Midnight Special (Jeff Nichols + Michael Shannon)

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Jeff Nichols (Mud, Take Shelter, Shotgun Stories) teams up with Michael Shannon again for his latest. It's been in the works for ages but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of detail on the plot other than the basic.. "A father and son go on the run after the dad learns his child possesses special powers." Nichols has said it was inspired by ET, Close Encounters and Starman.

Teaser trailer released today. It's expected to debut at SXSW next year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGR5BwuBMpI

pixelburp

Another trailer for this popped up & I'm beginning to get quietly excited about it. Seems like a very slick Sci-Fi mystery/thriller. The Close Encounters vibes are very strong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UU_CC81aGM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

It premiered in Berlin last week and it's mostly getting really positive reviews. Think it's due out in April here.

Chain Smoker

Super excited about this.

Watching close encounters yesterday, I couldn't help but think that Take Shelter was really heavily influenced by it and one of the best attempts at building from that close encounters groundwork.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Out soonish? I think.

Getting pretty good reviews.

pixelburp

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Out soonish? I think.

Getting pretty good reviews.

Cineworld says it's out 8 April 2016, and yup it seems to be picking up good reviews stateside so far

Chain Smoker

The reviews are pretty in line with my expectations, a lot of the criticism seems to resolve around excessive ambiguity, using magic as answers to things that are posed as scientific. Nichols isn't someone who I want to be getting bogged down in science **** though so I'm remaining pretty hopeful that I'll love this.

Doubt I'll like it as much as Shotgun Stories and there isn't a chance in hell of it hitting the highs of Take Shelter, but pretty high expectations overall.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Chain Smoker wrote: »

The reviews are pretty in line with my expectations, a lot of the criticism seems to resolve around excessive ambiguity, using magic as answers to things that are posed as scientific. Nichols isn't someone who I want to be getting bogged down in science **** though so I'm remaining pretty hopeful that I'll love this.

Yeah, it seems to be more in keeping with the Spielberg style sci fi of the 70's and 80's rather than the more modern trend of sci-fi films that are more Sci than Fi.

Chain Smoker

Yup , the primary reservation being that most people who try to do Spielbergian sci-fi either fall flat on their faces or really slavishly follow the Spielberg template.

TOPDAWG2.0

Saw a preview of it in Cineworld last Tuesday night. Nothing special. Has promise but is very slow paced, bit boring and not a whole lot happens. Wouldn't be getting too excited about it.

JP Liz V1

Shannon and Nichols have a good partnership, looking forward to this

Arghus

I will probably check this out at the weekend. Despite the near universal rave reviews I thought Mud was the first Jeff Nichols movie that was a step backward. But he has definitely shown that he has something going on, especially in tandem with Michael Shannon.

Chain Smoker

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Midnight Special
Oh dear, at some point during this I caught just how in denial I was about the film. Really didn't work for me at all and puts a pretty huge underscore over some lingering doubts Mud left me with that Jeff Nichols doesn't really know what he's at. Exceptional talent imo but, if this is anything to go by, it's far too raw for him to really make use of a larger budget.
There's a certain point where plot holes become so big that you just can't help but look at them and this was stuffed with them, it was so bad that it was impossible to feel any tension by the end. Lots of huge jumps about with the plot too. Really surprised with how strong of a reception this has gotten.

I remember being really surprised by his top 10 list for sight and sound, it was surprisingly narrow in scope and the overall group didn't really go hand in hand that well with what he had done up to that point. Best thing he could do is watch a few more films, find some new sources to inspire him.

Yeah, in short I did not like this film and I really really really wanted to.

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Shannon and Nichols have a good partnership, looking forward to this

Agreed, "Take Shelter" was fantastic.

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Yeah, in short I did not like this film and I really really really wanted to.

I'm staying optimistic!!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Yeah, in short I did not like this film and I really really really wanted to.

Really disappointing. Not howlingly bad, but deeply boring; completely free of tension and even the cast (with the exception of a very earnest Joel Edgerton) seemed to have stopped paying attention by the end. At one point I was clinging on to the fact that by necessity almost everything

happens at night

because there were some lighting choices that at least meant that things were slightly visually interesting, and literally right at that point that whole aspect is abandoned.

Chain Smoker

Deborah Curved Stratosphere wrote: »

Really disappointing. Not howlingly bad, but deeply boring; completely free of tension and even the cast (with the exception of a very earnest Joel Edgerton) seemed to have stopped paying attention by the end. At one point I was clinging on to the fact that by necessity almost everything

happens at night

because there were some lighting choices that at least meant that things were slightly visually interesting, and literally right at that point that whole aspect is abandoned.

I'd've preferred howlingly bad, it's single handedly made me completely change my opinion of Jeff Nichols (although his next film sounds a lot more suited to his talents, plus Ruth Negga's in it)

It's interesting that some people describe the film as being slow, I think the issue is that it's racing to cover so many things that absolutely nothing holds any weight. As if he wrote a six hour long script and cut out huge chunks to leave the most basic of plot points without realising how much is lost.

From that bit you've mentioned onwards is a shambles altogether.

The kid is crazily overpowered and isn't even dying anymore!

Thought the cast were grand, what in the f*ck were they supposed to do with that ending, like.

Spielberg face shot overload looking at some tacky looking **** in the sky

Critically, this film is currently riding a very big wave of goodwill; basically every review has huge reservations.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Chain Smoker wrote: »

I'd've preferred howlingly bad, it's single handedly made me completely change my opinion of Jeff Nichols (although his next film sounds a lot more suited to his talents, plus Ruth Negga's in it)

It's interesting that some people describe the film as being slow, I think the issue is that it's racing to cover so many things that absolutely nothing holds any weight. As if he wrote a six hour long script and cut out huge chunks to leave the most basic of plot points without realising how much is lost.

From that bit you've mentioned onwards is a shambles altogether.

The kid is crazily overpowered and isn't even dying anymore!

Thought the cast were grand, what in the f*ck were they supposed to do with that ending, like.

Spielberg face shot overload looking at some tacky looking **** in the sky

Critically, this film is currently riding a very big wave of goodwill; basically every review has huge reservations.

Big time. There's loads of stuff that seems really half baked, or seems interesting and then just kind of disappears and it's on to the next bit.

Person I went to see it with read an interview with Nichols, he apparently went and had himself some kids and this film was him trying to express the madness and depth of parental love, and how people can be driven to do anything for their child through the intensity of that love. But that only sporadically surfaces as any kind of clearly expressed theme. I mean god almighty, put Michael Shannon in an empty room by himself and he'd start doing madness and depth and intensity, but there was feck all of it here really.

Chain Smoker

Deborah Curved Stratosphere wrote: »

Big time. There's loads of stuff that seems really half baked, or seems interesting and then just kind of disappears and it's on to the next bit.

Person I went to see it with read an interview with Nichols, he apparently went and had himself some kids and this film was him trying to express the madness and depth of parental love, and how people can be driven to do anything for their child through the intensity of that love. But that only sporadically surfaces as any kind of clearly expressed theme. I mean god almighty, put Michael Shannon in an empty room by himself and he'd start doing madness and depth and intensity, but there was feck all of it here really.

I didn't think anything seemed interesting other than the title (I really like the title) and possibly a cult exploiting the son of one of their members. It really didn't make enough of an effort to show that that was devastating to the parents, it told you it a few times but I didn't feel it at all.
Christ, sure the whole film was just telling you how you're supposed to feel.

What's extra annoying is that he done a much better job of getting at themes like that with Jessica Chastain in Take Shelter. Obviously nowhere near as nice about it, but at least Shannon felt like a man with nothing but good intentions who just had way too much put upon him and Chastain was deeply committed to getting the family through it.
Actually, thinking back on it now, at the time I didn't give a ****e about its

ambiguous ending

, but after seeing this I can't give him the benefit of the doubt.

Random Midnight Special questions:

Why were they in the cult? Exactly how little interaction had Shannon with the son over those few years? Were they into the cult or primarily trying to protect their son from society? What pushed Dunst into leaving entirely? If Shannon is one of them too, what on earth is the point of that? To give a genetic explanation to the son being that way? What are these people doing living over us?
God, it's just a goofy load of ****e

Also, RE: 'put Michael Shannon in an empty room' That's pretty much Bug, isn't it? I mean, Ashley Judd is there too, but you'd hardly notice with the way he's chewing the scenery.

jimmii

Saw it this evening too and thought the same as above really! So many unanswered questions! Wife absolutely loved it but that's her sort of film whereas for me it was a so so 6.

charlie_says

Quite enjoyed it up till the white room scene then it fell apart really.

Solid performances and it has very good cinematography for most of it.

Getting mad press and reviews.

Did any one else think of Abyss in the final scenes?

The Black Oil

Saw on Saturday at 6pm. An interview with Kirsten Dunst was the only publicity I had heard. The cinema was pretty full, so I guess word got around and I was hopeful it would be good. Unfortunately, I've to join with those of you who found it rather dull.

charlie_says wrote: »

Did any one else think of Abyss in the final scenes?

No, but I heard people mentioning Tomorrowland as I was walking out.

OwaynOTT

The Black Oil wrote: »

Saw on Saturday at 6pm. An interview with Kirsten Dunst was the only publicity I had heard. The cinema was pretty full, so I guess word got around and I was hopeful it would be good. Unfortunately, I've to join with those of you who found it rather dull.



No, but I heard people mentioning Tomorrowland as I was walking out.

My other half was in the mind of Tomorrowland as well.

Could have been great but in the end it kind off flattered to deceive.

Basq

Disappointed to read negative reviews of this... planned on going to see it this evening but not so sure now!

El Diablo Blanco

Saw this this evening. Went in with low expectations, considering the reviews above, and it was about what I expected.

On the plus side, it was visually spectacular, the acting was fine in light of the slight material, and the story was initially intriguing.

Unfortunately, this was countered by largely poor characterisation, a criminally vague/underdeveloped plot, a waste of fine actors like Sam Shepard and Paul Sparks, and an utter lack of levity/humour.

Whatever about stuff like Lost or Super 8 (where the fantastical aspects of their stories were used primarily to explore characters), you couldn’t really say that the sci-fi elements of Midnight Special were just window dressing to explore the theme of parental love. Well, you could, I guess, but it’s just a theme that’s not especially well-handled.

Shame- I wanted to like this.

iguana

I saw it tonight and it felt like the last episode or two of a 10 part mini-series. There was a much more interesting backstory that I wold have preferred to have seen. And if I'd gotten a proper introduction to the characters maybe I'd have cared enough about them on the climactic leg of their journey. Although the plot itself was very underwritten. Driver staring a board full of co-orientates, suddenly saying it's a code and he's cracked it, then tilting his head as he circles random numbers without ever actually describing what the code was and why he was circling those numbers, was downright insulting to the audience.

Josey Wales

I absolutely loved this film. Right from the first moments I was totally on board. I didn't feel the need for everything to be explained. There is still some mystery left and I'm fine with that.

Basq wrote: »

Disappointed to read negative reviews of this... planned on going to see it this evening but not so sure now!

Who cares what other people think. I say go and see for yourself.

johnny_ultimate

For the first half of the film I was on board with its engaging ambiguity. In the second half sadly I felt it collapsed into flimsy vagueness.

The first half works as the audience tries to put together what is happening through hints, images and so on. It also flows as a solid chase film - particularly noteworthy the way they use nighttime cinematography that actually feels dark and menacing. Matched with the eerie soundtrack, it comes together to create something that, if not exactly remarkable, at least flows with purpose and confidence.

Unfortunately, I can pretty much pinpoint the moment it fell apart from me:

the sequence in the field when day finally breaks

. I hate 'plot hole' nitpicking, but really the script and ideas were far too brittle here to keep things flowing. Characters were underdeveloped, core concepts were ill-explained, and potentially interesting subplots were unceremoniously dropped once their data-dump purpose had been fulfilled (see the whole 'ranch' business - one of the more curious sections of the early film, only for it to be ignored completely after the first half hour).

I'm all for leaving things unsaid and mysterious, but this goes well beyond that point - Shane Carruth's films are a great example of ambiguous films that actually hold up to scrutiny. But weirdly in its second half Midnight Special not only leaves some elements frustrating underexplored, it overexplores others. The kid explaining his 'revelation' in the hotel room is, frankly, utter nonsense. The finale,

with its sub-Spielbergian futurescapes and 'light creatures' that feel like they have dropped in from another film

, simply does not work - one area where the film would have benefited from some extra subtlety and restraint.

I think Jeff Nichols has so far made films that are usually good and confident if rarely truly special. This, unfortunately, is his least interesting film yet, and one that simply cannot carry the weight of its admirable ambitions. There's unquestionably aspects of an excellent film in here, but they're forced to compete with aspects of a pretty ****ty one too.

As an aside: had to laugh at this sentence in the Wiki synopsis:

They then come to the motel, and Alton is inexplicably reinvigorated by the sunlight

. Inexplicably indeed!

Kylo Ren

It's definitely Nichol's weakest film for me; having only seen Take Shelter and Mud, which I loved.

I really enjoyed the opening but it began a downward trend in quality for me after this with the ambiguity being the main complaint. I still found it enjoyable overall.

I thought the musical theme was class.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpjYgYNPqTU