With a title like that, I was expecting this to be some kind of western-"mystery"-thriller, partially because I was hoping that this would redeem Ron Howard after his other mystery-thriller, "The Da Vinci Code". Now, granted, this came out before "The Da Vinci… More
With a title like that, I was expecting this to be some kind of western-"mystery"-thriller, partially because I was hoping that this would redeem Ron Howard after his other mystery-thriller, "The Da Vinci Code". Now, granted, this came out before "The Da Vinci Code", but hey, I don't care what time it is, just as long as something Ron Howard did washes the taste out of my mouth. Well, as much as I like this film, it's not quite that major redemption that I've been looking for, seeing as it is rather unsubtle, just like the consensus said... in a tonally jarring fashion. I love how the consensus starts out saying that the acting and directing is "expert", yet the only reason it has mixed reviews is because it's not all that subtle. Hey, now, I would understand if we were talking some Alfred Hitchcock stuff, but this is a western thriller, so I'm not asking for too much subtlety. Of course, what subtlety I am going for doesn't go completely answered by this film. No, the film isn't that far out there; it's certainly more subtle than "Tombstone", yet there's no denying that this film doesn't totally deliver on what it should.
The film may be unsubtle, though it certainly boasts that pretense, being meditative, dry and undeveloped, as though it intended to draw you into the environment. Rather than neutralising the sting of flaws through an actually subtle, meditative atmosphere, Ron Howard approaches the film with convolution, which not only intensifies the pretense, but adds insult to injury by confusing you rather frequently with disjointed storytelling that all but wipes any emotional resonance clean. I really like Ron Howard more often than not, but when he slips up on something, he hits the ground hard. Sure, this film isn't on the level of failure as, well, at this point, I probably don't even have to say it, but man, do I love to, because Ron Howard needs to be reminded of the swill that was "The Da Vinci Code". Still, this film is an absolute mess, squandering potential in the heat of unjustified pretense and convolution that dilutes the human touch and could have left this product an absolutely tedious bore of a film. However, note that I said, "could have". The film's a mess, to be sure, but not an absolute failure, as it is kept floating along with, if nothing else, fine style serving as its raft.
If Ron Howard is known for nothing else, it's a stellar taste in cinematography, and here, well, brother, I need not say it, but I say it anyways, loud and proud: ...Eh, the cinematography's not all that great. No, but seriously though, this film lacks that distinctive visual style that I love from Ron Howard so much, yet when he's needed most, Salvatore Totino knows how to work lighting and angles to really set a sense of claustrophobia and tension, though does not nail the tone quite as well as the great James Horner, who delivers on a dynamic, sweeping score that may not be on quite enough to keep the film from getting, not just slow, but boring, yet when it does come into play, you can pretty much take it to the bank that it's going to be hauntingly awesome. Still, a handsome visual style and knock-you-dead score is, admittedly, exactly what you can say about, well, a certain something that rhymes with "The La Zinchi Fode". For this film to not fall to pieces, it's going to have to at least get some effort from Ron Howard, and sure enough, while Howard doesn't pump this film with the subtlety and smoothness that could have saved it, when it comes to tension and compellingness, he hits just a little bit more than he misses, and for every moment where he lets you down on the emotional resonance, he picks you up just enough to see the path through to the end. Still, all I have to say is forget Totino, Horner and definately Howard, because although these people keep the film going, the product is truly carried by our well-cast leads, particularly - nay - especially Cate Blanchett, who has never disappointed before, and even when she's facing potential mediocrity, she still delivers. Something that's very unique about this film as a western is its being a portrait on a strong female hero on horseback, and if you're looking for someone who can at least deliver on that aspect of the film, few, if any actresses could pull it off as masterfully as Blanchett, who, with depth in her emoting and, well, subtlety and grace in her presence, portrays this heroine with human vulnerability and, most of all, a strong leading presence that sell you on the Maggie Gilkeson character's pain, fears, confidence and potential. She upstages every other performance in this film, yet spares the spotlight for anyone, partially because she shares such strong chemistry with all of her castmates, particularly Tommy Lee Jones, whose Samuel Jones character has quite a powerful story arc Blanchett's Maggie Gilkeson character, and he and Blanchett form quite the team as they sell you on this significant subplot that keeps you particularly glued to the screen whenever they grace it together.
Overall, the film lacks the subtlety to justify its dry, sometimes meditative tone and convolutions, rendering it dull and hardly emotionally engaging, yet what keeps it alive is, if nothing else, fine visual style and riveting score work by James Horner, while what more than saves it is Ron Howard's golden moments of effective storytelling and what carries it are the powerful performances, particularly Cate Blanchett, who's powerful stand-alone emotion and compelling chemistry with Tommy Lee Jones kicks enough juice into "The Missing" to make a watchable film, regardless of its squandered potential.
2.5/5 - Fair
