Kevin's Watch

This slow burn drama set on a cattle ranch of the nineteen twenties Montana is directed by Jane (The Piano) Campion and stars Benedict Cumberbatch as an overbearing ranch owner and Kirsten Dunst as the alcoholic wife of his brother. The cruelty of the former toward the latter forms the drama around which this story is set, and the film is not afraid to set its own pace in the unfolding of the twists and turns it presents. These chiefly surround the developing relationship between Cumberbatch's unpleasant cattle owner and Dunst's medical student son, and the effects that this has on Dunst herself.

The problem (for me) was that the deliberately measured pace did not keep my interest up as much as perhaps the intriguing story deserved; the cinematography was great - lots of wide-screen shots of the Montana hills - and the acting first rate (as one would expect)....... but it simply wasn't quite enough to fill the emptiness of the two hour running time. Now this is a personal thing, and I respect that others will not have this problem, because it was oddly boarder line even for me. Thinking about the story done differently, I recognize that something would be lost - so in no way let my observations put you off from seeing this movie on this score.

Now when Mark Kermode reviewed this film (and he very much liked it) he said of the ending that it left him wondering "if I had seen what I think I just saw?"

For me it was plain and obvious - he had just seen it, though it is certainly not overtly pushed in your face. Another person I spoke to did not cotton on to it at all, and saw a much duller story thereby, and on this basis I say that joining up the dots in this movie is by no means a given for any individual. I have a natural advantage over most people by virtue of my background and I'll leave it at that.

If all this sounds a bit enigmatic then that is because it is supposed to. The film is screening on Netflix as we speak, and I'm interested as to what other people think of it. Give it a whirl and let me know.

I enjoy Dunst's work. The movie is on my must see list.

She's good in the film Sarge, but perhaps a trifle underused (though probably not so on reflection). I'll look forward to hearing what you think when you get round to seeing it.

I was initially intrigued at the notion of Cumberbatch in a Western. I guess if Daniel Craig and Idris Elba go there, everyone else has to give it a try.

But lately I'm not into watching people being brutal to people. So when I heard what this one was about, I gave it a pass.

But you can tell me how Western Cumberbatch can be.

The brutality is essentially psychological in kind Wayfriend, but still pretty brutal even at that level. Perhaps cruel would be a better word for the way the protagonist behaves and no, it isn't pleasant to watch...... but perhaps not so bad as to give reason to avoid the film. But I do see where you are coming from.

Saw this film again yesterday, post its success in the BAFTA awards, and found the second viewing a worthwhile exercise in view of the fairly deeply hidden 'twist' that was integral to the story.

I've been surprised at how few people are actually capable of joining the dots and coming to an understanding of what has taken place. For a majority of viewers the story simply sits as it is shown, and they fail to even realize what it is that they have seen. For these people, the viewing will seem as little more than a waste of time - I heard one commentator describing the film as the most pointless film ever made - and that's a shame. I can't claim any particular intellect that enabled me to see the embedded plot where others fail to do so - it is simply a case of familiarity with one aspect of what was happening that made it so. For those without the necessary technical background I can fully see that the scheme of things is going to be hard to fathom. But is this a failing on the part of the director? I think it could be. As I say, on second viewing the true significance of what each scene is pointing toward is revealed, but that will be of little compensation to those who see the film once and don't get it (even if, as Kermode above, in doubt). My wife who watched it with me yesterday for the first time, simply didn't see it, and the act of having it drawn out for her didn't seem to improve her feeling toward the film. I'm thinking that only if you suss the thing for yourself would you be motivated to go through the two hours viewing time again in order to wrap the thing up.

But there you have it. I'd say give it a go - but then, I would wouldn't I. You may walk away feeling that you have wasted your time - but then you may not, in which case you will feel pretty rewarded by this intriguing and well crafted story.

I'm gonna hard pass on this movie. I LOVE WESTERNS and I wish they would do more of them. But after looking at some of the reviews and the movie plot, I have no interest in a movie where the underlying theme is how a heterosexual cowboy has a quasi-homosexual relationship and a mentioned might be relationship from the past.