I appreciate there may be temptation to "feminize" certain narratives but a mining disaster film is not one of them when the narrative's main tension is whether or not the protagonist male is or is not going to say one thing or the other. That was the tension in the film that was poorly developed in order to develop a side-bar that of itself was not developed either but was there in my view to justify Elizabeth Banks' character's errant behavior. As it was, her husband's character barely got a look in, despite his being blamed for the fandango, facing ruination and despite having to deal with the same (side-bar) loss as Elizabeth Banks.
I am not sure what the film was trying to say and therefore I give it only a 7. This said, the performances were super and the photography very impressive. The director (who also wrote this) has a very strong talent in my view but must resist the urge to feminize narratives to the point of it losing focus on what the central drama is: men losing lives and whether the mine will survive (to the relief of the remaining miners) or close on account of compensation payments that will bankrupt it (to the relief of the families caught)
I am not sure what the film was trying to say and therefore I give it only a 7. This said, the performances were super and the photography very impressive. The director (who also wrote this) has a very strong talent in my view but must resist the urge to feminize narratives to the point of it losing focus on what the central drama is: men losing lives and whether the mine will survive (to the relief of the remaining miners) or close on account of compensation payments that will bankrupt it (to the relief of the families caught)