Hayden Kane
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
leethomas-11621
Perfect pacing, score, script, production, acting.
disinterested_spectator
Three eco-terrorists, Josh (Jesse Eisenberg), Dena (Dakota Fanning), and Harmon (Peter Saarsgaard), are tired of just talking about the environment, so they decide to blow up a dam in Oregon. After they blow up the dam, it becomes clear that their idealistic act was naïve and worthless. Their friends, unaware that Josh, Dena, and Harmon were the ones who blew the dam up, dismiss the whole thing as theater, because the river has twelve dams, so nothing has been accomplished.As the movie progressed, it became clear that we would not see the dam being blown up. This was probably for two reasons. First, there are budgetary considerations. One gets the feeling that this is a low- budget feature, and it is simply cheaper to hear the sound of the explosion as they drive away from the river rather than film a spectacle. It reminded me of a guy I knew who was much younger than I and therefore used to modern movies. He was complaining about an old movie he saw once, and I quickly realized he was talking about "They Live by Night" (1948). He said, "These guys are planning a bank robbery, and the next thing you know, they are driving down the road listening to a news report of the bank robbery on the radio. Today, the bank robbery would be the main part of the movie." But this was a low-budget film noir, and hearing about the bank robbery they just pulled off must have been cheaper than actually filming it.However, there was something about the style and tone of the movie that also made one suspect there would be no grand spectacular scene of the dam bursting, water pouring through the valley, tossing boats and cars every which way, and people screaming as they are pulled under the current. In fact, it is part of the basic idea of this movie that Josh and Dena never really thought things through, that it would be impossible to blow up a dam without someone being killed. They find out, as is appropriate for a story about guilt and paranoia, that someone has died when we do, when they read about it in the newspaper. And the fact that it is just one person rather than scores was good too. One death is enough to cause Dena and Josh to become guilt ridden. Less is more.Unfortunately, on a couple of points, the movie could not resist a turn toward the melodramatic. First, when they get in the truck to drive away from the river, they have trouble starting it. That is such a cliché that I was hoping that wouldn't happen before they even got in the truck. Oh well, at least they got it over with quickly.A second point, however, was most unfortunate. Dena becomes so guilt ridden that it becomes clear that it is just a matter of time before she turns herself into the police and confesses everything. To stop her from doing this, Josh murders her. Josh tells Harmon over the phone that it was an accident, which would have been fine, if he had pushed her and she fell down and struck her head. But he strangled her, and that is not something one does accidentally. In any event, this murder accomplishes nothing. The fact that Dena has been strangled coupled with the fact that Josh has to take it on the lam would make it obvious to the police that Dena and Josh were the eco-terrorists they were looking for. If Josh was going to have to flee the area and go into hiding anyway, then what was the point of the murder? Better would be to simply disappear without killing Dena. In that case, whether she talked or not would not have made much difference.Just as a melodramatic spectacle of a dam blowing up would not have been in keeping with the style and tone of this movie, so too was Dena's murder out of place. But maybe the difference was budgetary after all: it doesn't cost much to film a man strangling a woman.
raoulvandehaar
If you want to see a thriller, don't watch this movie. Longest 2 hours of my life. Taking 2 minutes for a shot that should last 10 seconds doesn't make it art. It makes it boring, as hell. You don't feel any sympathy for the characters. You only think please let them die and get this movie over with. But no, that wouldn't be pretentious enough I guess... I have read some positive reviews, are you guys sadist? You are fooling people into thinking this movie is in some way worth viewing. This is not a thriller. If it was a drama than okay you could give it some points, there are some people that like this kind of movie. But for a thriller, no. This is no thriller
sfdphd
To appreciate this film, you have to be prepared for the work of Kelly Reichart, whose films tend to be slow-moving and thought-provoking. You have to be in the mood for that type of experience. For this particular film you also have to be prepared for an emotional reaction to the story of several people who take political action, violent action, and suffer its human costs. Anyone who was young during the 1960's and 1970's will remember what it was like to debate those political issues. We all had to decide whether we were willing to take action in which someone might get hurt. Or in the jargon of Star Trek, does the life of one outweigh the life of many? It's a question we still grapple with today. If you are willing to confront those questions, and your own answers, this film will interest you. If you don't like to think about such things, skip this film and watch something more superficial.
