El poder del perro

Very well made western, Greenwood's atmospheric soundtrack creates great tension to the scenes. Strong performances from Benedict Cumberbatch in a unconventional role and supporting cast impressive, Dunst, Plemons, particularly Kodi Smit-McPhee.

Found the film to be an engaging watch.

Rancher Phil Burbank is brash, tough, and seemingly without humanity, his life changes however when the possibility of romance enters into his life.

You cannot casually watch this film, it doesn't allow for that, you need to be fully invested in it, or you will miss vital details. Don't be derailed by the first ten minutes or so, stick with it, as it is slow to start, but opens up incredibly well.

The visuals are incredible, those wondrous mountain ranges look phenomenal, and the incredible attention to the most minute of details is impressive, you truly feel that you're transported to the time.

I would suggest it may not be for everyone, genre wise it's a little curious, not a Romance or a Western in the strictest sense, but there are several elements here.

It's gritty, its harsh, but it's also sensual and intense, it's truly not what I was expecting.

Benedict Cumberbatch gives a truly mesmerising performance as Burbank, once again showcasing his depth and versatility. Kirsten Dunst excellent too, it's a very strong cast, with real depth.

Wow that really does look like a dog.

8/10.

The Power of the Dog was interesting, however I couldn't decipher what it was trying to say. And while the acting from Benedict Cumberbatch, Kirsten Dunst, and the rest of the cast is solid, the film seems a little pretentious. I also was distracted by some directorial choices. Perhaps it's because I heard so much buzz about it, but I just feel like The Power of the Dog is overrated.

It is said 'The Power of the Dog' covers themes such as love, grief, resentment, jealousy, masculinity, and sexuality. Homosexuality, to be exact. Or should I say, the film is very open to the suggestion of homosexuality, but it never really surfaces - almost like a 70's movie.

I generally don't favour drama films, and the only reason I decided to watch 'The Power of the Dog' is because it received an amazing 562 award nominations (winning 250 so far), and because I like Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor. The film received an incredible 12 Oscar award nominations. So let's look at this film.

Benedict Cumberbatch stars as a rancher, Phil, who runs a ranch together with his brother, George (Jesse Plemons). Phil is insensitive, rude and crude (lets just call him butch!), while George is quite the opposite. George falls in love and eventually marries Rose (Kirsten Dunst). Her son Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is gay - or a faggot, as they call him in the movie. This causes Phil to constantly mock him in front of his workers.

The film does have significant character development and there's lots to read between the lines, since the film tells its story in a very subtle manner. I must be honest, from an entertainment perspective, I wasn't all that entertained. In fact, I was pretty bored for the first 40 minutes. It moves along too...darn...slow...

It really also is uneventful until the final reveal. (well, also not much of a reveal, as you sort of have to guess what they're trying to convey.) Apart from character study, there's hardly anything significant happening here. I was bored - just as I was with the highly acclaimed 'Brokeback Mountain' (although 'Brokeback' was a lot more in your face and not as toned down as 'The Power of the Dog'.)

I can't help but wonder what prompted critics to adorn the film with so many awards. Is the high acclaim truly justified? Or is this overrated? For me, definitely. I agree, the film is beautifully shot with stunning cinematography. The set decoration is also incredibly well done, and the costumes are great. But is it that great a movie? Not for me....

Would I watch it again? No.

According to Google one of the meanings of subtle is "making use of clever and indirect methods to achieve something".

My reading of this film is that the thing Jane Champion is trying to achieve is to show us the invisible.

I think she is primarily trying to to demonstrate how bullying and intimidation can happen in almost invisible ways.

There is very little obvious physical bullying or intimidation here. But instead a picture of how the subtle use of language and non-verbal behaviour can devastate lives.

While the story is set in a remote time (1925) and a remote place (a ranch in Montana, USA) it therefore has every relevance to today - relevance to every family situation where are those subtleties can occur.