Wildlife

'Wildlife (2018)' is well made in every way, with its fantastic performances combining with its restrained but assured direction and solid but somewhat unremarkable script to paint a realistic portrait of a failing family seen through the slightly immature yet more world-weary than he's given credit for young lead. The piece isn't necessarily all that powerful, though, and is, sadly, pretty unmemorable, to boot. It's a bit of a strange case because I was invested in the story, characters and overall world right from the off, always involved in its twists and turns and feeling as though I was participating in its narrative (in the sense that I wasn't spoon-fed everything), but I literally forgot I had even seen the feature not two hours after getting home from the cinema, only remembering after being reminded what it was I'd just watched, which doesn't bode well for its overall lasting impact. It also marks it, perhaps, as an experience more adept at setting up a confident new directorial talent than anything else, one rife with opportunity for its actors to impressively stretch their 'acting muscles' and for its plot to portray a more nuanced view of its core players than we usually see in typical 'Hollywood' fare. Of course, your mileage will vary depending on how much it connects with you, and I'd easily recommended giving it a watch at least once. 6/10.

This film tells the story of a couple and a teenage son, whose lives are changed by the husband's decision to fight a wildfire.

The story is simple but is surprisingly engaging. Carey Mulligan does a great job yet again, in portraying her varied and complex emotions. In fact, the husband, wife and son all portray what they are going through beautifully and convincingly, and I really feel for every character in the household.

I very much enjoyed watching Wildlife. Whether it was a Directorial Debut or a director's tenth film, I found it to be superb, which I suppose speaks of the talent of Paul Dano. (Did anyone else feel there is some resemblance between the actor who played Joe and Paul? Just an aside...) The film, as other reviewers have mentioned, has a restraint to it which works well and stops it from descending into overdone pathos. In its strong quiet way it brought up emotions in me which made it a compelling film to watch. I was very involved with the experience of each character. They each were realistic with very realistic concerns. I would say that perhaps the overriding emotion I felt was anger at the parents because they each gave in to their selfish needs and wants, while leaving their 14 year old son to be the mature one. What does "mature" mean here? It means doing what's right, as in the Buddhist "right action." Jeanette, the mother, did things that made her feel good; she gave in to her own egotistic wounds and tried to fix them, at her son's expense. Likewise, Jerry, the father, did too. He drank, he gave up a job out of pride, and he ultimately pursued an adventure, also rather than do what would have been more responsible, and also, more dull. Joe, the son, was the one who was focused on the three of them as a family, as captured in the final shot of the film, symbolic as it was. One could say the theme of Wildlife was Family vs. the Individual, i.e., how much can adults sacrifice of their own desires and ambitions in the name of the family unit and/or the children? By extension, it can also be asked how is it possible, assuming it is, to satisfy both. Ironically, the teenage Joe enabled his parents to respectively pursue their own desires while he maintained the family unit. I'd wholeheartedly recommend this multi-faceted film to anyone who prefers depth to flash.

This movie is being described as "A boy witnesses his parents' marriage falling apart after his mother finds another man." And while I think thats true, I think its a bit more complex than that. It also is a bit of a coming of age story where Joe has to grow up and be the adult in this family, but also it seems that mom is having a mid-life crisis (although shes not quite mid-life) and trying to discover who she is outside of being the "perfect 50s housewife" that perhaps she feels trapped in. There's a lot of symbolism in this movie. The backdrop of this movie is that there is a wildfire that has been raging and the townspeople have been desperately trying to put out. And that correlates with Joe and his own family. Hes trying to put out the fire in his own family. Also, Joe works at photography studio and Paul Dano (the director and co-writer) even said that this is supposed to be a PORTRAIT of a family life.

Speaking of Paul Dano, I think he did well with his directorial debut. I think visually there are some gorgeous shots in this movie. Like for instance where Joe is watching the wildfires (and hes perfectly centered - probably again to mimic the portrait vibe). Also where Joe is about to give up but it starts to snow and hope has regained. I liked the film for the most part. They do frame the film by following Joe's perspective. And I think its mostly effective in making you feel for this kid, my only problem is there are a couple of parts where I feel like there are gaps in the story. Without giving too much away there is a scene where Jerry (Jake Gyllenhaal) has decided to seek revenge and it ends up backfiring. And yet, the next time we see him everything seems to be fine. And it never really gets explained what happened. Theres a brief line that they decided it was a "misunderstanding" but you never really see what happened and he also gets hurt during this, and that never gets brought up again either. I know Paul and Zoe (the other writer) were adapting this from a book and perhaps thats the way it is in there too. But I personally found that a little frustrating. I needed a little more.

Carey Mulligan is fantastic in this. She would be deserving to have her name thrown in the hat for awards season. I also thought Ed Oxenbould was a standout too. Which is good to hear since he's onscreen for pretty much most of the movie. I definitely will be looking forward to more of his things. I also thought Jake Gyllenhaal was good but hes absent for a good chunk of the film and so he just didnt stand out as much as Carey or Ed did.

Overall I liked the film. It wasn't perfect, but I would totally check out another film that Paul Dano directs.

I usually like both coming of age movies and marriage implosion movies, but, for me, the secret to those kind of movies is that you have to like the characters so that you root for the relationships to work. Here I just didn't. Carey Mullgian's character is so hard to identify with, as she makes mistake after mistake, and Jake Gyllenhaal's is just not there for most of the movie that it is hard to root for the marriage to work. Really liked the direction, though, good debut for Paul Dano, but the screenplay left me a bit flat. I still think it's a worthy watch.