Woodshock

There was a lot here with potential. Kirsten Dunst did a good job and the cinematography and production were actually really good.

The problem is although the film has a strong central premise it feels as though it is constantly searching for its fundamental story thread. It never quite manages to provide that compelling central part to the story which the other story threads can be anchored too. Even the main plot line of the grief stricken woman falling into a drug fueled fantasy feels more like a side plot to a missing central story. Its a shame, there really was a lot here to like but it ended up being a mediocre film as a result.

"Woodshock" (2017 release; 100 min.) brings the story of Theresa. As the movie opens, we see Theresa taking care of a woman we later learn is her mother. Theresa, upon her mother's request, gives her a spiked joint to smoke. Later, when we see the room empty, we understand Theresa is grieving for the passing of her mom. Meanwhile, we get to know Nick, Theresa's boyfriend, and Keith, Theresa's colleague at the medical marijuana dispense store. At this point, we are 10-15 min. into the movie, but to tell you more of the plot (as it is) would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this movie is co-written and co-directed by the sisters Kate Mulleavy and Laura Mulleavy, who are respected fashion designers without any prior film-making/directing/writing experience. I admit that I knew very little about the movie going in, other than it starred Kirsten Dunst in an indie movie about someone grieving. That sounded it might be in the realm of "Melancholia", so sign me up! From the opening moments of "Woodshock", it all feels quite "artsy" and you are left on your own to figure out what is going on. I have absolutely no problem with that, and figure that if the movie is good, this will sort itself out at some point. Here we are left wondering, and wondering, and wondering… Things play out on the big screen and at one point you hope to be emotionally involved and invested. I couldn't have cared less about any of these characters, whose random scenes left me utterly unmoved, if not bewildered. There are a couple of plus points, including the at times gorgeous scenery (when Dunst goes walking among the sequoia trees, etc.), and of course Dunst herself. She tries her best, although looking equally lost as we are, and in vain looking for clues (at one point literally, as she searches her house top to bottom for … what exactly?).

"Woodshock" opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati, and I couldn't wait to see it. The Friday matinée screening where I saw this at was attended poorly (just a handful of people). About 30 min. into the movie, I mumbled to myself "what's going on here?", and the guy seated a few rows before me turned around and said "you and me both!". This will give you an idea as to the state of affairs in "Woodshock". I honestly cannot recommend this movie in good conscience to anyone, but of course encourage you to check it out in the theater (although I cannot imagine it will play more than a week or two, tops), on Amazon Instant Video, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

I'll admit the film has some very pretty and also trippy visuals that make you really feel like you're in a daze. Which I suppose is the point. To put as in the mindset of Kirsten Dunst's character. And while it excels at that, the film also kind of goes nowhere. Again, maybe that's the point as well. But it doesn't make for a super interesting watch. It's a very slow movie. Kirsten Dunst though does an excellent job. The rest of the cast is fine but not particularly memorable.

It's always very hard for me to rate and review these types of films, but I'll try my absolute best here. A lot of people will not like this movie, as it is clearly not intended for the mass appeal. These art films rely almost entirely on aesthetic elements such as intricate and thought-provoking visuals, unconventional use of symbolism, creative directing, imaginative editing and experimental music. Here we have a surprisingly strong directorial debut by the Mulleavy sisters. The film is beautifully directed and edited all the way through. Some of the scenes are very artistic and aesthetically pleasing. The plot becomes hard to follow at times, but that is something you would totally expect in a film like this, as the main focus is clearly the art direction and production design. Peter Raeburn crafted a beautiful score that fits perfectly with the atmosphere and overall tone of the film. Acting is a bit weak at times by some of the supporting characters, but Kirsten Dunst delivers an amazing performance as you would expect from her in a leading role. If you're in the mood for a sad and melancholic arthouse flick, go ahead and give this one a chance, it might be a pleasant surprise.

The cinematography is very well-done, and that's it for the positives because overall the film is a very slow-moving Wannabe Art Film that's poorly written and slowly devolves into an overblown, confusing downer with little or no meaning. Kirsten Dunst is a tremendous actress, but there is absolutely nothing in this screenplay for her to work with.

Think- Indica, as in, "in-duh!-ca".