Il potere del cane

It is said 'The Power of the Dog' covers themes such as love, grief, resentment, jealousy, masculinity, and sexuality. Homosexuality, to be exact. Or should I say, the film is very open to the suggestion of homosexuality, but it never really surfaces - almost like a 70's movie.

I generally don't favour drama films, and the only reason I decided to watch 'The Power of the Dog' is because it received an amazing 562 award nominations (winning 250 so far), and because I like Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor. The film received an incredible 12 Oscar award nominations. So let's look at this film.

Benedict Cumberbatch stars as a rancher, Phil, who runs a ranch together with his brother, George (Jesse Plemons). Phil is insensitive, rude and crude (lets just call him butch!), while George is quite the opposite. George falls in love and eventually marries Rose (Kirsten Dunst). Her son Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is gay - or a faggot, as they call him in the movie. This causes Phil to constantly mock him in front of his workers.

The film does have significant character development and there's lots to read between the lines, since the film tells its story in a very subtle manner. I must be honest, from an entertainment perspective, I wasn't all that entertained. In fact, I was pretty bored for the first 40 minutes. It moves along too...darn...slow...

It really also is uneventful until the final reveal. (well, also not much of a reveal, as you sort of have to guess what they're trying to convey.) Apart from character study, there's hardly anything significant happening here. I was bored - just as I was with the highly acclaimed 'Brokeback Mountain' (although 'Brokeback' was a lot more in your face and not as toned down as 'The Power of the Dog'.)

I can't help but wonder what prompted critics to adorn the film with so many awards. Is the high acclaim truly justified? Or is this overrated? For me, definitely. I agree, the film is beautifully shot with stunning cinematography. The set decoration is also incredibly well done, and the costumes are great. But is it that great a movie? Not for me....

Would I watch it again? No.

Very well made western, Greenwood's atmospheric soundtrack creates great tension to the scenes. Strong performances from Benedict Cumberbatch in a unconventional role and supporting cast impressive, Dunst, Plemons, particularly Kodi Smit-McPhee.

Found the film to be an engaging watch.

Well written, excellently acted. You might think it's slow but it's not. The chapter effect gives one time to understand all the character development: the strengths, the fears, the idleness, the weaknesses. Phil and Peter had more in common than one thought....but Phil was cruel. They were both highly intelligent and educated. Phil was out to harm and he was surprised to find he might have a friend. All Peter cared about was protecting his mother. You do NOT know where this story is going. You might think you do but that's why the writing is so excellent. Suburb ending. 👏👏👏 to the screenplay. I would have titled the movie " Trapping the Dog." But then again, it doesn't matter.

I just randomly watched this movie, not knowing anything about it at all, just that I like Benedict as an actor. It was slow and sort of unsettling and I had to ponder the movie for a while after it finished. Let me just say this, the devil is in the details with this one. Pay very close attention when watching it, I think it pays off pretty well. I had several 'oh crap' moments after the movie, when I started connecting the dots. To call this a Western is a bit misleading, the setting is in the west (Montana) but that really has nothing to do with the movie at all, nor should it define its genre. I can see how folks might not like this one due to the pacing and some of the subject matter but the acting really is quite good and the movie is well made. Also, let's just say the ending might pass right over some people's head if they hadn't been paying attention or had already made up their mind what the movie was about. I'd really love to say more but spoilers and all. I think this one will start out slow with audiences but will age well over time.

Reading a number of reviews here that are not very kind, I almost decided to skip this one. But I thought I'd give it 20 to 30 minutes then abandon it if not invested. I am glad I did, it seems to me the negative reviews are from viewers who simply did not comprehend the whole story. And that includes the very last scene where everything is wrapped up. I found it to be a good movie and a worthwhile viewing. On DVD from my public library, my wife skipped.

Filmed entirely in New Zealand, so it doesn't look much like the setting, Montana ranch land. The central characters are two brothers old enough to remember their first cattle drive 25 years earlier, in 1900. They have polar opposite personalities. One (Cumberbatch) is smart and educated, perpetually grungy, and quick to throw criticisms at others. The other (Plemons) is kind and clean. When he brings home a wife (Dunst, real-life wife of Plemons) his brother taunts her in subtle ways and her young teen son picks up on it. The rest of the story is how the son works things out to save his mother who is depressed and has turned to drinking excessively.

This is not a movie for the impatient, or for those who don't pay attention to detail. If anyone wants to understand it in more detail do a search on "power of the dog psalm 22:30".