The Power of the Dog

[+ E.T.Bass]

The Power of the Dog got a standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival, according to the article in Variety.

 

 

 

Based on a novel written in the 1960's.  The story takes place on a ranch in Montana back in the 1920's.

I may read the novel before the movie is released.  Sounds good.  

 

If you watch the trailer or read reviews of the novel you'll know the story evokes homoerotic tension.  Cumberbatch plays an American rancher, and sounds like he's quite good in this movie.

  i recommend not watching the trailer or reading any reviews, to avoid too much unnecessary information.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by E.T.Bass
edits

[+ Lucky]

Don Winslow wrote another novel titled The Power of the Dog. It's a captivating look at the Mexican cartels. Very powerful read.

[+ E.T.Bass]

Finally saw The Power of the Dog.  

The cast was great.  The cinematography was impressive. 

Would be interested hearing what others think about it.

 

[+ tassojunior]

'Queer Films Could Sweep Awards as ‘The Power of the Dog’ and ‘Flee’ Gain Momentum   

 

As with Dune, I think it's good to bone up just a little before watching (like the meaning of the title and on anthrax) and be on alert for very subtle plot changers. (You'll still miss 1 or 2 main points). All the characters are 100% perfectly done. Amazing movie and everyone is taking their own evaluation in the press. All excellent.

After Brokeback Mountain was snubbed many years ago for that awful "Crash", gay plots and subplots are doing well now. 

[+ WilliamM]

Great recommendation, thank you so much.

[Chuckball]

I really wanted to like this movie. The pace is ultra slow and while the ending was a twist and unexpected, it was not worth the wait. 

[+ tassojunior]

On 12/4/2021 at 1:07 PM, Chuckball said:

I really wanted to like this movie. The pace is ultra slow and while the ending was a twist and unexpected, it was not worth the wait. 

I thought it was a little long with some gratuitous (not sex) scenes. But it's strictly a psychological movie, not a story,  and I guess that requires some less-than-action-filled scenes.  I found it amazing in that most people probably don't realize until after it's over that the assumptions in the movie were reversed. And what I'm seeing most of in comments online is "Did Peter kill his real father?". 

[TumYum]

Saw it last night... very much a "Director's film" and I mean that in a very good way. I loved her "The Piano" and I would say I loved this film even more. Sure it was problematic in some ways, but I also felt deeply impacted by it both while I was watching it and afterwards.

And... if one wants to see some amazing actors at the height of their art.... this is the film for that.

[Rod Hagen]

Enjoyed the book long long ago.  Enjoyed the movie.

[+ pitman]

I knew very little about this film going in, so the unexpected homoerotic parts and other plot twists were a delightful surprise.  Highly recommended.

[jeezifonly]

The cinematography alone is worth it. Gorgeously shot.

[cany10011]

The first 1 minute already gave the plot away when narrated from Peter’s standpoint. Great cinematography… was expecting more overt homoeroticism.  Life must have been very depressing in Big Sky country…. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by cany10011

[+ tassojunior]

1 hour ago, cany10011 said:

The first 1 minute already gave the plot away when narrated from Peter’s standpoint. Great cinematography… was expecting more overt homoeroticism.  Life must have been very depressing in Big Sky country…. 

At first viewing I had no idea who was reciting the narration and at the end did not remember it. It really is a movie more enjoyable on 2nd viewing when you notice the quirks and details more. And that's from someone who hates movies you have to watch twice to figure out.   

[+ E.T.Bass]

On 12/4/2021 at 10:07 AM, Chuckball said:

I really wanted to like this movie. The pace is ultra slow and while the ending was a twist and unexpected, it was not worth the wait. 

For all that was good about the film, none of the characters' story arcs seemed all that interesting to me.

[MikeBiDude]

Watched this a couple nights ago, thought it was pretty good. 👍🏻👍🏻
A Re-watch as suggested by @tassojunior is a good idea and in my immediate future.

[samhexum]

On 12/4/2021 at 1:07 PM, Chuckball said:

I really wanted to like this movie. The pace is ultra slow and while the ending was a twist and unexpected, it was not worth the wait. 

 

On 12/12/2021 at 11:24 PM, E.T.Bass said:

For all that was good about the film, none of the characters' story arcs seemed all that interesting to me.

My best friend wasn't thrilled.  She found it very slow.  And she likes Benedict (Arnold) Cummerbund.

I don't think I'll watch it.

Edited December 16, 2021 by samhexum
Just for the hell of it.

[MikeBiDude]

1 hour ago, samhexum said:

She found it very slow.

It does unfold a bit slowly.

[+ tassojunior]

I think it's normal in any movie to "follow the story" but after this movie is over you realize the "story" was misleading. On 2nd watching you don't pay attention to the story and realize the acting and personal interactions are amazing (not to mention the scenery). It's a movie of personal interactions and conflicts, not a plot, although after it's over you realize the twisted plot and who was evil and who was good.  And it's a gay conflict too. Campion's other huge movie way back "The Piano" was similar style. 

It's a performance that is better to me the 2nd time when I can catch every nuance from all 4 superb actors. Thankfully it's on Netflix so that's easy.  

Edited December 16, 2021 by tassojunior

[mike carey]

58 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

Compton's other huge movie way back "The Piano" was similar style. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Campion

Yes, New Zealand has knghts and dames. They are not British honours but awards as part of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

[+ E.T.Bass]

 

Ann Northrop and Andy Humm discussed Power of the Dog this week's GAY USA.   Their comments mirror the above posts, a well done movie but not swept away by it.   

 

 

 

[+ azdr0710]

thanks to @tassojunior's reminder that it is on Netflix, I just watched it over an early dinner......glad I didn't have to fuss about going to a theater and all....(or should I say "theatre" since it was filmed not in Montana, but entirely in New Zealand??!!)

contrary to others' opinions, I didn't find it slow-moving.....but I can see how some would think so with some moody scenes and little action......when I first took an ice cream break, only 35 minutes remained in the 125-minute movie.....

as suggested upthread and in other reviews, a second viewing will help......though I pretty much got the ending without having to go read the online explanations afterwards, I'll watch it again to catch the important, but subtle, scenes.......

certainly a bit of a dreary movie to some, the scenery, acting, photography, Oscar buzz, and topic are reasons to soldier thru it.....set up captioning if you can!

[+ tassojunior]

21 minutes ago, azdr0710 said:

thanks to @tassojunior's reminder that it is on Netflix, I just watched it over an early dinner......glad I didn't have to fuss about going to a theater and all....(or should I say "theatre" since it was filmed not in Montana, but entirely in New Zealand??!!)

contrary to others' opinions, I didn't find it slow-moving.....but I can see how some would think so with some moody scenes and little action......when I first took an ice cream break, only 35 minutes remained in the 125-minute movie.....

as suggested upthread and in other reviews, a second viewing will help......though I pretty much got the ending without having to go read the online explanations afterwards, I'll watch it again to catch the important, but subtle, scenes.......

certainly a bit of a dreary movie to some, the scenery, acting, photography, Oscar buzz, and topic are reasons to soldier thru it.....set up captioning if you can!

A big question many ponder, and that is alluded to more in the book, do people think Peter also killed his father (who he found after he "hung himself") With Phil's death Peter becomes sole eventual heir to the considerable Burbank family fortune, besides just protecting his mother.

[+ Tygerscent]

Power of the dog: 🐩

This marginally gay themed movie seemed to have some over reaching “emotional damage drama” and bitterness to it~ Did the stereotype it created help gay themed cinema in some way or was it just a cheap parlor trick at gay imageries expense~?
 Dog was filmed well, (some of it very well), and the acting was good but, the multiple overlapping messages didn't make it richer... it was more like a pot of stew with too many meats, vegetables and spices in it~ Add some fried chicken and random house guest that have nothing to do with anything and you’ve got… dessert~?
 Sometimes you don't want fry bread, beef chili, corn bread, violets, flies and anthrax in the same single recipe~ 

 Sometimes simple is better~ 

 There's no appreciation for our intelligence when we are simply supposed to like a film because it's gay themed, has award winning actors/actress and is potentially controversial~ 

 Each one of those characters could have been their own movie~ They all seemed to upstage each other constantly~ Not much in the way of subtleties or unpredictable action/reaction circumstances there~ 

 The characters just didn't seem to “mesh together” to support one single important point~ They each had their own~ 

 Toxic masculinity, vengeful effeminate drama queen, drunken mother over compromising wife, simple minded caretaking secret-keeping brother/husband, silence equals death and so does coming out message... Please stop the dog and pony show. Some indigenous are selling gloves~ 🤔
  This movie could have been made with only Peter, Phil, a saddle, a horse and a cow... the rest of the players could have been silent auxiliaries~
  I like my brisket well trimmed~ 

 Perhaps this production would have made a better on-line play~ Cumberbatch is a fine actor and Kodi Smit-McFee was convincing as well~ More so had there not been other characters competing for attention to tell their own stories~ 

 In contrast: Gods Own Country was well done~ It dealt with many of the same issues/themes but, it all fit together nicely and was much more rewarding without all the glitter~ Two main characters and one compelling message supported by minor themes~ Tidy and yet flavorful~ 

 Call me by your name felt like gay dumpster diving to me~ Cheap thrills and shock value entertainment~ This rendition of POTD had a similar feel but, darker ending where Armie does of anthrax instead of marrying himself off to some other fad boy instead while destroying the trust of a young, inexperienced lad he trolls over all summer~ 

 POTD ending should have been Call Me’s ending scene instead~ 🥴

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Tygerscent

[+ Tygerscent]

On 12/5/2021 at 2:24 PM, tassojunior said:

I thought it was a little long with some gratuitous (not sex) scenes. But it's strictly a psychological movie, not a story,  and I guess that requires some less-than-action-filled scenes.  I found it amazing in that most people probably don't realize until after it's over that the assumptions in the movie were reversed. And what I'm seeing most of in comments online is "Did Peter kill his real father?". 

If that is the case, why do we even care about any of the other characters or Bronch Henry~ Phil could have just been a mean rancher guy who Peter eventually kills because Phil rapes his mother or something~ That would have made more sense~ 

[+ Tygerscent]

On 12/18/2021 at 6:57 PM, tassojunior said:

A big question many ponder, and that is alluded to more in the book, do people think Peter also killed his father (who he found after he "hung himself") With Phil's death Peter becomes sole eventual heir to the considerable Burbank family fortune, besides just protecting his mother.

Yes… I guess there could be that motive but, it’s not like Peter sets his mom up to marry into the Burbank family… he ran away during dinner and was a scent for a few scenes and whatever happened to the “friend” Peter had that he didn’t want to bring to the ranch for “a certain person” to meet~? Why was that I person t enough to omit from the editing room floor~ 
 Why didn’t Peter set up the dancing scene and picnic for his moms future husband~? 
 There’s not tying Phils death to some ulterior motive to take over the Burbank fortune~ Surely, “the old woman” or ranch hands or Indians would have fence posted them~