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.
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.