The Power of the Dog (2021) (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

Nominated for 12 Oscars today including Best Picture and Best director.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Nominated for 12 Oscars today including Best Picture and Best director.

I would guess it wins at least those two and maybe Best Actor but over the last several years it seems like they like to spread the awards around so maybe just the two you mentioned.

 

[Tommy R]

Man, I really feel like I’m missing out on something. I’m gonna try to find some time to give this movie another shot, and hopefully I’ll finish it this time.

 

[Malcolm R]

There was a limited US theatrical release on 11/17. According to The Numbers, it grossed about $208k.

I think that's SOP for Netflix, to put them into a couple theaters for a week or two for "legitimacy", then to streaming.

 

[Tino]

Man, I really feel like I’m missing out on something. I’m gonna try to find some time to give this movie another shot, and hopefully I’ll finish it this time.

I’m going to revisit it. Like I said it took me four tries to finish it but it is stuck in my head and want to give it another shot.

 

[SamT]

Writing before reading anything about this. I'm going to read afterward.

I watched this from start to finish without getting bored or dozing off. I enjoy very much emotional movies but this thing went completely over my head.

At the time of watching it felt random things happening at random times. The main character disappeared for a long time. Not much connected to each other. At the end I can see the overall story but it is not in a strong cohesive way. I didn't feel connected.

And what was that music choice? Music itself was great but it was a very sombre and maniac score more appropriate for Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. 4/10.

 

[cinemiracle]

Writing before reading anything about this. I'm going to read afterward.

I watched this from start to finish without getting bored or dozing off. I enjoy very much emotional movies but this thing went completely over my head.

At the time of watching it felt random things happening at random times. The main character disappeared for a long time. Not much connected to each other. At the end I can see the overall story but it is not in a strong cohesive way. I didn't feel connected.

And what was that music choice? Music itself was great but it was a very sombre and maniac score more appropriate for Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. 4/10.

I loved this film. My favourite film seen last year.It never went over my head . It does make you think however. I first saw it last August and twice more when it was on Netflix. I intend to watch it for a fourth time soon. A masterpiece from my favourite director. Such a pity that few people really understood it from the last 10 minutes until the final scene.2021's best tear-jerker movie. For me it was a very emotional experience on every viewing. With over 161 awards won world-wide,it is a sure favourite at the forthcoming Oscars.

 

[Tino]

Such a pity that few people really understood it from the last 10 minutes until the final scene.

Or……..maybe they did understand it but had a different reaction than you. It’s possible you know.

 

[cinemiracle]

Or……..maybe they did understand it but had a different reaction than you. It’s possible you know.

With so many people having different understandings of the film, especially the last 10 minutes., only one person can be correct. Not since the 2001 film in 1968 has there been such a variety of views on a film's finale .I will stream it for a fourth time soon. Truly the most powerful film that I have seen in a very long time. A film doesn't win 161 awards (so far) for nothing.

 

[SamT]

I'm getting frustrated with the so called open endings and different interpretations with the excuse of art. Yes open endings and different interpretations are great to a certain degree but not to this degree. It's like the filmmaker is showing a wall and saying very good and important stuff is happening behind this wall....Now give me my Oscar.

What a movie should do? Make you feel things, get upset, cry... in real time. I think a filmmaker should decide what a story is and tell it and show it on screen in a way you understand and feel it. Not to discover it later on paper.

 

[Tino]

A film doesn't win 161 awards (so far) for nothing.

So a film’s quality should be judged by the awards it receives? I love plenty of films with zero awards and dislike many with lots of awards. Don’t you?

 

[Keith Cobby]

Perhaps it should be released on disc with several endings so you could pick one depending on your current mood, a more interactive, immersive experience.

It's been an interesting discussion and I will find the time to watch it.

 

[dpippel]

I'm getting frustrated with the so called open endings and different interpretations with the excuse of art. Yes open endings and different interpretations are great to a certain degree but not to this degree. It's like the filmmaker is showing a wall and saying very good and important stuff is happening behind this wall....Now give me my Oscar.

What a movie should do? Make you feel things, get upset, cry... in real time. I think a filmmaker should decide what a story is and tell it and show it on screen in a way you understand and feel it. Not to discover it later on paper.

I don't understand this reasoning, Sam. I would find filmmaking a pretty boring affair if everything in a movie had to be explained, laid out in black and white, or spoon-fed to the audience. For me, films like this one that leave some aspects ambiguous and open to interpretation are wonderful if they're done right, and The Power of the Dog is done right IMO. People are able to view the movie through the lens of their own life experiences and draw their own conclusions. And while I'm not putting Campion's work here in the same class as Kubrick, the classic example of this is 2001: A Space Odyssey. If everything that happens to Dave Bowman in the last act of the film was explained away for us, it would not have nearly the same impact that it does in its artistic ambiguity. The ability of a filmmaker to pull this off successfully is a rare talent, and I think Campion has done it nicely with this film.

 

[Pnochichi]

It also reminds me a lot of the was Deckard a replicant debate.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I have watched the film. As everyone agrees it is well made with superb cinematography and four excellent leads. It is a western drama with the main focus on relationships between the main characters, there is little action. It is ponderous with a somewhat ambiguous ending, I didn't feel involved and didn't care who did what at the end, I'm just glad it ended.

It's not a repeater for me and therefore not a great film. I doubt it would have received funding if it was only for theatrical exhibition, difficult to believe it would have covered its $35m+ budget. It struck me as a typical made for streaming film, not wonderful but not terrible, fairly forgettable and a film that many people will give up after 10-15 minutes.

I hope the wonderful Kirsten Dunst wins the AA.

 

[usrunnr]

I have watched the film. As everyone agrees it is well made with superb cinematography and four excellent leads. It is a western drama with the main focus on relationships between the main characters, there is little action. It is ponderous with a somewhat ambiguous ending, I didn't feel involved and didn't care who did what at the end, I'm just glad it ended.

It's not a repeater for me and therefore not a great film. I doubt it would have received funding if it was only for theatrical exhibition, difficult to believe it would have covered its $35m+ budget. It struck me as a typical made for streaming film, not wonderful but not terrible, fairly forgettable and a film that many people will give up after 10-15 minutes.

I hope the wonderful Kirsten Dunst wins the AA.

I have always admired Kirsten Dunst's performances as well, right from the beginning in "Interview With the Vampire".

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

With so many people having different understandings of the film, especially the last 10 minutes., only one person can be correct. Not since the 2001 film in 1968 has there been such a variety of views on a film's finale .I will stream it for a fourth time soon. Truly the most powerful film that I have seen in a very long time. A film doesn't win 161 awards (so far) for nothing.

I know you said before that you had an interpretation of the film but I don't think you have said what it was yet. So, I've been curious to hear your take, can you tell us what it was in spoilers if you think it would spoil it for some. I've seen it, discussed my take on it here, not sure if it is the same as yours as I don't think you have said what it was you thought.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I'm getting frustrated with the so called open endings and different interpretations with the excuse of art. Yes open endings and different interpretations are great to a certain degree but not to this degree. It's like the filmmaker is showing a wall and saying very good and important stuff is happening behind this wall....Now give me my Oscar.

Well, I think the ending of the film is specific in that we know what happens to Phil, how it happened, and who did it. That's not at all left up in the air. I guess there may be things that people can debate, like why it happened, who was feeling what, and what the reason it happened was.

It is not specifically explained through dialogue what happens to Phil but it is shown, specifically shown, and we see it happen. There is one line of dialogue to help people put it together:

Spoiler: SPOILER

The line about anthrax at the funeral so that you can then go back in your mind and realize the scene where Peter goes and takes something from the dead cow is him collecting the anthrax he will use to murder Phil. Then you see his plan falling into place. That aspect I think is made very clear but not in words. Peter intends to murder Phil, sorts out how he will do it, poisons him with the anthrax, by giving Phil the poisoned hides, that Phil is using to lovingly make a rope for Peter, whom Phil obviously is falling for.

That much is clear. I am not sure what parts everybody feels are unclear but I assume it is about who feels what for whom.

It is probably a film that may be best watched twice as I think sort of like Scorsese's Shutter Island there are a lot of things "hidden in plain sight" we are not meant to catch onto the first time through it.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I have watched the film. As everyone agrees it is well made with superb cinematography and four excellent leads. It is a western drama with the main focus on relationships between the main characters, there is little action. It is ponderous with a somewhat ambiguous ending, I didn't feel involved and didn't care who did what at the end, I'm just glad it ended.

It's not a repeater for me and therefore not a great film. I doubt it would have received funding if it was only for theatrical exhibition, difficult to believe it would have covered its $35m+ budget. It struck me as a typical made for streaming film, not wonderful but not terrible, fairly forgettable and a film that many people will give up after 10-15 minutes.

I hope the wonderful Kirsten Dunst wins the AA.

I pretty much agree that if the characters here don't draw you in this could be a real slog. I thought the actors were all great and really threw themselves into their roles so, that was enjoyable for me. Plus the film is beautifully made and this was something I really loved about it.

It is sort of a mystery, that misleads the audience for most of the film before dropping a bomb as to what was really going on the whole time:

Spoiler: SPOILER

Basically that we are led to believe Phil is the dangerous one when the whole time Peter is basically a stone cold killer. Pretty much the looks can be deceiving deal. So, Peter's mom thinks Peter is in danger around Phil but the whole time Phil is the one that is in danger because Peter is not the one at the mercy of his emotions. Phil and his brother are emotional men whereas Peter looks at the world a bit more through scientific glasses. Peter only looks fragile but he is the deadly one.

I think the film is throwing us hints the whole time but the first time through the audience is looking at how things appear and can't see it.

Spoiler: SPOILER

Just like Phil thinks he is the only one that can see the dog in the mountains.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I don't disagree with your analysis Reggie although I thought the ending was ok. I liked the performances but didn't care enough about the characters to worry about whether everyone got the ending they deserved.