Don't have as much time to review this as I usually do but figure I'll put something out there regardless.

The Place Beyond The Pines is the latest from Derek Cianfrance. His last film, Blue Valentine, was one of my favorites from 2010 and this new one basically ups the stakes (as you can see in the trailer). The grit, realism, and emotional complexity that made Blue Valentine stand out is still on display here but it's an entirely different film. As it happens, The Place Beyond The Pines is not quite as strong as Blue Valentine but it's a solid follow-up for sure.

I think the issues with this film lie in the structure. It's not a conventional narrative but rather a triptych of 45-60 minute segments focusing on different characters who are all inter-connected. The relationships between the characters are closer and more significant than, say, Babel or 21 Grams but each segment still feels like it could be its own film. As a result, the film is very long and while I think there's always something engaging going on, you can feel its length. The film cuts to fifteen years later towards the end in what I thought was going to be an epilogue but actually turns out to be the third part of the triptych, which is about as long as the other two segments.  So yeah... it drags.

I think if the film were edited down to a more palatable length, it would've been perfect. Unfortunately, I don't know what they could've cut to make it work. I think 30-40 minutes of content cut would entail the loss of something significant.

Other than that, I thought the film was excellent. Ryan Gosling is amazing. His performance isn't a repeat of Drive by any means so fortunately, no rehashing to be found here. Still, feel free to take that with a grain of salt as I am totally drinking the Cool Aid as far as the actor's concerned. Bradley Cooper delivers one of his most complex and "against-type" performances yet. It shows a new side of him, which both surprised and impressed me. Eva Mendes, Rose Byrne, and Ben Mendelsohn turn in substantial performances as well.

The direction is gritty and visceral, as it to be expected following Blue Valentine. Needless to say, Cianfrance is on fire. I think the unsung hero of the film is going to be the great Mike Patton (Faith No More, Mr. Bungle). This guy is basically the Tarantino of music and provides a stellar yet surprisingly understated soundtrack.

Overall, a flawed but very strong, very ambitious film recommended to anyone who liked Blue Valentine or either of the two leads.

I can't wait to read this script. I've heard great things about the movie. Not sure I'll be able to see it though.

Just got back from seeing this. It was one of the most ambitious films I have seen in a long time and, well, I thought it was absolutely brilliant.

As James said in his review, the structure of this film goes totally against the grain, with basically three mini-movies in one. Each separate story has its own distinct beginning, middle and end. The structure of this felt very novelistic. In fact, it felt like it could have been a Dennis Lehane novel.

Ryan Gosling gave a superb performance here. People are going to compare his character here with the one he played in Drive. And I'm not going to deny that there are some similarities between their characters. But Gosling's performance here is far superior to the performance he gave in Drive, mainly  he is given more to work with here, as the emotional complexity of this character is far greater.

Bradley Cooper is great in this as well. But I already knew he could hold down a serious role, after seeing him in Silver Linings Playbook.

But for me, the star in this was Ben Mendelsohn. He played his character, a mechanic who helps Gosling with his bank heists, with such authenticity and genuineness.

The film does suffer from its own ambition, as it is long (140 minutes). But because each segment felt like a new story, I did not feel like it ever dragged. Sure, I felt that maybe 5 minutes or so could have been cut from the final story, but then again, choosing what to cut would be tough, as each scene had a purpose.

The only issue I had with the film was that I felt the final two stories were unable to live up to their predecessor, Ryan Gosling's story.

But that is a minor gripe.

Incredible film that falters at the end. Although I was really interested in the third act, it spirals out of control. Cooper, Gosling, and Mendelsohn all delivered stellar performances.

Personally, I loved the parallels between Gosling and Cooper's characters. Some were incredibly subtle, but the comparisons were there.

I kind of wish the film ended with SPOILERS with the two kids being busted by the cops. One goes home, the other goes to jail. The end.

Blue Valentine is one of my favourite indie films, and the cinematography was amazing.

That is what attracted me to this movie.  

It’s entire look and feel, and off-course, the story isn’t too bad either,

To keep it shyort and sweet, like James said above, if you like Blue Valentine, you will like this.  I loved it, and the director did an amazing job.  I loved the acting, also.  Ryan Gosling was nearly flawless and heartbreaking.

-- Curt

Quoted from Toby_E The only issue I had with the film was that I felt the final two stories were unable to live up to their predecessor, Ryan Gosling's story. But that is a minor gripe.

- I do applaud the ambition and structure but thought the final segment let it down in a big way. I was really engaged in the first two parts though. The coincidences and parallels became too much, plus it felt it was "message time" with the central themes been hammered over your head.

Overall it’s still a decent film, two thirds of it anyway. The chase scenes were excellent too. Personally, I thought Blue Valentine was a much more successful film in terms of what it set out to achieve.

SPOILERS

I agree.  I've seen this movie three times now, and on the third watch I still enjoyed it, but then I got to thinking about how coincidental it was that the two kids end up going to the same school fifteen years later and end up connecting.  However, I don't think it was too contrived, and the final story between the teenagers (for me, at least) worked and I don't see where it could have went from there.

I thought the chases, too, were epic.  I loved the scene in the graveyard and the entire scene with Gosling in the house before he bit the dust has me on the edge of my seat.

That's another thing that shocked me -- I knew Gosling's character Luke was being too ambitious, and I KNEW he'd get caught at some point, but what I never expected was for him to die.  Like, that really shocked me and it was so unexpected?  How impactful was that final looming shot of him lying on the concrete with the blood pooling around his head?  Amazing.

Overall, I still love this.  Seen it three times, and each time I enjoy it and learn something different.  

Curt

Watched this one a while back, I thought it was strangely spectacular, better than Blue Valentine IMO. Definitely my type of film, it actually kept reminding of a script I've written with a similar structure that spans across a few decades. I think for the most, this was a nice and refreshing but when there was those unexpected shifts of POV in the storyline, I was left scratching my head. That blame can easily go to the trailer though.

Have to disagree with mostly everybody here, I absolutely loved the third segment, I found it amazing in every way, except maybe the ending.

I actually think Gosling's story was the weakest in terms of narrative structure. I think what happened is that Cianfrance gets this idea of a badass Circus stuntman, and thinks how cool that would look on screen. From this, he starts to write and then he discovers there's no story to be had. From this, he concludes he has to add a father/son subplot and builds the story from there. Because of this, the first 20 minutes were a bit of a WTF. I don't think there was an outline present when he wrote this, but it kind of makes the whole film unpredictable in one sense.

The acting was top notch, even from the teenagers, nobody faltered.

This is a worthy film, maybe if it was made two decades earlier, people would regard it as a classic. It's a nice film that's worth watching again.

Quoted from nawazm11 I actually think Gosling's story was the weakest in terms of narrative structure. I think what happened is that Cianfrance gets this idea of a badass Circus stuntman, and thinks how cool that would look on screen. From this, he starts to write and then he discovers there's no story to be had. From this, he concludes he has to add a father/son subplot and builds the story from there. Because of this, the first 20 minutes were a bit of a WTF. I don't think there was an outline present when he wrote this, but it kind of makes the whole film unpredictable in one sense.

I don't understand this. What exactly are you referring to when you say WTF? The fact that Gosling is a circus stuntman with a kid or because the film switches gears after Gosling's story is done?

If the former, I have no idea what you're talking about. Seems like a perfectly legitimate story to me. Maybe I've misunderstood (if so, let me know) but the way you've phrased it -- that Cianfrance started with the idea for a character that would look cool and built from there -- is the creative process in a nutshell. Stories don't just come into being fully formed from the getgo. Sometimes they start in fragments. What's wrong with that?

If the latter, indeed, I didn't go into the film expecting it to have the structure that it does but it was clearly a conscious choice and if there's any issues with it, I wouldn't say it has anything to do with Gosling's story not working. If you cut out the other two stories, the first act would make for a perfectly cohesive short and in the context of the film, it fits in with the theme just fine. I think if Cianfrance had opted only to follow Gosling's story, it would've been a different film entirely and I can only assume he would've made different choices altogether to ensure it worked.

As it happens, the film is split into three parts. Maybe there's some issues there, I don't know, but again, it was a choice. I don't think Cianfrance decided to split the film into three parts because he hit a brick wall with Gosling's story or something. I think if that were the case, it'd mean that Cianfrance is actually not as talented as he is in real life and neither this nor Blue Valentine would've been as good as they are. It strikes me as a copout decision that only a lesser writer/director would make.

Hey, James. Apologies, I kind of wrote that in a rush so it probably came across as very muddled.

Quoted Text What exactly are you referring to when you say WTF?

Going off memory here by the way. Throughout the first 20 minutes, I was confused, I had absolutely no clue who was who and how 'casually' characters were interacting with each other. It's as if only the writer knew what role a specific character was playing but he completely forgot to establish this to the audience.  And I mean yeah, I get that it's a stupid gripe by me since it's actually putting a layer of realism into the film but IMO, the relationships between the characters weren't really established. We're basically thrown into their lives. I mean when he first meets Robin, they both exchange two sentences and off they are to rob banks. It was too convenient and came off as confusing. Who was he? Just a friend? What's their story behind this? Is it even explained? It feels as if he wanted Gosling to rob a bank, so just introduce a random 'friend' who can do it for him. No subtext, nothing.

Quoted Text The fact that Gosling is a circus stuntman

Again, I never suggested there was anything wrong with that, it may have come across like that in my poorly structured post. What I was trying to imply is that I honestly don't think the script was outlined, it felt as if it was written as he went along. And yeah, maybe he knew he would split it up into three parts but to be honest, Cooper's subplot comes out of nowhere.

Quoted Text I don't think Cianfrance decided to split the film into three parts because he hit a brick wall with Gosling's story or something.

I completely disagree. The unexpected nature of the film naturally leads me to believe that he wrote the script as he went along. There was no outline present when he wrote it, there are just so many almost unexpected moments in the script that I couldn't think otherwise. I felt he built the story around specific, at that time, undefined moments that he wanted in the script. I don't think it was a conscious choice, not when he started writing the script. He's a good filmmaker and he has a solid vision but that's very far from being a good writer. He hasn't made enough films for me to judge this completely but he's far from the amazing and experienced director/writer he's been labelled as. He might be the next M. Night for all we know.

Okay. I see where you're coming from now. Can't say I agree though. Not that it matters. It seems we both loved the film. Fortunately, there's only one M. Night but indeed, let's hope Cianfrance continues to bring the same quality to his future films.

Quoted from James McClung Okay. I see where you're coming from now. Can't say I agree though. Not that it matters. It seems we both loved the film. Fortunately, there's only one M. Night but indeed, let's hope Cianfrance continues to bring the same quality to his future films.

Totally fine, man. We can both agree on this though, I think he's very talented and I hope his next films share this same ambitious vision.

Not at all the movie I thought it was going to be.  Can't say I was overly impressed, either.

The acting was good from everybody - that's for sure.

The structure was a complete mess, though, IMO.  It literally is 3 movies in 1 and to me, at least, the message was really shoehorned in and not even that strong.

I was shocked when Ryan Gosling's character got killed early on...I mean just floored.  What followed with Bradley Cooper's story was rather odd and just not very realistic, IMO.  Don't get me wrong, I was still on board and trying hard to stay connected, but wehn the 3rd story started, some 15 years later, I was rolling my eyes.

The fact that the 2 kids would even be in the same area/school/whatever is quite a stretch, to put it mildly.  What followed is beyond a stretch.  ANd the ending?  Really?  IMO, the only way this actually works is to end on a really dark note, as opposed to the slice of cheese we're offered as the kid rides into the great unknown.  WEAK.

As far as I can see, this movie and its writer/director have a following and that following is going to love anything and eveything he does.  ANd that's fine and cool.  This is not a movie for the masses in any way, nor is it one of 2013's best.  There's nothing new or even all that interesting going on here.  I've seen this tale told 100's of times before, just under a different and more simple guise.

Not a bad movie by any means, but IMO, all the praise is not deserved here.

Grade - C