Hold the Dark

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.

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.

This was a fantastic film. The acting was solid, stoic, and appropriate for the subject matter. The cinematography was absolutely stunning; leave it to Saulnier to remind us just how red blood really is against the snow.

The story itself was bleak. Bleak doesn't mean boring. On the contrary, this film is a commentary on the darkness in human nature.

Yes the ending is ambiguous, yes it is a slow burn, and yes the subject matter is bleak. I believe these three things only constitute a bad film in the eyes of someone whose idea of perfect cinema is superhero movies.

I cannot state this loudly enough: unfortunately, IMDb reviews no longer reflect the quality of a film. I understand this film is not for everyone; however, the amount of reviews stating "this didn't make sense" is abysmal.

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.

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.