User reviews

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.

I just randomly watched this movie, not knowing anything about it at all, just that I like Benedict as an actor. It was slow and sort of unsettling and I had to ponder the movie for a while after it finished. Let me just say this, the devil is in the details with this one. Pay very close attention when watching it, I think it pays off pretty well. I had several 'oh crap' moments after the movie, when I started connecting the dots. To call this a Western is a bit misleading, the setting is in the west (Montana) but that really has nothing to do with the movie at all, nor should it define its genre. I can see how folks might not like this one due to the pacing and some of the subject matter but the acting really is quite good and the movie is well made. Also, let's just say the ending might pass right over some people's head if they hadn't been paying attention or had already made up their mind what the movie was about. I'd really love to say more but spoilers and all. I think this one will start out slow with audiences but will age well over time.

Reading a number of reviews here that are not very kind, I almost decided to skip this one. But I thought I'd give it 20 to 30 minutes then abandon it if not invested. I am glad I did, it seems to me the negative reviews are from viewers who simply did not comprehend the whole story. And that includes the very last scene where everything is wrapped up. I found it to be a good movie and a worthwhile viewing. On DVD from my public library, my wife skipped.

Filmed entirely in New Zealand, so it doesn't look much like the setting, Montana ranch land. The central characters are two brothers old enough to remember their first cattle drive 25 years earlier, in 1900. They have polar opposite personalities. One (Cumberbatch) is smart and educated, perpetually grungy, and quick to throw criticisms at others. The other (Plemons) is kind and clean. When he brings home a wife (Dunst, real-life wife of Plemons) his brother taunts her in subtle ways and her young teen son picks up on it. The rest of the story is how the son works things out to save his mother who is depressed and has turned to drinking excessively.

This is not a movie for the impatient, or for those who don't pay attention to detail. If anyone wants to understand it in more detail do a search on "power of the dog psalm 22:30".

Well written, excellently acted. You might think it's slow but it's not. The chapter effect gives one time to understand all the character development: the strengths, the fears, the idleness, the weaknesses. Phil and Peter had more in common than one thought....but Phil was cruel. They were both highly intelligent and educated. Phil was out to harm and he was surprised to find he might have a friend. All Peter cared about was protecting his mother. You do NOT know where this story is going. You might think you do but that's why the writing is so excellent. Suburb ending. 👏👏👏 to the screenplay. I would have titled the movie " Trapping the Dog." But then again, it doesn't matter.

2021's Nomadland: a gorgeous, critically unimpeachable slow-burn drama that can't live up to the hype and is just a bit too oblique for my taste. However, it's also reminiscent of Assassination of Jesse James and There Will Be Blood, both of which required a second viewing for me to appreciate them fully...so who knows? Maybe it's actually great? That certainly seems to be the consensus...?

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.

This is a slow burn that navigates, not unlike a torrential river running towards an eventual drought, inside the soul of a man and his brother, and how heavy and unforgiving manhood can be. It is raw, disturbing and extremely well built. Benedict Cumberbatch is simply extraordinary as this bully whose layers are to be peeled progressively, sometimes to show a keen sense of torture and manipulation, and sometimes to reveal something far deeper and more complicated. A masterpiece, but could we expect any less from Jane Campion ?

Have absolutely no problem whatsoever with slow paced/deliberate films, there are actually slow paced films that are favourites of mine and have never been one of those people that has a mindset of if a film is slow paced it is immediately bad. Saw 'The Power of the Dog' as someone who has always admired Benedict Cumberbatch's acting, who has liked some of Jane Campion's other work, appreciates the Western genre and also because of the critical response.

For me, 'The Power of the Dog' was more one of those appreciated it rather than loved it films. There was a lot that was good about it and can see why it has been so acclaimed critically, but can equally totally see why the audience response was much more divisive and actually share a few of the criticisms that have often been cited. Regarding of whether it was deserving of the acclaim, it does have to be said that other films in 2021 connected with me a good deal more and were more accessible, primarily 'Coda' and 'Belfast'.

'The Power of the Dog' does have a lot of good. It is impeccably made visually, with the scenery being quite breath-taking and the film is exquisitely shot with a lot of stylish stylistic choices and atmosphere. Jonny Greenwood's score broods hauntingly. Campion's direction is often exemplary and personally didn't find it self-indulgent on the whole, some of how the turbulent lives of the characters are delved into was quite subtle and she was in full command and understanding of the material.

Moreover, there to me was tension and poignancy, particularly in the middle act, and psychologically the characters are interesting and complex emotionally. It is an astonishingly well acted film, with Cumberbatch's powerhouse performance being a career best and the very moving and not too passive Kirsten Dunst has not been this brilliant in years. Jesse Plemons' work is intense and heartfelt.

On the other hand, 'The Power of the Dog' does have problems. Some of the first half was very sluggish in pace and narratively it did take too long to set up.

Did find too often as well that the dialogue was clunky and didn't really flesh out or explain enough the character decisions and motivations, which were too often confusing and at worst ridiculous. The ending is more an ambiguous whimper that left me feel perplexed and indifferent, a far cry from a film like 'Coda' which had an emotionally devastating last act.

Concluding, a lot to admire but can really understand the widely polarising opinions. 7/10.

If one makes a character drama then one needs 2 things:

1 Great characters. They succeeded somewhat in portraying true to life characters, with good acting performances.

2 Intense drama. NONE is to be found though. What a bummer.

So what we have here is a polished portrait of good actors in a story that simply never becomes a real human drama. Simply lacklustre. Kinda tedious. Such a pity of the waste of many good actors...

This is how it's done. Superb acting, direction, cinematography, and music score (Jonny Greenwood). No cheap thrills, or A. D. D. Quick frame shots. It's a sometimes slow, yet very effective and calculated film. Any true cinephile will appreciate its many captivating strengths. Sprawling cinematography, simply beautiful. Benedict Cumberbatch nails this role with an unpredictable formidability reminiscent of Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood. Bar none one of the best films of the year. Bravo, Ms. Campion.

I'm not sure what the congregation of experts are high on, but this is definitely not a notable work.

Oscar nominations should must be a "must-watch". And this us clearly not.

Again, psychological thrillers witg deranged is always a big NO for me.

I had not the read the book, thus many scenes and twists remained incomprehensible to me and I had to read the plot afterwards... Well, the story was there, present, but it could have been shown far less than in almost 2 hours, and in spite of several intrigues and beautiful views, I can´t say it is too catchy.

The main reason I finally found time for this movie was the participation of Benedict Cumberbatch, whom I really admire; here, as well, he was great, excelling the others, even in dialogues with otherwise good performers as well.

I am really surprised that the movie got 12 Academy Award nominations - and not too surprised that it got 1 Award only (although, the nomination list already was not too impressive either and none of them earned more money in box office than production costs).

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.

Dramatic events begin to unfold on a ranch in Montana when two very different brothers come together.

Written and directed by Jane Campion based on Thomas Savage's 1967 novel, it's nothing to write home about despite it critical acclaim. Not holding a candle to other Western dramas. To be blunt it's tedious at best.

While the production and acting is high quality including the likes of the excellent Benedict Cumberbatch, Kirsten Dunst (alcoholic Rose), Jesse Plemons and Kodi Smit-McPhee; the film itself is as melancholy and tormenting as its themes. There's just not enough meat on its slow burning bones. Or enough engagement in the subtle approach to the subject matter to make it intriguing viewing. Just because something is drawn out and/or lingering doesn't automatically make it good to warrant further artistic merit.

Both Ari Wegner's cinematography and Peter Sciberras' (a few continuity errors aside) editing is notable. The Power of the Dog's issue I don't think is Campion's direction per se, borrowing framing from the likes of The Searchers (1956), or the over powering score from Jonny Greenwood; it possibly stems from the source material that this adaptation adopts by default. There's better films that deal with sexuality, alcoholism, masculinity, vengeance and the West. Don't expect a classic Western, it's not in the vein of Once Upon a Time in the West (1968), nor the Unforgiven (1992) or more recently The Hateful Eight (2015) and The Sisters Brothers (2018).

Unfortunately, this is drudge of boredom, with sincerity; it's probably best to read a Greek tragedy instead.