Cast: Garret Dillahunt, Donal Logue, Molly Parker, Kaelan Meunier
Characters: Sherman, Franklin, Irene
A stranger comes to town…
He is like John Wayne returning to the ranch, emerging from the wilderness to which he belongs.
If you save a life, are you responsible for that life? There are those who suggest this is so. And when you add in the traumatic kinship of war, it is easy to see why this friendly, lonely man cannot bring himself to turn his back on his troubled brother in arms.
“It’s just a finger, barely half of one.”
“I’m probably not even worth that.”
Fading out from one day to the next introduces a sense of forboding.
Timeless, placeless – there is no mention of any specific conflict. This is a human story of archetypes: brotherhood, guilt, forgives, masculinity, etc. It is not another film about Afghanistan.
It feels slightly easy and formulaic at times: the “everyman” who married, and his “ex-partner” who cant let go of the trauma/ institutionalisation of military life.
- He trips in front of the children and swears himself blind – he is an outsider.
Have a good life, try to behave.
Franklin isn’t doing this out of some unquestioning jarhead loyalty; he is a truly, openly good man.
It begins to feel a bit stagnant and repetitive – library, dining room, bar – because not enough has changed in him or his situation each time we revisit a location.
- The short story might have worked, but not enough has been done to flesh out. Sherman.
Three truly outstanding performances. Dillahunt grunts and rolls his eyes, utterly convincing as a man who has lost part of his reason and all of his hope. He is dangerous but earns our sympathy.
It is taut and subtle, slightly distanced, it doesn’t give too much away. It is still affecting because it has depth of feeling, and honesty, and three wonderful performances.
Characters: Sherman, Franklin, Irene
A stranger comes to town…
He is like John Wayne returning to the ranch, emerging from the wilderness to which he belongs.
If you save a life, are you responsible for that life? There are those who suggest this is so. And when you add in the traumatic kinship of war, it is easy to see why this friendly, lonely man cannot bring himself to turn his back on his troubled brother in arms.
“It’s just a finger, barely half of one.”
“I’m probably not even worth that.”
Fading out from one day to the next introduces a sense of forboding.
Timeless, placeless – there is no mention of any specific conflict. This is a human story of archetypes: brotherhood, guilt, forgives, masculinity, etc. It is not another film about Afghanistan.
It feels slightly easy and formulaic at times: the “everyman” who married, and his “ex-partner” who cant let go of the trauma/ institutionalisation of military life.
- He trips in front of the children and swears himself blind – he is an outsider.
Have a good life, try to behave.
Franklin isn’t doing this out of some unquestioning jarhead loyalty; he is a truly, openly good man.
It begins to feel a bit stagnant and repetitive – library, dining room, bar – because not enough has changed in him or his situation each time we revisit a location.
- The short story might have worked, but not enough has been done to flesh out. Sherman.
Three truly outstanding performances. Dillahunt grunts and rolls his eyes, utterly convincing as a man who has lost part of his reason and all of his hope. He is dangerous but earns our sympathy.
It is taut and subtle, slightly distanced, it doesn’t give too much away. It is still affecting because it has depth of feeling, and honesty, and three wonderful performances.
No comments:
Post a Comment