Hold the Dark

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.