Noite de Lobos

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.