Joe (2014)

[K1stpierre]

Discuss

[Jack Nevada]

I liked Joe when it was about male bonding and chopping down trees, not so much when it was all wallowing in the misery of it's characters. Nic Cage is always good value but the movie is pretty average stuff (ends in a gunfight, just like Mud)

 

2,5/5

Edited July 15, 2014 by Jack Nevada hates movies

[Jake Gittes]

Cage's best work in years, maybe since Bad Lieutenant, but ironically, Gary Poulter (a homeless man when Green cast him) steals it from him anyway in a genuinely scary performance. I liked Joe better than Mud, mostly because it's 40 minutes shorter, and I appreciate its grit as much as I do Mud's Twain-esque spirit. Certainly don't think it was overly miserable, the chopping-down-trees scenes alone ensured that. As far as David Gordon Green goes, it does feel a little like he's spinning his wheels - I'm still waiting for him to return to the brilliance of George Washington - but at least he's doing this and not another Sitter or Your Highness. 

[Jack Nevada]

I could've done without the scarfaced character and with less of Joe's brooding, and the ending shootout really felt like too much of a traditional, easy conclusion for a story.Also it aint 40 minutes shorter than Mud.

[Jake Gittes]

Yeah for some reason I thought it was under 100 minutes. Still, I thought it was much better paced than Mud.

 

Agree on the shootout part.

[Jack Nevada]

Good that you mentioned Gary Poulter. He really was extraordinary. His performance was tangibly real in a way you dont often see in movies these days. The use of non-actors was one of my favorite aspects of the movie.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Jack Nevada hates movies

[mattmav45]

Well, at the very least this was interesting.

 

There are undeniable things on display here that work.  The film has a good atmosphere for the most part.  Cage is better than he's been in years, and shows that there is indeed still an actor hiding in that body.  For the most part, the strongest aspect of the film lies in the characters and surrounding area.  The characters tend to be well drawn out and layered.  All the ingredients needed to make a slow-burn drama fueled by the characters are present.  Unfortunately, the film is akin to someone trying to make apple pie with peaches.

 

The writing here is ultimately the film's downfall.  There are times in which the style of the film simply doesn't match the plot.  When style and plot collide and contrast like this, the film is pulled under much like a innocent passerby.  This is one of those rare films in which I think the sentiment that it is over-plotted rings true.  There are too many things happening at once.  A little subtlety would have gone a long way here.  Too much is attempted with too many characters to allow the viewer to immerse themselves into one dominant aspect of the film.  

 

The ending is a good representation of this.  I wouldn't argue if one said it simply falls off the rails here.  Once again, too much of an effort is made to create peril and drama.  The atmosphere and characters were already present to allow this to happen.  The story should have simply complemented the proceedings instead of destroying everything in its path.

 

There is a great film to be found somewhere in all the clutter, but ultimately another film in which "what could have been" is the prevailing take home thought.