I'm interested to know if there were severe time constraints on this film. It felt as if so much of it wasn't carefully attended to. The first and the most glaring mistake was the title. The movie is based on a short story called Animal Rescue by Dennis Lethane (from an anthology called Boston Noir), which if you've seen the film, is the absolute perfect title, both in reality and as a metaphor for how the film plays out. Just from looking at this board the title change would have settled any doubts about the not-at-all (yet described as) ambiguous ending.
I didn't love the movie (something of a surprise considering Tom Hardy and Noomi Rapace starred), but it wasn't so much the story, the acting or the odd mistakes, but the painfully obvious clues given throughout. Some coming directly before the scenes they foreshadow. In the end, if you read the short story (it's available online), you find the story is so painfully simple, it's not surprising the film lacked the depth it so desperately attempted to show. The ending, however, was a nice homage to Mr. Gandolfini.
I didn't love the movie (something of a surprise considering Tom Hardy and Noomi Rapace starred), but it wasn't so much the story, the acting or the odd mistakes, but the painfully obvious clues given throughout. Some coming directly before the scenes they foreshadow. In the end, if you read the short story (it's available online), you find the story is so painfully simple, it's not surprising the film lacked the depth it so desperately attempted to show. The ending, however, was a nice homage to Mr. Gandolfini.
Comments
Post a Comment