A Qualquer Preço

At Any Price shows the nasty little ordinary things we do to get us ahead of others, and the not so ordinary or little.

The good. It's a frank view of what industrial farmers go through in regards to GMOs. You also really get into the shoes of the father.

The actors. It's was difficult for me to see Dennis Quaid, who usually plays heroic figures, if only family ones at time, give life to such a flawed character. To his credit, he did it very well.

The bad. There's a number of scenes where we don't relate very well to what's happening. The director doesn't make us feel or understand what's on the screen.

Ugly. Lack of depth in most secondary characters. The B and C stories are too thin.

Not impressive. But more than good. That kind of film about family, values, expectation of father and the option of sons who seems traditional but it is real useful for remind, in simple and precise manner, elementary things. Dennis Quaid did a great job and Zac Efron sustain in nice way his Dean. But, sure, Kim Dickens , giving the fair traits to Irene Whipple is admirable.A film about competition, ambition and wisdom. And, in my case, Clancy Brown presence was a good return to the years of Carnivale. So, a honest story.

after watching I was surprised by its low IMDb rating (5.6 currently). I liked it, it held my attention, felt on its own it was entertaining and was one of those I think to myself "I'm glad I watched that". I'm not a film critic or film-making buff so don't know mechanically what makes a movie good, it's more a thing of you know it when you see it.

to be fair before writing this I read some of the less favorable reviews and can see they have their points. but in imd-land the mid-5s kinds of movies are getting into the range where a movie is clearly not well-thought of and it's hard to see how that can be true of this one. also I don't watch previews/trailers or really read much besides the brief IMDb synopsis at the top so maybe my lack of expectation helps.

I watched this because I like dennis quaid, he's one of those actors that on the screen I find easy to like and his performances are usually good. this isn't the kind of role I'm used to seeing from him (the clever/charming/gregarious kind of guy) but I thought he played it quite well.

the overarching theme seems to be there's no overarching theme. it was more or less an hour and a half of stuff involving people that happened to be in iowa, some of which happened to be farmers. it didn't seem to me it was pushing any kind of viewpoint, we just get to witness some unusual things that can make one think "what would I have done in that spot?" it almost had the dryness of a documentary in that there's no crescendos (musically or otherwise) trying to tell the audience what to feel where. to me the movie was more about what's inside the characters rather than what happens externally when they interact. from that standpoint I wasn't put off by some of the disjointedness other reviewers rightfully point out.

I did notice in hindsight once the movie was over that much of it seemed formulaic and had many of the kinds of twists every other movie has, but what struck me was being engrossed enough that as it unfolded I didn't really notice until it was over with.

bottom line for me is it was entertaining and worth the time spent watching it.

It's a story where the characters aren't sympathetic and seem to create all their own problems. None of their problems are all that involving either. So what's to care about? The script is poorly structured taking to long to set up the situation while at the same time failing to set up some key characters that come into play in the rushed final part of the film.

Quaid is very good, sometimes a bit mannered though he's supposed to be playing a kind of obnoxious salesman so that's part of the film can be accepted as being done on purpose. I heard the director speak after a preview screening and he mentioned the influences that kind of create the problem with the film. DEATH OF A SALESMAN meets THE LAST PICTURE SHOW with some Robert Altman thrown in. If you know either of these classic pieces of writing you might guess this isn't up to either of those standards and it's not. If you don't know those films it won't make it a better film. The film wastes too much time setting up the characters all of whom are unlikable selfish jerks for much of the film. The key dramatic incident comes too late--and won't be revealed here--and is left dangling at the films end. The one son, played with no depth, by Zac seems to be the focus of the story for too long and then is kind of pushed back and other characters take over. Aside from him there is little to fault with any of the acting.

One other key character, Quaid's Dad, appears out of nowhere in the film--you'll actually think he's been dead for years and years the way people talk about him until he suddenly shows up, and Heather Graham's character just pops up and pops out of the story with little logic aside from some kind of possible sexual interest, though there is no nudity in the film and the story doesn't go in that direction ultimately. Both of these characters need more thought on a screenplay level.

Some odd details here and there successfully touch on Robert Altman but those are just minor details of how modern farming works amid a messy script.

There is just little to hold your interest for far too long in the screenplay. Digital photography is OK but has a bit of a video edge to it and doesn't do the actors any favors in close up either. The film could use more and a better music score. The film ultimately is forgettable.

I nearly wept at the end of this movie, over all the acting talent gone totally to waste on this dumb little story. It is more than dumb; it doesn't make any sense. I think that one scene sums up the problems this film creates for itself and then fails to solve. One of the characters (it doesn't even matter which one) breaks into a store by shooting a handgun through the window. When the window conveniently falls into a billion pieces, the character leaps through the open space and steals some stuff. Then he and his pal and girlfriend roar off, tires squealing. The event is presaged by nothing and leads to nothing. One is left only with a sense of mystification that anyone (even a film director) would think that a logical way to commit a burglary would be to shoot out the front window of a store with a gun. The rest of film is like that. One silly contrivance piled on another to create a nonsensical melodrama.