It seems a shame that Nicolas Cage has become such a punchline in recent years, especially since he is a very good actor when given the right sort of material. Joe is one of the first films in years that lets Cage show how good an actor he can actually be. This is the sort of film that people who don't believe he can act need to see. But is the film as a whole, taking out the Nicolas Cage factor, actually an good? I think it is, but I do think there are also a few flaws here and there.
The film focuses on Joe (Cage) an ex-con who runs a deforestation business. It's through this business that he meets Gary (Tye Sheridan), a 15 year old boy who starts working for him. The film focuses on these two characters, their interactions with the other members of the backwater society they find themselves, and how they both survive such an uncaring part of the world. The two end up becoming friends, with Gary seeing Joe as the father he always wanted. Gary's actual father, Wade (Gary Poulter), is meanwhile creating a downward spiral that threatens to drag the rest of his family down with him.
So, thing about the character of Joe, is that he is essentially a thug with a heart of gold. There are some things that he does in the film that are really questionable, but Cage manages to make the audience stay on his side through it all (although that could have something to do with how the rest of the characters are written, but we'll get to that later). Tye Sheridan also does a good job as a kid who comes from a broken home, yet manages to retain his youthful optimism about most things despite how hard his life is. The film spends a lot time showing how beneficial the relationship between these two is to both characters, and they are the strongest parts of the film. Another nice thing that I liked was the destruction/rebirth symbolism through the jobs that Gary gets. It's some much needed hopefulness to the end of what would otherwise be a very depressing film.
And that brings me to my first criticism of the film. This is a very bleak and dark story, with some of the most hideous characters I've ever seen on film. There are two main antagonists, Wade and Willie-Russel (Ronnie Gene Blevins), who are so disgusting and despicable that they seem to almost be more like caricatures than characters. Almost. There are some moments in the film that make them more than one dimensional villains. But it is still unpleasant to watch what they do in the film. And they are given very little motivation or back-story. A lot of secondary characters lack that, actually. They just appear, we may learn one or two facts, and then that's it from them for the rest of the film. It's a bit annoying, but it sort of works with the rambling nature of the narrative. But part of still wants to know why Willie-Russel would wear a bunny mask when he rapes someone.
There are a few other nitpicks I had with the film. Most of the scenes are shot with intense close-up shaky cam, that makes me sick. If can stomach that sort of film-making, then well done. And the southern accents can sometimes get so thick that it's extremely hard to understand what the characters are saying at times. But those are minor things. I did like this film, and as I found myself thinking about it again for this review, I found myself liking it more. There is an air of menace that hangs over the film, that adds tension but also makes it hard to watch at times. But if you like good drama films or character studies, then I would definitely recommend this. If you are a Nicolas Cage fan, you may be disappointed he doesn't have many insane moments, though there is a highly amusing scene when he is drunk.
In the end, this is a film that should prove to many that Cage does have it in him to give an excellent performance in a film that doesn't have to be manic, or overly intense. It may be a dark film, but it is a good one. Until next time, readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment