Review of Snow Angels (2007) by Jeff C — 02 Apr 2008

Here is yet another frustrating review to write about yet another indy film where I expected amazing things and was somewhat dissapointed. However, unlike films like Lars and the Real Girl, Rocket Science and Darjeeling Limited, where I could clearly point out the flaws which made them dissapointing indy films, this one is even more frustrating, because I'm having a hard time figuring out what it was that made this movie mediocre in my eyes. David Gordon Green as a writer is a mixed bag for me, from what I've seen so far. I absolutely loved "All the real girls", which was one of the best anti-Hollywood romances ever made, but wasn't a big fan of "Undertow".

You see, there are a lot of good things about the movie. The performances for one are fantastic...from Sam Rockwell who never turns in a bad performance, to Kate Beckinsale who's surprisingly very good...and remember Olivia Thirlby who played Juno's best friend in Juno? She's in this film and gives one of the sweetest, and most charming performances I've seen in a long time. Her character's perhaps the most likable highschool girl character since...well...Juno (though her character is very different.) Michael Angarano is also quite good and the highschool romance between him and Olivia Thirlby is easily the biggest strength of the movie.

Just like with other David Gordon Green movies, he is very perceptive about the way that normal everyday human beings act, and this film he gets it right with parent-child relationships. It's quite a skill to be able to make mundane everyday things that everyone goes through interesting.

This is an ensemble piece, with different stories that connect via a big central tragedy in the small town. The stories include a highschool romance, that same boy dealing with his parents' divorce, and Kate Beckinsale's story of dealing with a lowlife alcoholic husband played by Sam Rockwell who claims to have become a better person by quitting drinking and becoming a born again Christian...but that doesn't last too long.

As you can see, I've said a lot of good things about the movie, and a lot of things are done right, but something was missing. When the film ended and the credits rolled, my reaction was, "That's it?" Maybe David Gordon Green is better with focusing on one story rather than trying to deal with too many. For a film which has such a bleak subject matter, something about it...it just lacks an emotional connection as well. Perhaps, the big tragedy that's supposed to link all the stories...just isn't that good at linking them? I just felt like there could have been something deeper in this film to explore, and the film didn't pull it off. When the film tries to end on an uplifting note after so much bleakness...it just doesn't work.

I sometimes think I'm missing something, as it got very rare reviews from most critics. If someone who saw this can put up a good enough argument and point out something that I might have missed, this is a film where I could end up changing the rating. Maybe the movie has some profound message that I somehow missed.

I don't know. It's a film I really wanted to like more. I've heard some critics compare this film to "Little Children" in how they're both ensemble pieces about parent-child relationships, but I think that comparison is unfair to the much superior "Little Children". I wouldn't want to dissuade people from supporting independant films, and maybe someone else will pick something up from this that I missed, but if you haven't seen "Little Children" I would definitely recommend renting that over going to the theatre to see this one.