obscured aftermath. To call the violence "graphic" may even be wrong, but it has an even more disturbing effect than what would've been had it explicitly shown all of the bloody violence.
This is helped in part by the eerie, unsettling soundtrack that plays for most of the film. Because of it and the unpredictable nature of the villains in the odd environments our protagonists are in, the film never ceased to be intense for me. I have a feeling a second watch would be totally different because the film really only delivers on that apocalyptic feel in the last act.
Not only that, there are several visual cues. When watching the film, I never understood what the burning bike meant until I learn how keen towards arson Bully is. The same applies to the graffiti. You'll notice plenty of sprayed images of scissors, and one comes just after the film's most unsettling and disturbing scene. It serves as some sort of haunting reminder to what took place, almost as if it was engraved as a piece of history on the ancient and abandoned town the film takes place in.
This is the kind of film where you'll forget quite a few scenes after finishing it, and that's the ultimate flaw. You'll get introduced to a memorable scene you'd swear would be in an Oscar-worthy movie, but it's proceeded by tedium that you'll hate while watching or you'll even be cringing at. The script is as weak as it is strong in numerous spots, and the film feels bloated and underdeveloped as a whole.
Most underdeveloped is the film's very namesake. The original title of the movie was "How to Catch a Monster", and... that title didn't fit either. In fact, "Lost River" makes sense purely since that's near the setting, but the legends about a curse, and the plotline involving Rat and her grandmother feel almost forced onto the film.
Without it, the film would've been totally focused on the well being of a poor family trying to keep their house in some sort of fantasy world. With it, it feels like there's shades of a third plotline that doesn't come to fruition. It could be as simple as it is,and have no deeper meaning, but it also could be that there's some symbolism at the end of the film I'm not getting.
I think highly of what got the film right, and I believe Ryan Gosling has a bright future in directing. I just think the film has quite a few flaws. But, sans the aforementioned parking lot scene, I think even the film's flaws are fascinating and worth discussing. It's a well-crafted and very genuine debut of someone who loves art.and I look forward to his future releases.
7/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment