Benutzerrezensionen

I can't clearly determine what "Hold the dark" is: a sophisticated film that seems mindless or a mindless thriller that seems sophisticated. Nonetheless, it's an enjoyable view.

Hold the dark is complex: partly a thriller, partly a mystery film, partly a crime film. It reminds me of many films and tv shows: Prisoners, No Country for Old Men, The Grey, Twin Peaks and True Detective.

Visually, Hold the dark is one of those films that I wish I could see on a big screen rather than online. It's photography and alaskan scenery are often gorgeous. Generally, from a technical point of view, including in terms of acting, it is outstanding.

It is an atmospheric success: the eerie, dark theme of the film is almost palpable. There isn't any unnecessary dialogue and silence is overall well handled. It is a film filled with rural mysticism, a very peculiar subject, which often leads to such utterly irrational events that sometimes seem blatantly stupid. This often made me question whether it's because of the director's style (I haven't seen other movies from Saulnier), because I missed something, because of the mystic subtheme or because the plot is simply at times stupid.

I myself don't like the term 'poor writing' used in many reviews, but while watching "Hold the dark" the thought often popped to my mind. There are several scenes of violence, changes of heart, actions that character do that seem nonsensical. The worst part is that probably they were intented to be so 'mindless', but the film seemed to lack something that confirms this. This aspect is what provides the mixed feelings I'm trying to express.

I can't resolutely give a high rating to this movie. Although it is stylistically perfect, and it lends this permanent feeling that it's trying to tell something important, Hold the dark ultimately fails to deliver its message.

Let me start by saying that this movie is not completely garbage. It has something to it that keeps you going. For some reason, despite an unintelligible plot and amazingly slow pace, you still find yourself watching the movie waiting for it to redeem itself. It doesn't. The more time you invest in this adventure, the more painful it becomes to admit that this movie is beyond redemption, that nothing normal is going to happen and that you wasted two hours of your life.

The basic premise of Jeremy Saulnier's adaptation of Hold the Dark takes place in Alaska where wolf expert Russell Core has arrived to investigate the disappearance of a child claimed by his mother to have been taken from the very animal Core studies. From there Core discovers that the wolves may be the least of his concern.

The film is interesting through its dark atmospheric tone and gorgeous yet haunting cinematography of the wild landscape. As with any other of his, the violence is very sudden and brutal. It sneaks up behind you and leaves you in gasp from the site of it. While the body count is way higher and on a much bigger canvas, it lacks the self-contained momentum of Green Room and Blue Ruin. The pacing felt very inconsistent at times especially as it seems it never quiet matches the shocking shootout scene that happens in the middle act. Both Jeffrey Wright and Alexander Skarsgard get to show great character work in their performances. Wright shows Core as a man whom is sympathetic towards wolves as he sees their behaviour isn't intentionally evil but is disturbed and often times terrified of what horrifying acts human beings themselves do throughout the story. And Skarsgard as the missing boy's veteran father Vernon brings an intensity and intimidating presence while still conveying there is still a little bit of humanity left in him to understand his motivations. While the characters are certainly compelling, the vaguely defined supernatural element makes the story's direction feel too plot heavy and less compelling. The story is very much an exploration of how human behaviour can be more vicious then nature itself. While the conclusion makes sense thematically, it can feel anti-climatic depending on how much you are invested in the themes.

Hold the Dark I wouldn't call a disappointment but does not live up to the quality of his past films. It still has some really good scenes that are still worth watching.

Now they're saying we should've read the book first. That really ticks me off. A good screenplay should be able to stand on its own, even if from another source. The best part of this movie was the ending, as it ended my suffering. Almost everything in this story, from beginning to end, made no sense at all. And it crawled like a sick slug.

Jeffrey Wright was good, but then he always is.

Great actors and set but I'm still scratching my head on the story. When credits started to roll at the end, I was still waiting for some explanations.

All the parts are there, good acting, engaging characters, great nature scenes, and a great story that ended up being a little too cryptic. The movie held my attention because I didn't want to miss anything that would confirm what I thought the film would be about. But it never did. My suspicions is that the answers were left on the cutting room floor when the film was edited.

This feels like one of those movies that you have to read the book first to understand what's going on or at least have someone who has read the book sitting next to you to explain what was going on and what all those little details meant.

Don't go in expecting Green Room. This film is more of an atmospheric, slow burn with occasional bursts of intensity rather than a straightforward thriller.

Some of the plot elements and how they are handled will turn people off but the craftsmanship here is impossible to ignore. The performances are for the most part strong and the visuals are beautifully bleak. The violence is explosive and disturbing. Fans of Saulnier, and fans of genre in general, will find a lot appreciate here.

Those who want things wrapped up neatly may be disappointed, as the themes the film deals with, along with how it presents them, warrants a second watch. It's not necessarily a story with a satisfying conclusion and no loose ends. Some of the ambiguity felt unnecessary and could have been handled better, but the script is overall solid, if a bit of a mixed bag.

Overall the film's story gets its message across, regarding the exploration of the line between human and animal, and the feral tendencies we bury deep in ourselves. It could have used a bit of cleanup getting there, but it's still a strongly crafted film above all else.

6/10.

Beautiful cinematography, no plot, no resolution. Half way through I was hoping everyone would shoot each other and put me out of my misery.

The worst movie i have ever seen in my life. nothing happens and there is no story line.

I loved Green Room, but this was a very different movie. I don't really know what to make of it, because it is a film that doesn't have much of a plot, has characters that rarely speak, and is quite a slow burn. This is the kind of film that if you half-watch whilst doing something else, you would almost certainly hate it.

So the setup for the film doesn't matter really because within the first 20 minutes it has gone off those rails, but the setup is that a woman's child has been taken by wolves (the third child in the town to have gone missing) and so she writes a letter to a wildlife expert and author to come to Alaska and hunt down the wolves that did it. The film takes so many twists and turns very suddenly and abruptly that by the time it ends you kinda forget that this is how it started. The film is more concerned with tone, atmosphere and theme than it is with character or plot.

As expected the film is pretty damn violent. Not quite Green Room-level, but when it happens you feel it. It also happens very abruptly and suddenly, with little to no hint that anything is about to happen.

Overall the film reminded me of so many other films, but stands on its own as something unlike any of them. It had elements of Wind River, The VVitch, The Grey and Prisoners, but it really is a unique movie. It is somewhere between a 6/10 and a 7/10 for me but it is interesting and unique enough for me to say 7/10 for now. Definitely need to rewatch it.

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Russell Core (Jeffrey Wright) is a retired survivalist and Iraq war veteran, who has been called to the snowy climbs of Alaska by Melora Slone (Riley Keough), a local woman whose young son has gone missing. She has no hope of getting her son back, she simply wants Core to find the wolf that took him (???!!!??? I know) and exact revenge (hope he finds the right wolf.) But when Melora's husband Vernon (Alexander Skarsgard), a man deeply damaged by his experiences in Iraq, returns home, events are plunged into a terrifying and sinister spiral, where nothing is as it seems.

While undoubtedly sights of natural beauty and wonder, snow covered regions, especially those in mountain locations, still provide really effective backdrops for dark, moody thrillers, from the Coen Brother's Fargo to Stephen King's Misery. Hold the Dark, director Jeremy Saulnier's second feature after the dismal 2005 heavy metal thriller Green Room, continues this tradition, albeit to mixed effect. The set up is just right, and the air of mystery does work, but the execution and the eventual outcome decidedly fail to give it the resolution it deserves.

Saulnier definitely doesn't skimp on the dark moodiness, and drenches his film in a blacked out, uncompromising glare that fills it with little hope or happiness. He also denies it pretty much anything in the way of humour or light relief, displaying characters that are consumed with regret and cynicism. The only vaguely uplifting thing is some wonderful overhead cinematography of the Alaskan mountains. In that sense it does what it says on the tin, the only trouble is a nonsensical set up that doesn't survive scrutiny (even if it has come from the mouth of a grieving mother) and a baffling ending that fails to adequately resolve something you've invested over two hours of your time in.

It's infinitely better than Saulnier's last film, and it's faults do not crush its strengths, but Hold the Dark is a film with everything on the surface right, but some problems beneath the foundations that threaten to crash it all down. ***

First of all, all the actors were like they had been administered valium (benzodiazepines, they help you sleep). Even when there was an intense scene, the actors were like they didn't give a s*** about what was happening. Seriously? You just put intense music in the background and that's it? Secondly the characters were so boring that you couldn't relate to them. Even if they dropped dead you just couldn't feel any sympathy for them. Thirdly around 80% of the scenes were just dialogues in order to fill the movie. Dialogues that were irrelevant, just quotes and no hint to let us understand what was happening. Fourthly there was no plot!!! What was going on? Why did all of this happen? Why did each character in the movie do what they did? Couldn't there be an explanation at the end of the movie?Just WHY??? And to all those saying that we should read the book: hey man if i wanted to read a book, i would read a book. Since i decided to watch a movie, i want to watch a movie. Imagine having to read a book for every movie you saw, in order to understand what was happening. There are people enjoying books and others enjoying movies. So i expect from a movie to "instil" into me what the author described in their book, without having to spend much more time on a book to get a grasp of what happened

I'd liked the film but the explanations by the book readers has raised my star giving. Everything has been said for good or bad, so I shall not add any more. In spite of too much killing for my movie taste, for me is a good film but I would have like a little be more clear reason for some of the killings, because the killer and the assassin are smart and profound characters that don't leave any thing to chance. I will apreciate if anybody smarter than me, explain the reason for every single killing. The ganmachine killed cops can count as one killing. Thank you

To say this movie was a disappointment would be an understatement as vast as the Alaskan wilderness it was filmed in.

What is most frustrating is that you are drawn into waiting for some kind of twist or at least some action to bring your attention back, but nothing actually happens. After watching the film it's still unclear what the plot is, and after looking at some reviews I'm relieved I'm not the only one.

Anybody who's scored this over a 5 either appreciates the cinematic values of the movie, or spends their spare time watching paint dry.

After my screening of Hold The Dark, I went home and bought the book and read the book because I was so taken into this incredible and twisted world and I felt like I needed a little bit more context. Which I got and the book is amazing. Even though there are these acts of brutal violence that catch you off guard, the film has a meditative quality - the scenery and the sound design and the music is enticing. There's an undercurrent of menace and anticipation that would seemingly counter that but somehow they work. I loved the performances of Jeffrey Wright and Alexander Skarsgård. They play off each other beautifully. Alexander Skarsgård has locked down the cold and calculated nature of Vernon Slone and you don't know what he will do, he is so cold and affectless. It's brilliant. I have a few problems with the film with respect to the Indigenous elements. Firstly, that they didn't cast Yup'ik characters with Yup'ik or Inuit actors. They cast Indigenous actors but not actors who are Indigenous to this area of Alaska. Secondly, I personally really enjoy throat singing so I was happy to hear it in the film, but they used it over the menacing parts to underscore the evil and violence which is just incredibly problematic. I feel like this film could have been great if they had a Yup'ik advisor in the production meetings. Indigenous people aren't interchangeable. When you have Indigenous characters who play vital roles in the story, I think the crew should respect the distinct culture of the people they are portraying.

I don't know what I just watched. Maybe there's something deep or artistic but I didn't get it. I'm stunned at how bad it was. I gave it three stars because I liked the wolves.

I had been looking forward to this movie ever since I saw the trailer for it and it didn't disappoint. It's not a fast paced movie but there are some really shocking and unexpected moments. It also has a compelling mysteruousness about it that kept me watching and wanting to know more. Riley Keough is enchanting and eerie with an air of uncertainty. Skarsgaard puts in a real confident performance maybe the best I've seen from him. The movie does a great job in portraying the harshness of the terrain the locals live in without making things seem overly bleak. The glory shots of the Calgary mountains and forests throughout are a real treat. This is not a happy movie but it is certainly good. More of a thriller than a drama in my eyes, unexpected twists here and there and some very violent scenes. It is a fairly long movie and demands a person's full attention. Not one for light drama movie lovers. The reasons for me giving it a 7 out of 10 and not higher is due to the feeling of some of the dialogue being a bit unnecessary, 15 to 20 minutes could have been taken out of it no problem. Also some scenes were almost a little too real and dark I had to look away. This movie is not too dissimilar to the revenant in its flow (the storylines are not the same). It is worth a go for people who like a dark gritty drama thriller.