The film depicts the day-to-day operations of the Roubaix police department through the eyes of new recruit Louis (Antoine Reinartz) and his older, stoic commissaire Daoud (Roschdy Zem). Zem is pitch- perfect in what’s already a captivating and well-written role, managing to convey that Daoud has seen it all without coming across as smug or resting on his laurels. This is particularly clear during OH MERCY!’s interrogation scenes, where Zem keeps the pressure applied even as his hunches appear more and more likely to be true. Here, Daoud simmers with rage, revealing the cracks in his calm exterior, leaving the audience in anticipation to see whether the perp will give in before he erupts. He’s truly the archetypal crime genre protagonist, complete with a sombre yet ambiguous backstory about a broken family that’s practically begging to be explored in a follow-up.
From the second half onwards, director/co-writer Arnaud Desplechin dedicates an increasing amount of focus to Claude (Léa Seydoux) and Marie (Sara Forestier), two roommates who become suspects in a murder case Daoud investigates. Although it’s a somewhat jarring shift (more on that below), Seydoux and Forestier are more than up to the challenge, bringing serious emotional heft as the pair’s backstories and complex, symbiotic friendship are revealed. I found them to be equally captivating for different reasons: Forestier is certainly showier; the fear in her voice alone during questioning strikes a balance between relatable and suspicious, casting her as someone who knows more than they’re letting on. By contrast, Claude is icy and calculating, wanting to avoid the investigation for fear that her relationship with her young son could become further strained. Seydoux is wonderful opposite both Forestier and Zem, using long pauses and an unflinching gaze to punctuate her early scenes and subtly disarm her co-stars.
Despite its strong leads, I found OH MERCY!’s structure confusing and misguided, preventing it from leaving a stronger impression. Simply put, there is no discernible reason why the writers divided the story between cases in such a linear fashion. There are no overarching thematic threads, nor does it feel like a cinema verite-esque attempt to realistically portray the case by case nature of police work. Given the Claude and Marie case dominates the latter half and ending, I can’t imagine why it wasn’t the entire premise of the film, or at least foreshadowed from the beginning. Similarly, the first case shown (a burn victim supposedly attacked by jihadists) is interesting, but Daoud quickly solves it and it’s just as swiftly forgotten. Once again, these ideas could’ve stood out with more breathing room, and it’s a shame for them to go to waste.
OH MERCY! is above all an acting showcase, with a trio of dynamic performances sure to command the viewer’s attention. Even though its structure feels like a failed experiment, I suspect crime buffs might relish the opportunity to unravel several cases at once. I’m not sure I’ll come back to this film any time soon, but it’s definitely worth keeping an eye out for what its leads do next.
As I hinted at above, whether or not Henri Pick wrote the book will ultimately affect very little. Sure, Rouche was fired from his job as a TV show host, but that’s also largely due to him offending Pick’s widow with his on-air behaviour. Consequently, the script subtly distinguishes itself from other detective fiction, focusing less on the who and why and more on the how, given the holes in Rouche’s argument. It’s a smart change that ensures the audience still constantly asks questions like you’d expect in this genre, just different ones, all the while building up the enigma of its titular character.
I love a good mystery, so I was delighted to see the film transform into an investigation in its second and third acts as Rouche teams up with Pick’s daughter Joséphine (Camille Cottin). Although their antagonistic relationship eventually turns to friendship, the pair’s constant back-and-forth quips are a highlight of the film. Luchini as Rouche is the standout among the cast, with comedic timing and expressions perfect for the absurd scenes the writers clearly love putting him in. For instance, Luchini’s wide-eyed, incredulous fear during an interview with a macabre-obsessed book club makes a discussion of dismembering corpses quietly hilarious. However, Cottin’s Joséphine keeps the film grounded, reminding the audience just how painful it can be to have your memory of a loved one challenged. Films have taught me that detectives always work best in pairs, from Holmes and Watson, to Ana de Armas and Daniel Craig, and THE MYSTERY OF HENRI PICK provides further proof.
Unfortunately, I found the first act slightly unfocused, even introducing Rouche then forgetting him for an extended period; as a result, his sudden transition into the protagonist role was initially jarring. It’s also not overly difficult to solve the film’s central mystery, though the writers do include some engaging red herrings which almost dissuaded me from my first (correct) theory. I suppose it depends on personal preference, but in my opinion, this genre is at its best when the audience is able to fit some or most of the pieces together, then have the characters or plot do the rest. Look no further than the gloriously dense conclusion of Knives Out for a great example of this. The answers given here are satisfying, but unsurprising.
At first glance, THE MYSTERY OF HENRI PICK reminds me of The Words, a seldom-discussed Bradley Cooper drama with a similar premise. Yet the former sets itself apart not only through its healthy doses of humour, and gorgeous shots of the peaceful French countryside, but by crafting a convincing mystery that keeps the audience curious and involved. It’s a film that reminds me of why I love classic whodunnits while managing to forge its own identity.
Writer/Director Miranda Nation’s first feature is a complex, psychological sometimes erotic thriller that worms its way into you without the aid of violence or bloodshed or obvious good guys and bad guys. Essentially, this is a four-hander where the focus on the relationships keeps shifting from Claire and Dan to Dan and Angie, to Angie and Brett, to Dan and Brett, to Claire and Brett but most importantly, to Clair and Angie. It’s a film where we are never quite certain that what we see is what we see. Sometimes that’s literal (when Claire sees small creatures crawling about that we’re pretty sure are not really there) and sometimes it’s obfuscation (when Claire sees Dan with Angie does she really see what we’re all thinking she sees?) Part of the power of this film is the uncertainty about what lies beneath the surface of the characters and the unexpectedness of how they interact with each other. When Clair orchestrates a meeting with Angie and discovers that the teenager is pregnant, she is less concerned with the possibility that Dan might be the father than she is with caring for this child that Angie seems not to want – with the unfairness of her own loss of a much wanted baby against an unborn child that seems unwanted by its young mother. It’s a tangled story where each character is vulnerable to the secrets they hold and where lines of trust and honesty are crossed in ways that might just be irreparable. But, above all, it’s a story that treats its audience with intelligence and asks us to consider how much responsibility we each take for our actions (or inactions) regardless of how much we might feel that there are explanations for the seemingly bad things we sometimes do.
The four key cast members are all terrific. Gordon, at the heart of the story, carries much of the movie with ease in a compelling and finely judged performance that, necessarily, relies more on what she communicates of the internal world of her character than it does on the externalised dialogue. But she’s not alone in the strength of the performances on the screen. DeJonge, in particular, finds the wild and dangerous edge of Angie laced with enough vulnerability to win us over to her cause. I do wonder whether the final image of Angie is a false note in an otherwise well-made film... but then again, it’s a moment that has a nice ring of truth about it, even if it does seem a little neat.
For those with local knowledge, you’ll be quick to recognise that the film is shot in and around the Victorian coastal city of Geelong and makes excellent use of both the beauty and the ugliness of its locations. In particular, the cinematography by Bonnie Elliott brings a strong, moody and at times foreboding visual sense to the film that perfectly captures the idea that Claire sees much of the world through the lens of her own camera. There’s also a great soundtrack to underscore the visuals featuring the work of the incomparable Lisa Gerard along with James Orr and Raul Sanchez.
Nation’s screenplay is a lean and elegant work that seems to provide the space within which the work of the cast and of the cinematographer do more than just bring the script to life. They are spaces that allow the actors and the crew to complete the way in which the story is told. Yes, it is sometimes slow and brooding in its telling and that might not be to everyone’s taste but, for me, the pace showed a confidence in the director knowing that this is a slow-burn of a story and deserves the right amount of time to ferment.
It's a shame that our film industry is still at a stage where it seems remiss not to point out that this is a film written and directed by a woman with many talented women in key crew roles and a powerful female-focused story. It would be nice to think that we might get to a point in the not-too-distant future where we can just focus on how good the film is, rather than the rarity of the means by which it got made.
In this story, Seth (Josh McConville) has returned from a secret mission in Myanmar where the rest of his squad – Welshy (Firass Dirani), Stretch (Juwan Sykes) and Josh (Hugh Sheridan) – were all killed and whilst Seth made it home, the bodies of his mates were left behind. The guilt and trauma he carries with him has destroyed his marriage to Sarah (Natalie Rees) and threatens his relationship with his daughter Lizzie (Jessi Robertson). When Josh’s sister, journalist Rebecca (Bonnie Sveen) starts nosing around to try find out what happened to her brother, Seth’s Commanding Officer Michelle Pennyshaw (Rena Owen) tries to scare her off, but Rebecca won’t take no for an answer and tracks Seth down. So begins a strained, uneasy relationship that slowly draws out the truth that Seth is trying to hide from himself as much as he’s trying to keep it from Rebecca.
This is such a sensitive and important issue and Ashwood’s chosen to play the manifestation of Seth’s declining mental health at the extreme edges with vivid hallucinations and debilitating flashbacks and more than one attempt at suicide. For the most part this works as a powerful rendering of the pain and suffering soldiers like Seth experience, even if it sometimes threatens to go over the top into melodrama. It’s a hard call as to where to draw the line.
As the story of what happened in Myanmar is slowly told by Seth we’re transported into a series of memories of the squad in the jungle and the incidents that led to the deaths. As well staged and executed as these scenes are, it’s sometimes hard not to find parallels with Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979) as they trudge through the jungle in search of Carl Boddi (Steve Le Marquand) a fellow soldier who’s gone rogue and fallen in with the local rebels as (in his own words) a kind of god. Their mission to locate and kill him sounds more than vaguely familiar and is an unnecessary distraction from what is otherwise a good story.
What works best in this film, though, are the strong performances. McConville (who was so good in 2018’s 1% ) pulls off the difficult task of playing such a shattered character. Sveen is believable as the grieving sister determined to learn the truth and bring her brother home and the two of them work well in the push-me-pull- you balance of a relationship that is on the knife edge between a strong attraction and a terrible truth. Sheridan (in flashbacks) is equally good as Josh who looks up to Seth like an older brother. When the truth is finally revealed, the relationship between both the actors and their characters is what keeps things from becoming overplayed. Jessi Robertson also delivers a great performance as the daughter who is older and wiser and more forgiving than her years but Owen as Pennyshaw and Rees as Seth’s wife are both wasted talents in roles that are underwritten and two dimensional.
The film is well shot by Wade Muller finding the right tonal differentiation between the scenes in Myanmar and the scenes at home and the special effects by Clint Ingram bring a good dose of realism to the scenes of conflict.
Escape and Evasion makes a good fist of telling a story that is timely and important and whilst the writing sometimes lets it down, the performances carry the story across the weaknesses to deliver a film that’s certainly worth a look.
Jack Cunningham (Affleck) is an aimless man, stuck in a dead-end construction job and isolated from his family. The film wastes no time establishing his dependence on alcohol: there’s an esky in the backseat of his truck after work every day, followed by trips to the local dive bar at night. Having been a basketball prodigy in his youth, Jack is approached by his old high school to coach their struggling team. He accepts, seemingly because he has nothing to lose. You might assume this leads to a cliched story about the coach and team each helping the other get back on their feet, but THE WAY BACK subtly subverted my expectations.
Bad Ingelsby’s script essentially blends two depictions of alcoholism I’ve seen on screen before: the showy powderkeg, and the sneak. While Jack’s friends and family do see him drink until an angry outburst (or becoming paralytic), he’s also the kind of guy who hides drinks in keep cups and empty sodas just to get up in the morning. It’s a confronting choice that feels influenced by the actor portraying him, as Affleck’s hulking frame and macho posturing made me genuinely afraid for the other characters in his moments of rage. Simultaneously, he’s been vocal about his real-life struggles with alcoholism and brings a sense of resignation to the film’s quieter moments, like Jack drinking in the shower. There’s something heartbreaking about seeing such a well-known face glazy-eyed and permanently puffy from a hangover, fixed in an utterly indifferent expression. Although most of Affleck’s career plaudits have come from writing, directing and producing, THE WAY BACK is a reminder of his acting talent.
Jack similarly anchors the other half of the film: the rookie coach turned reluctant role model. It helps that the basketball sequences are energetic and well-shot anyway, but Affleck’s red-faced yelling perfectly conveys his love of the game through a full gamut of emotions, from joy to frustration and makes it easy for the audience to invest. Honestly, from this point I expected THE WAY BACK to find its groove as a heart-warming moral about recovery; in fact, Jack isn’t even shown drinking for most of the second act. This makes it all the more surprising and effective when the story provides context for his depression. It’s a devastating backstory which I won’t spoil, and makes sense given what we know about the character instead of feeling like cheap emotional manipulation.
Unfortunately, the script spends so much time developing its lead that the rest of the film is somewhat vague. The supporting cast aren’t given arcs or many lines apart from Javina Gavankar as Jack’s estranged wife Angela; some of the players in his team are basically glorified extras. No one is outright bad per se and perhaps exploring everyone’s motivations would’ve felt too similar to a straightforward sports drama, though I still felt this was a missed opportunity to establish the audience’s connection with them. There are still elements beyond Affleck that I enjoyed, particularly Rob Simonsen’s beautiful piano-driven score which produces a new, equally memorable motif for each of Jack’s moods and struggles. Overall though, I can’t help but wonder if THE WAY BACK would’ve had more to say about addiction if it didn’t rely on its star being so compelling.
I see THE WAY BACK as simple filmmaking done well. It’s thoughtfully directed, has an emotional story and features a career-highlight performance from a Hollywood darling, all of which will surely make it easy to rewatch. Despite it failing to escape some of the sports drama clichés you’d expect, its twists set it apart as an engaging character study.
The upshot is that Jewell is right and when the bomb goes off, all but one life is saved (two, if you count the heart attack victim post the event) and despite the many injuries, Jewell’s actions foil the terrorist act. Overnight, Jewell becomes a hero complete with media attention, admiration from the cops and an appearance on the Today Show. But his celebrity is short-lived as agent Tom Shaw (Jon Hamm) of the FBI, responding to a tip off from a former employee. It makes sense to the FBI. Jewell fits the profile. He’s a white middle-aged male who lives with his mother, has ambitions to be a police officer and a strong sense of his own importance in preventing crime. All this makes Jewell Shaw’s chief suspect. When Shaw leaks that information to Atlanta-Journal Constitution reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde) the full weight of law enforcement and the media comes down on Jewell and he becomes a pariah in the public eye.
When Clint’s movies are good they are often great (like his 2018 movie The Mule which was a cracker)... but when he misses the mark he often misses by a mile and, sadly, that’s the case here. It’s not so much a matter of the movie being bad; it’s more that it’s dull, plodding and feels lazy in its screencraft. The strong cast which, in addition to Hauser, Hamm and Wilde includes Kathy Bates as Bobi Jewell (Richard’s mother who bears the brunt of the public pillorying of her son) and Sam Rockwell as Watson Bryant (Jewell’s former work colleague, now a washed up lawyer who takes on the case) are mostly underused and pedestrian in their performances. That’s not to say that they’re unwatchable; these are all actors who bring great presence to the screen even when they’re in movies that don’t allow them to shine (Bates received an Oscar nomination for her role, but it’s not surprising that she didn’t take home the statue).
One part of the problem here is the lacklustre direction of the film that offers up a by-the-numbers chronology of events and largely thumbnail sketches of the characters. The other part is an uninspiring screenplay by Billy Ray whose credits include last year’s Terminator: Dark Fate and Gemini Man but, more importantly, the 2003 film Shattered Glass (which he also directed) about Stephen Glass, the journalist who fabricated more than half of his published stories. Like that movie, the Richard Jewell screenplay is based on a magazine article (as well as a book) and, like Shattered Glass, the heart of Richard Jewell’s storytelling feels eclipsed by the details of its unfolding events.
On the plus side, Hauser is good as Jewell who is his own worst enemy in terms of making himself look guilty. It’s a laconic, likeable performance that melds nicely with an equally good performance by Bates as the protective mother. But the standout (for me, at least) is Nina Ariadna as Bryant’s long suffering but smart-as-a-whip assistant Nadya Light. It’s a minor role, but the story comes to life every time she enters a scene.
I saw this movie with my son, Gully (we were the only two punters in the cinema) and about two-thirds of the way through, he leant over to me and said “...isn’t the FBI just doing its job?” In a way, he was bang on the money. If you’re expecting to see a tight thriller that exposes a miscarriage of justice then, like me, you’re likely to be disappointed. Yes, the FBI treated Jewell badly in the way they went after him with little or no real evidence. But, isn’t that the nature of investigation, to interrogate the suspect in order to discover the guilt or innocence? And even if (as portrayed here) the agents are lazy and expedient and misleading in their investigation, it’s more a case of shoddy police work than of corruption. (in the real world, the lead FBI investigator was only suspended for five days because of the way he handled the case).
In fact, it’s the media that’s the real bad guy in this film, jumping to conclusions which are published well before there is any substantiation. It’s a shame, then, that Wilde’s journalist character Kathy Scruggs is so flimsily and superficially written. In fact, the suggestion that she traded sex for the leaked FBI information has been the most controversial aspect of this film. In fact, she died well before the film was made and her source was never revealed. Here, though, she’s played as an amoral go-getter who’ll do anything to get a headline and yet (mild spoiler alert) she is very easily turned around on the simplest of revelations and when that happens, her whole character seems to soften and change in a way that seems far from plausible.
Don’t get me wrong... it’s not that there isn’t a story here to tell. What happened to Richard Jewell and his mother was reprehensible and his treatment by both the FBI and the media was grossly unfair. His story should be a parable for us about the dangers of jumping to conclusions, relying on profiles and of being all too ready to buy the news outlet with the most sensationalist headline. In this case, though, neither Billy Ray nor Clint Eastwood have found the way to tell that story on the big screen.
HONEYLAND is largely set in the remote North Macedonian village of Bekirlija, where the film’s subjects live in near-total isolation without electricity or running water. Here, Hatidze Muratova is one of the last wild beekeepers in all of Europe. Hatidze’s methods may sound somewhat quaint, for instance, she uses the cool stone walls of the village’s abandoned buildings to store her bees, as opposed to modern hives. Yet there is an undeniable method and skill to her work honed through years of experience. In two standout sequences, the filmmakers follow Hatidze’s four-hour journey to sell her honey at markets in Skopje. Directors Tamara Kotevska and Ljubomir Stefanov cleverly follow up her confident sales spiel with impressed testimonials from customers, almost justifying the eye- watering price of ten euros per jar.
The most fascinating element of Hatidze’s work is her focus on conserving and respecting the environment. Indeed, the simple mantra ‘take half, leave half’ is repeated every time she collects a honeycomb, emphasising her perception of the bees as partners. It’s a sentiment that may seem obvious, but one which HONEYLAND embraces to deliver a powerful cautionary tale. Towards the end of the first act, a family of Turkish farmers move to the village and strike up a friendship with Hatidze. After initially focusing on breeding cattle, patriarch Hussein Sam is eventually inspired to begin his own honey business, albeit with tools like hives and bee smokers. As Hussein’s customers become greedier and demand larger quantities, the film delivers some terrific slow-burning tension. I won’t spoil exactly how things fall apart, but the subtlety and lack of intervention from the filmmakers renders the breakdown of the neighbours’ friendship even more devastating.
However, HONEYLAND has even more to offer than an engaging story, simultaneously being a gorgeously shot testament to the natural world. The flashier exterior cinematography is typically used to reaffirm the film’s call for conservation, most notably during the Sam family’s departure from the village. Kotevska and Stefanov opt for a super wide shot here, with the surrounding woods utterly dwarfing the humans who sought too much control. A similar sense of scale can be felt as Hatidze walks through the ruined structures of Bekirlija past enormous open plains. Once again, the notion that life extends beyond our species is perhaps something you’ve heard or seen before, but it’s a particularly humbling and effective reminder.
Yet despite the scope of its message, HONEYLAND is above all an intimate account of one woman’s remarkable existence. Hatidze is an unassuming subject who openly wonders what opportunities she might have missed out on, but continues working for the sake of her family. If you’re anything like me and go into HONEYLAND with no expectations of wild beekeeping, you’ll be hooked on the small details. Likewise, focusing on a real individual only heightens the impact of its emotional final minutes. Whether you’re an avid documentary fan or struggle to connect with the genre, this simple but absorbing film will go down as smooth as honey.
But Zak is not one to be held back. Much to the exasperation of his carer, Eleanor (Dakota Johnson) he enlists the help of some of his fellow ‘inmates’ in making his escape (more than once!) When he finally succeeds, he falls in with Tyler (Shia LaBeouf), a down and out, unemployed would-be fisherman who tends to secure his catch by stealing from others. When Tyler has to go on the run after wreaking a bit of havoc at the docks, Zak tags along and their adventure begins. Tyler is on his way to Florida and the dream of a better life. Zak is on his way to meet his hero, a TV wrestling character called The Salt Water Redneck.
All the characters in this film are unfulfilled in terms of what they hope (or had hoped) their lives might be. But none of them, ultimately, is defeated by that sense of unfulfillment. It’s what drives them forward and, to a large extent, so does what they see in each other. This is a tale about both personal resilience and the need we have for others to believe in what we most desire; to help us get there. In this movie, the ‘getting there’ is both literal (it’s a road trip) and metaphorical; each character grows as a result of the time they spend together. It’s certainly a film about the empowerment of a character like Zak to gain autonomy over his life in a world that would seek to minimise his autonomy because of his perceived disability. But the film is not a ‘worthy-message-movie’. Zak’s story is only the beginning. What’s surprising is that, in addition to Tyler and Eleanor (who we might assume to be the only other key characters in the story) we’re given a fourth story of self-actualisation when they meet up with Clint (Thomas Hayden Church) - AKA The Salt Water Redneck. This story which takes us into the final act is the icing on the cake and includes a lovely moment of magical-realism and a kind of twist at the end that cleverly plays with our emotions.
One of the strengths of the movie is the calibre of the supporting cast. In addition to Hayden Church’s role there are powerful and understated performances by Jon Bernthal as Tyler’s brother Mark, John Hawkes as Tyler’s nemesis, Duncan and his offsider Ratboy played by rapper Yelawolf (both of whom are hell bent on taking their revenge on Tyler for what he did at the docks), Bruce Dern in a lovely small role as Carl, Zak’s friend and accomplice at the old people’s home, and a great appearance by real life wrestler Jake ‘the snake’ Roberts as Salter Water Redneck’s friend Sam.
But the real acting chops are to be found in the central three characters. Gottsagen embodies the role of Zak with a charm and wry wit that is built of a strong sense of determination. Johnson finds a believable balance between what her job would tell her is the right thing to do, and what her heart would say is the right way to go. Her slow conversion to the carefree ways of Tyler and Zak’s road trip is lovely to watch. And, for me at least, LaBeouf has never been better. I’m often on the fence with his performances, but this film tips the balance in the direction of me feeling like he’s a very fine actor.
The screenplay by Nilson and Schwartz is written in a lean, easy, unobtrusive style that allows the story and the characters to emerge in their own natural time and it’s shot in the great outdoors of Georgia with a gentle and picturesque eye by cinematographer Nigel Bluck.
But what’s going on with that title? I hear you ask. Well, that would be telling and would spoil the moment of discovering its meaning. Suffice it to say that the explanation for the title is as satisfying as the rest of the film.
Grizzled old timer Thomas Wake (Willem Dafoe) is an old salt, a cantankerous curmudgeon set in his ways and protective of his precious lamp. Thomas Howard (Robert Pattinson) is the younger newbie who comes to the rock for a four-week rotation replacing a predecessor whose departure is the subject of some mystery. The background of Howard himself is not without its mystery, especially as relates to his previous work as a Canadian timberman, his relationship with fellow worker Ephraim Winslow (Logan Hawkes) and the reasons he left. As the weeks drag on, the tension of their abrasive relationship grows, as do the strange experiences and visions visited upon the new wickie – the discovery of a scrimshaw (a bone carving) of a mermaid hidden in his mattress, nightmarish imagery of tree stumps floating in water, the unsettling presence of gulls (Wake tells Howard never to kill a seabird because they’re the reincarnation of drowned sailors), the hallucinatory appearance of a mermaid (Valeriia Karaman) and Wake’s determination to prevent Howard from gaining access to the lamp room at the top of the lighthouse. Resistant, at first, to Wake’s invitation to partake of some pretty rough looking alcohol, Howard eventually relents, and the atmosphere descends into a drunken and at times violent miasma steeped in secrets and superstitions and, ultimately, madness.
The screenplay for The Lighthouse (written by Eggers with his brother Max) has its origins in Edgar Allan Poe’s final unfinished work of the same name (interestingly that scant work – barely two pages of four journal entries, the last one blank – has inspired many attempts at expansion or adaptation including the short story Horror in the Lighthouse by Robert Bloch and Benjamin Cooper’s 2016 movie, Edgar Allan Poe’s Lighthouse Keeper). When Max Eggers’ reworking of Poe’s fragment stalled, Robert stepped in and, leaving Poe behind, they produced this new work. The result is a bit of a mixed bag of fascinating language (the research from which the language is drawn gets its own credit at the end), compelling characterisations and an assortment of promising but ultimately unresolved narrative threads that undermine the overall cohesiveness of the film. The many mysteries of the layered story - Howard’s background, the fate of the previous wickie, the possibility that a malevolent force surrounds the lighthouse, the authenticity or not of the mermaid and the reason Wake doesn’t want Howard to enter the lamp room – all these threads are enticing and well set up but none of them feel like they reach their completion by the end of the film.
Visually and aurally, the film is powerful and sublime. Jarin Blaschke’s black and white imagery is glorious and the square framing of its 1.19:1 aspect ratio adds to the authentic feel of the pictures on the screen. Production design by Craig Lathrop and Art Direction by Matt Likely evoke a bleak, rudimentary and harsh environment both in its natural world and man-made elements and Mariusz Glabinski’s sound design is relentless and foreboding. At times this movie is compelling and dense like a Samuel Beckett play, but at other times it breaks the bounds of constraint allowing the actors freedom to go over the top; something that seems to please Dafoe and Pattinson, but winds up doing no favours for the audience experience. In the end, as beautiful as this movie looks and sounds and as strong as the performances might be, the overall effect, for me at least, was that the heart of the story, the unsettling, mythological narrative, seemed to be swamped by the triumph of style over substance.