The Hunter (2010) reviews
Review by on 26 Sep 2010
Ok, try and keep up with this.
A man is living with his wife and daughter but he works nights so never gets to see them, with me so far? His wife is then killed in the crossfire of a gun battle between police. The man shows no emotion on his face when he is told his wife is dead. He then sets out on a quest for his daughter, whom in one scene is six years old, the next she is seven… Ok. Whilst searching for his daughter the man decides he is going to kill two police officers in an act of vengeance because he believes they murdered his wife. He is then arrested in a forest and handcuffed for the last hour of the film. Interesting? No.
The first half an hour of THE HUNTER has virtually no dialogue and there are two scenes each lasting roughly a minute where he and his daughter give their pet cat milk. Now if a movie focuses so much time on feeding this cat, you would think it would have some significance to the story right? Wrong.
THE HUNTER focuses so much time and attention on being political and not enough time telling the story it originally set out to tell. This could have been a very powerful and moving film had it focussed on its original intention of being about grief and loss. Instead it drifts off into multiple plots and leaves gaping holes for the audience to fill in on their own.
The film may appeal to a very niche audience if anyone at all. A general audience would be disappointed and it’s not surprising the film will only be on limited release.
Sam Tomlinson
A man is living with his wife and daughter but he works nights so never gets to see them, with me so far? His wife is then killed in the crossfire of a gun battle between police. The man shows no emotion on his face when he is told his wife is dead. He then sets out on a quest for his daughter, whom in one scene is six years old, the next she is seven… Ok. Whilst searching for his daughter the man decides he is going to kill two police officers in an act of vengeance because he believes they murdered his wife. He is then arrested in a forest and handcuffed for the last hour of the film. Interesting? No.
The first half an hour of THE HUNTER has virtually no dialogue and there are two scenes each lasting roughly a minute where he and his daughter give their pet cat milk. Now if a movie focuses so much time on feeding this cat, you would think it would have some significance to the story right? Wrong.
THE HUNTER focuses so much time and attention on being political and not enough time telling the story it originally set out to tell. This could have been a very powerful and moving film had it focussed on its original intention of being about grief and loss. Instead it drifts off into multiple plots and leaves gaping holes for the audience to fill in on their own.
The film may appeal to a very niche audience if anyone at all. A general audience would be disappointed and it’s not surprising the film will only be on limited release.
Sam Tomlinson
Review by on 23 Sep 2010
Unsettling and inconclusive, THE HUNTER focuses on Ali and his cumulative frustration at the Tehrani society he lives in. First his dissent quietly simmers as he struggles to rebuild a life after a prison term, then it explodes in a controlled but deadly fashion after a devastating incident involving his wife and child. Framed against the backdrop of the 2009 Iranian elections, themes of corruption and bureaucracy are never far away from the central story.
Tension mounts from the opening scenes that are accompanied by threatening and pounding bass lines. Events unfold in a very restrained way with minimal emotion and reaction from Ali, who barely speaks despite being in almost every scene. Several key episodes are merely hinted at so that you can never be more than vaguely certain of what is unfolding and contributing to our protagonist's increasingly shaky state of mind. The film shines most in brilliantly set up shots of metropolitan landscapes, and I found actor/director Rafi Pitts enticingly brooding in the central role.
I rarely complain that a film is too short, but when THE HUNTER ended after 90 minutes I felt a little left in the lurch. I was expecting the development of various plot points that in the end remained mysterious. This is definitely a film for those who like their narratives oblique, but the film holds together just enough to give you plenty to ponder afterwards.
Sarah Chorley
Tension mounts from the opening scenes that are accompanied by threatening and pounding bass lines. Events unfold in a very restrained way with minimal emotion and reaction from Ali, who barely speaks despite being in almost every scene. Several key episodes are merely hinted at so that you can never be more than vaguely certain of what is unfolding and contributing to our protagonist's increasingly shaky state of mind. The film shines most in brilliantly set up shots of metropolitan landscapes, and I found actor/director Rafi Pitts enticingly brooding in the central role.
I rarely complain that a film is too short, but when THE HUNTER ended after 90 minutes I felt a little left in the lurch. I was expecting the development of various plot points that in the end remained mysterious. This is definitely a film for those who like their narratives oblique, but the film holds together just enough to give you plenty to ponder afterwards.
Sarah Chorley
Review by on 22 Sep 2010
This film runs to 92 minutes, and, for me, achieves much more than it has been given credit for here without squandering resources, the main one being the enigmatic lead portrayal of hunter.
Ignoring whether this is mere photography (a dissatisfaction better founded, say, as a response to Jarman's experimental films?), it is a moody film, and it takes time, deliberately, to establish moods. Although I several times predicted where it was going, it still disrupts and undermines our notions of where it fits into our typology of films (as the festival write-up indicated).
Say that there is no plot overlooks the significance of the whole trajectory, and fails to relate later events to earlier ones: obviously, I cannot spell it out, but, to understand it, it is important to pay attention to what is said to the hunter in the woods. That information explains his earlier actions, which seemed motiveless (or arising from some nihilistic and sleep-depriving reactive despair), but which turn out to build on events that we have not been shown.
Knowing, at this point, what he has done, we can maybe guess why: we were given detail earlier about his daughter that had been kept from him, but which he might have uncovered, and could have made him see his family life differently. Or he might have had some extreme and pathological reaction to the conditions of his existence.
We already knew something about his past, and can soon see that he has something of the stamp of a loner that is seen in TAXI- DRIVER, content to drve around in his car and wait for first light to hunt. These are important elements in both films, and I was soon
reminded of this one's older brother.
Dialogue is sparing in both films, and they share the desire for revenge that comes over characters at what cannot be tolerated in someone else's behaviour. That, coupled with the recurrent impulse here to implicate others, is at the heart of this film.
It is one of quiet scenes into which sudden loud noises tear and where threat and intimidation inject, by the nature of their origin, onward twists that lead to the final scene and complete what, for me, is a very definite structure. That being said, if one expected
this film to spill its explanation into one's lap, it will remain tightly closed as a story-book, and seem to have taken the viewer nowhere.
I rate this film highly, but there is one niggle to do with how the ending is set up, with our three figures in isolation (and a good misdirection that others will be on the scene): the hunter is given something by one man, but, irrespetive of whether it was his own, it
would not only have been traceable to him, but his fingerprints would also have been inexplicably all over it. In those terms, unless I have misunderstood the closing shot, I do not see that it worked as intended.
Ignoring whether this is mere photography (a dissatisfaction better founded, say, as a response to Jarman's experimental films?), it is a moody film, and it takes time, deliberately, to establish moods. Although I several times predicted where it was going, it still disrupts and undermines our notions of where it fits into our typology of films (as the festival write-up indicated).
Say that there is no plot overlooks the significance of the whole trajectory, and fails to relate later events to earlier ones: obviously, I cannot spell it out, but, to understand it, it is important to pay attention to what is said to the hunter in the woods. That information explains his earlier actions, which seemed motiveless (or arising from some nihilistic and sleep-depriving reactive despair), but which turn out to build on events that we have not been shown.
Knowing, at this point, what he has done, we can maybe guess why: we were given detail earlier about his daughter that had been kept from him, but which he might have uncovered, and could have made him see his family life differently. Or he might have had some extreme and pathological reaction to the conditions of his existence.
We already knew something about his past, and can soon see that he has something of the stamp of a loner that is seen in TAXI- DRIVER, content to drve around in his car and wait for first light to hunt. These are important elements in both films, and I was soon
reminded of this one's older brother.
Dialogue is sparing in both films, and they share the desire for revenge that comes over characters at what cannot be tolerated in someone else's behaviour. That, coupled with the recurrent impulse here to implicate others, is at the heart of this film.
It is one of quiet scenes into which sudden loud noises tear and where threat and intimidation inject, by the nature of their origin, onward twists that lead to the final scene and complete what, for me, is a very definite structure. That being said, if one expected
this film to spill its explanation into one's lap, it will remain tightly closed as a story-book, and seem to have taken the viewer nowhere.
I rate this film highly, but there is one niggle to do with how the ending is set up, with our three figures in isolation (and a good misdirection that others will be on the scene): the hunter is given something by one man, but, irrespetive of whether it was his own, it
would not only have been traceable to him, but his fingerprints would also have been inexplicably all over it. In those terms, unless I have misunderstood the closing shot, I do not see that it worked as intended.
Review by on 21 Sep 2010
Nobody else reviewed this killing time of a film ?
Since when has the film experience been reduced to photography ?
Thought there was need for plot, dailogue and structure.
Apart from the photography, 100% ennui
And why was it scheduled twice, and on the same day ?
Since when has the film experience been reduced to photography ?
Thought there was need for plot, dailogue and structure.
Apart from the photography, 100% ennui
And why was it scheduled twice, and on the same day ?
