sddavis63

This is not a movie for people who can't stand something that's slow-paced. "Leave No Trace" is slow paced. I sometimes criticize movies for pacing, but I found in this case that it didn't at all detract from the story - in fact, in some ways, it was the story. I found it intriguing; I wondered what was going on: I wondered about Will's background. This kept me interested from start to finish, and what I really liked was that the movie became progressively more troubling and thought provoking as it went on.

Basically, Will and his daughter Tom live in the wilderness by choice - at least, by his choice. (The outdoor scenes were beautifully shot.) Will seems to be a decent enough father. Tom is cared for, she's been well educated by him, she's learned wilderness survival skills. Aside from the fact that they live in a tent in an isolated park, they seem OK. But there's something about Will - something off about him; something that has driven him to adopt this lifestyle. Ben Foster and Thomasin McKenzie were both superb in this. Foster caught Will's inner darkness well, and McKenzie showed Tom's evolution as she gradually wanted more and more freedom to choose her own way in life even while she loved her father. As she said at one point, "the same thing that's wrong with you isn't wrong with me!"

The movie takes a turn about halfway through. Will and Tom are caught illegally living in the park. The system seems kind to them - they get set up in a comfortable house. Tom enjoys it and even starts to make some friends, but Will is increasingly restless and packs them up and sneaks away to resume the wilderness life. This was where the movie became troubling. To this point Will was a mysterious character but a good dad, all things considered. But when he basically takes Tom away from this new life that she was enjoying you could see that all of a sudden, her best interests and her wishes were completely subjugated to his agenda - whatever that agenda was.

The ending of the movie was bittersweet. I won't give too much away, except to say that I thought the movie really needed more of Will's backstory. We know he's a veteran and probably suffers from PTSD, but I wanted to know more about him. Really, that was the only thing this movie lacked for me. Will was an intriguing character and Foster played him perfectly, but probably because of that I wanted to know more about him and why, exactly, living among people was so difficult for him. But aside from that I truly enjoyed this movie. (9/10)

I watched "Conclave" later on the day on which Pope Francis died. I'm not Roman Catholic, but I admired Francis, and even as a Protestant I do have an appreciation for Catholic liturgy (even if many differences with Catholic theology) and an interest in Catholic history and tradition. And of course, I do have a fascination with the mysterious inner mechanisms of the Roman Catholic Church - and especially the "conclave" held after a Pope dies (or resigns) at which the cardinals gather to elect his successor. What happens at that gathering? The movie was an interesting enough look at some of the machinations of Vatican politics as various cardinals manoeuvred in the hope of being elected (and as some tried to avoid the responsibility.) It also (at the beginning of the movie) showed some of the traditions that happen when a Pope dies (the opening scene was of the Pope dead and some Vatican officials gathering around his deathbed.) The costuming was wonderful (although not, I suppose, especially challenging - the leads have to dress like cardinals) and the setting seemed authentic. The presence of modern technology (such as how the ballots were burned) to continue an ancient tradition was somewhat thought-provoking in a way. The cinematography is great and the sets feel authentic.

There are a lot of very well-known names and faces in this - stars like Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci and John Lithgow play various cardinals in the running. I thought the performances were good. My own feeling was that none of them were standout performances - perhaps reflecting the basic tone of the movie - but the cast all worked well together and had a believable chemistry. And it was, after all, a "religious" gathering that was being depicted, so keeping things somewhat reserved was probably appropriate. The movie also had something of an "ominous" tone, I thought. There were a lot of shadowy things happening; a lot of secrets to be revealed. The split between theological conservatives and those on the more progressive side of the theological spectrum was portrayed, as was the growing influence of the African and Asian parts of the church. The somewhat limited role of women within the Catholic Church was also shown - as they seemed to be restricted largely to cooking the cardinals' meals, although a couple of women (especially Sister Agnes, played by Isabella Rossellini) do have a role in influencing the decision-making. The inner workings of the conclave were, I thought, well depicted - and, likely, quite speculative, since only the cardinals would really know what happens inside the conclave.

Personally, I was not surprised by who ended up being chosen as Pope, and I didn't really like the final plot twist, and wasn't convinced that it added anything of substance to the movie, aside from a bit of a surprise. But, overall, I thought it was a very good - but not quite great - movie. (7/10)

Somewhere in the midst of this I honestly believe there was a decent story that would have made a pretty good movie. The problem is that it's buried beneath all sorts of extraneous and irrelevant material that didn't add anything to the basic story and the plot is so convoluted that it's difficult to follow. It's almost as if someone thought that this movie just had to be almost two and a half hours long, because it could easily have been well under two and still told a pretty good story is the extras had been cast aside. I honestly didn't care about Nick's family life. I didn't care about his marital problems or his relationship with his daughters. And yet, those things took up a chunk of the middle part of the movie. I didn't care about who Levoux's daughter was going to the prom with or how her dad threatened him to be good and to take care of her - or else (admittedly that was about the only scene in the movie that perhaps offered a chuckle while adding nothing to the basic story.) And I didn't care about what seemed to be the rivalry depicted between the Sheriff's Department and the FBI - which, again, added nothing to the basic story. (Do you see a trend there?)

That basic story could have been good. It's a criminal gang planning to rob the very heavily guarded Los Angeles federal Reserve and the sheriff's department that's out to stop them. They could have just done that story, kept the movie relatively compact and not bored me with all the totally irrelevant material described above, plus far too many plot holes and unexplained events. But no. Apparently they felt they had to stretch this out as much as possible.

The performances were OK. Gerard Butler as Nick and Pablo Schreiber as the leader of the robbers were fine and I liked the way those characters interacted from time to time - almost like they were getting to know each other - feeling each other out (like at the shooting range) before having to truly confront each other. Having said that, no characters were especially likable or sympathetic - it might have been police vs. Robbers, but at times it was hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. The final confrontation (the climax of the movie) was a huge gun fight with automatic or at least semi-automatic weapons that struck me as dumb because I simply didn't believe the police would put civilians at risk with this kind of firefight while there were occupied cars between the two combatants. The ending contained a decent enough twist - I didn't see it coming, anyway. But overall, this movie just didn't click for me. (3/10)