Tomato Red

Julia garner is, as expected, mesmerizing. The role might hew a little too closely to the character she plays in Ozark, but in an hour and a half she brings similar nuance to a character she developed over many years in the Netflix show. Anna Friel as Bev is a subtle sensation and Nick Roux as Garner's on-screen brother is sublimely understated. Jake Weary as the male lead is in one of those roles where it's difficult to imagine anyone else doing it. He *is* Sammy.

Much of the dialogue is truly mesmerizing, a credit to Juanita Wilson whom it is impossible to imagine isn't from a trailer park somewhere in the impoverished American south. (I swear I'd read the ingredients panel on a Hostess snack cake were it written by her.)

This may be the most poorly titled film I've seen in a long time, the title suggesting the kind of story that we don't get. It's not an action flick. In fact, the genius of this film is that at almost no point is it about what you think it's going to be about. At one point it seems a light hearted caper, at another a wonderfully tragic and perverse love triangle, and at yet another a tale of revenge and regret and horrible choices to be made in horrible circumstances. But in that lies the movie's success. Separately these themes don't tell the story this movie is telling but woven together as they are the narrative theme coheres: being poor white trash is a desperate, powerless, anguishing situation, yet those who survive, survive. And sometimes we should pity them for it.

This film is why independent film exists and should continue to exist despite and especially because of the pressures the major motion picture industry exerts.

The title and poster led me to expect this to be a completely different film than it turned out to be, namely an action thriller, but actually it is Southern Gothic drama with some mild thriller elements. Now, this is not necessarily a problem for me personally because I am open to be surprised, but I wonder if this might have hurt the film's marketing.

The movie is competently executed and features passable acting, but I could just not get rid of a constant feeling of annoyance at watching one poor life choice after another, with practically no insight into the consequences, by several of the major characters, right up until just before the end of the movie. When, at that point-finally!-each of the three main characters attained an insight, it struck me as so profoundly cynical that I could not get myself to care about it.

I realize that this may very well be the point of the movie: to depict the grim lives of the bottom barrel of society, hopeless, with flawed moral systems and an inability of its members to find a way out of their situations, and where every poor choice is bound to both be punished more harshly than it deserves by society, and to serve as a prelude to further poor choices.

As far as what a drama could be about, it is actually a really good point. But when there is too much of that, then one eventually stops caring about the characters, and that is what happened to me here (except for the character of the mother, who did elicit some feelings of pity).

If you're into action films, this is not for you. If you're into thoughtful films and willing to meet the characters where they are at in their reality, and you're open to the fact that this represents a plight that many humans are born into, then this is worthy of your time. You really can't go too far wrong when Julia Garner or Anna Friel decide a fim is worth participating in.

My biggest problem with the film is not in the actors, the characters, the writing, or the cinematography. It's that since I was raised in the Ozark and have lived in California, I know that the mountains in the background look more like the Central Valley of California than they will ever resemble the Ozarks. They may have gotten away with it if it weren't for the wide shots, but it also looks too dry. The reality is that this film was shot in Canada. I wish the scouts would have researched the terrain and geography of the Ozarks better because if you're going to say a film is based in Missouri, in the United States and it's a major component to the plot, then it visually needs to be believable. The mountains in the background completely took me out of the film. At least Julia moved on to the acclaimed TV series "Ozark" where even though it's not shot in the Ozarks, it sure as heck looks like it because of all the location research they did to ensure it has an authentic look and feel for sense of place.

This film has some great actors- and pretty good performances. The dialogue goes in and out from natural to poetic... but then it switches into self conscious, kind of stilted pronouncements that reminds us that someone wrote this dialogue and is trying to be profound and important.

The main challenge, though, is that the "holler"-ostensively a thickly wooded valley in the Ozarks- is shot in some desertlike part of Canada. Ok, so there are some large, dry mounds around that could signify "mountains", but come on! Are the Canadian Film Board subsidized tax breaks worth making it impossible to suspend disbelief for the entire film? Nope!

A looser meets other loosers. They bond and they both continue to struggle through their daily looser lifes. That's basically the story about these young, poor Americans, who live in constant poverty and sorrow.

The good: acting is good, yet not above normal good. The time that is taken to get to know these poor loosers is nice as well. It gives a good portrait of every character.

The bad: lacking spark. It lasts an half hour too long at least. And there is no real chemistry between the leading actors, who do act decently, but nothing above barely decent. Dialogues are good, but the general storyline is not very credible at moments and not very thrilling either.

Not bad, simply lacking just that bit of extra. Therefore only 6 stars.