I see this movie is a bit polarizing here on IMDB as some people describe it as a masterpiece and it is only us stupid Americans that do not understand its brilliance while others hate it saying it is a pointless movie with virtually no plot. Where do I fall in? I say it was an interesting movie that does fall apart due to the fact it literally had a non-ending. Seriously, us Americans may not be as smart as you Europeans, but this film literally had no ending, any idiot could see that. Oh, and by the way, movies here in America are made with explosives and all that stuff and pretty much dumbed down for European and other foreign lands so take that for what it is worth. I enjoyed aspects of this film very much and I thought it was racing towards some thrilling conclusion, but it seems to me someone did not know how they wanted this thing to end. Either the director did not like the original ending in the book, or the book had a really anticlimactic end to it and the director didn't want to change it (yes, this film is based on a book).

So, the story has a woman whose son is apparently killed by a wolf writing to a man who has written a book about a wolf he had tracked and killed. He comes to the very isolated community to at first try to reason with the woman, but then decides to try and hunt the wolf; however, he is not there one day before this woman is acting very strangely. Her husband is injured in the Middle East and he too behaves a bit strangely. At first, one thinks that perhaps they are just in shock over the loss of their son, but soon the wolf hunter learns that the boy was killed by his mother and she goes on the run setting off a violent pursuit by the husband who kills anyone in his way while the hunter looks on stunned by the violence that begins to rule the day.

The film at times seemed as if something supernatural was going on, and that could be the case, but I cannot say for sure because the movie just kind of ends without any type of real resolution. The film is about a descent into darkness where the husband and wife seem to be becoming more animal like in nature and me and my fiance started to think that perhaps the wife was a werewolf and she wanted the hunter to kill her, but then the husband comes in and starts killing everyone who had nothing to do with his son's death. Apparently, in the book the wife and husband were also brother and sister; however, this is not as clear in the film as only a couple of clues hinted at this relationship between the two. Still doesn't explain their motives or the lack of an ending.

So, it was an interesting watch and I would have scored the film higher, but the ending totally came out of nowhere and was so anticlimactic that it ruined all that had preceded it. I am curious to read the book now just to see if it too ended in such a fashion, or what I would hope to find something that brings closure to the story. I was watching this and then the film ended and both me and my fiance were like, "WTH!" Made me think the thing ended prematurely or something. Still, good acting, good setting, this film just needed some work in terms of the story and the finish.

Anyone who caught a glimpse of the trailer would be certain a genre-meshing treat was on the cards, but 'Hold the Dark' fails to fulfil on that eerie expectation by the time the anti-climactic ending happens.

The film stars Jeffrey Wright as a retired naturalist and wolf expert lured into an intriguing mystery about the disappearance of a young boy - supposedly taken by wolves. The setting imbues a sense of foreboding, an aesthetic the story deserves, at least initially. But the further into the narrative you go, the more everything blurs. The mystery goes from dark adventure to crime thriller with undertones of supernatural/occult themes that not only don't gel with the outset, but also don't unravel into anything that makes sense. You can tell that 'Hold the Dark' has the right recipe, but the ingredients are all under-cooked, and the result is never as tasty as the trailers promise.

The landscapes and visuals are undeniably the film's greatest strength, but there's only so long that the beautifully rendered, ice-cold bleak winter setting can keep you engaged before you need some narrative sustenance to satisfy curiosity. More an art film than an adventure, 'Hold the Dark' has a couple of lively sequences courtesy of bursts of violence that punctuate the monotonous pace, but because the plot isn't as tantalising as it should be, just like the setting, it feels rather empty before proceedings slow down again. The final impression is something you realise sustained your curiosity, attempted to test intellect, but failed to conclude events properly; ultimately leaving you baffled and disappointed.

6/10

The third recent picture from director Jeremy Saulnier, following on from his BLUE RUIN and GREEN ROOM (two films I thought were excellent),HOLD THE DARK is a tougher, more challenging picture that takes more effort from the viewer going in. This is no longer a simple, pared-down revenge thriller like his previous pictures, but something more subtle and less clearly-defined. The excellent Jeffrey Wright plays a wolf expert who arrives in a small Alaskan town to investigate a child taken by a wolf pack. He soon discovers that he's in a place populated by some very disturbed individuals indeed. Saulnier's film is a slow burner that commands close attention and is very satisfying despite providing no easy answers. As ever, long stretches are broken by sudden, shocking twists and bursts of violence that'll have you wincing. There's at least one jaw-dropping set-piece and some great acting from the likes of James Badge Dale and Alexander Skarsgard. The ending fizzles very slightly, but overall HOLD THE DARK is a fresh, engaging picture that reminded me of the similarly dark Korean picture THE WAILING.