source: Ain't Them Bodies Saints

It's been a long time since Casey Affleck was in the spotlight. 2007 saw incredible performances from him in Gone Baby Gone and my all-time favourite film The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford which earned him a well-deserved Oscar nomination and a place in my heart. The only other notable film since was the awful The Killer Inside Me which I couldn't even finish. Physically, he hasn't seemed to have aged a day, but the long 6 years it's been have given his screen presence the confidence that this other Bob of Ain't Them Bodies Saints truly needs. And in those years it was just enough time for co-star Rooney Mara to go from unknown, to starlet, to having a quaint and brilliant year with Side Effects, Saints and hopefully, Her. In a romance story that will draw strong comparisons to Terrence Malick's Badlands, the pair's successfully delivers a bond that's strong enough to keep the ashes burning despite spending most of their screen time apart. When I heard of Ain't Them Bodies Saints, I expected something brutal and bleak, but instead, it's one of the most tender films I've seen in a long time and has a love story I really rooted for. Although it's a moody film with the darkened but warm cinematography, it's very bittersweet, hinging on a subtly emotional sacrifice that sets the rest of the film in motion. What makes this special is the simplicity in its craft. It's a film that seeks out unconventional moments and takes delight in finding them, not outstaying its welcome or feeling unsatisfying. Characters are deliberately laid thin with not much information on backgrounds as its their characterisations that are so moving, particularly with the brilliantly offbeat Ben Foster. The highlight is definitely the score with a unique set of claps and strings, it really let its world flourish. This is a beautiful if quite lightweight film that definitely belongs among my favourites of the year for now. Welcome back Mr. Affleck, please don't leave us again. 8/10

Review: Man, this film seemed to go on forever. I really didn't enjoy this film because of its extremely slow pace and the story was the best in the world. As soon as Casey Affleck goes on the run, your hoping for something massive to happen, or maybe just your typical western shoot-out, but the director chose to stick with the emotions more than the actions. The whole mood of the film was low and I was hoping for for a twist or something interesting to happen, which it doesn't. The performances wasn't bad, and it does start of well, but as soon as the couple split up, it goes terribly downhill. Disappointing! Round-Up: Casey Affleck suits this role well but that's not to say that, that is a good thing. He used to be in comedies like Oceans Twelve & Tower Heist but now he's doing movies like Gone Baby Gone and The Assassination Of Jesse James which are mostly based in Texas and quite boring. Anyway, in this movie he is on the run for most of the film and your hoping that he will get to his family, even though he is the baddie. Anyway, I wouldn't really recommend this film to people who what to see action or an intense drama because it just drags from the middle to the end. Budget: N/A Worldwide Gross: $881,000 (Terrible!) I recommend this movie people who are into there Texas based movies about a Bonnie & Clyde type of couple who end up getting caught and separated. 3/10.

I could'n agree more to CineCritic2517 and most of all Matchstick Men: what does the title mean, where does Ruth get the money from in order to live in such a beautiful house without working, why don't we know about the case full of money. Watching this film I fell asleep several times, and I haven't missed a thing, apparently. Affleck's high voice irritated me throughout the film. And so true: what on earth does the title mean? So many loose ends, so many unclear things. A waste of time, for me only 90 minutes , but also for the makers and the cast. If someone would ask me, can you tell me the contents of the film you have just seen, I wouldn't be able to give a complete summary.

The title says it all. And the worst part is that I really wanted to like this film. When I heard about this film and a few of it's 'highlights', I instantly became excited. After all, a dig films with beautiful cinematography and also with a simple story. And yes, that film offers exactly that. But how wrong I was at the same time. Why? Because of the extremely dull and banal screenplay. I mean, I like a simple but at the same time an interesting story. Not that all the films needs to be 'story' based, but one with totally uninteresting characters and an overused tale, and with a dull and clichéd ending...is just way too much(not in a good way). If you remove all the pointless things and all the under- developed subjects explored in the film, you probably have 30 minutes or even less of 'real' content. And that's all. This film would work perfectly as a short, but is just abysmal in the current form. The acting was good, Rooney Mara is certainly the highlight of this abominable film, but that's not saying too much, because her character was just as uninteresting as the others in the film. Again, the cinematography is really great, some would find the style similar to Terrence Malick, and yeah, it's good, but meaningless. The music was beautiful but it seems pointless and misused in various scenes. I really wish you to save your time and don't watch this film, it's an extreme case of Style OVER substance. The film has simply nothing to offer, no message to tell. Move on. 4.5/10

There's such a thing as too cryptic. I've just been reading the comments that have been posted here; they all appear to emanate from the US and a couple of them mention a Q & A with the director after a screening. Maybe that's why they know things which weren't evident to me. For example I would not have been able to pinpoint the time as the 1970s; it anything it had a timeless feel that could just as easily have been this year as 1950. Another problem I had was figuring out how Ruthie was able to live in what in England would be middle-class suburbia. When we first meet the them, Ruthie and Bob look as if they don't have change of a match yet half a reel later he's in the slammer and she is living in a very nice and well-appointed house, thank you very much, driving a nice car and apparently doing nothing - i.e. work - to pay for it all. These other posters seem to know that a guy named Skerrit is underwriting all this and not only that, he is the adoptive father to both of them. When, after four years, he breaks out of the slammer there is suddenly a case full of money, buried for years. At the beginning we saw Bob and Ruthie ATTEMPT a hold-up but they were thwarted, so where did the buried loot come from. Answers on a postcard to: Who Cares. If the makers can't be bothered to provide any clues why should we be bothered to even attempt a solution.

This dreary movie has some good things going for it on paper, but they're all wasted on a lugubrious directing style that recreates the feeling of dozing on a hot summer day, not because you're tired but because it's too hot to do anything else. Casey Affleck is a young man who goes to jail for armed robbery. Rooney Mara is the young woman he leaves behind to care for his child. She was involved in the robbery too, and even shoots one of the cops who's pinning them down in a deserted house, but Affleck takes the rap for her. He gets out of jail and wants to come to her even though lots of people are telling him to stay away, some for his own good, some for her's. Meanwhile, she's flirting with the cop who she shot (Ben Foster), though he doesn't know that she's the one who wounded him. The plot summary makes this film sound like it would be full of dramatic tension but it's not. The film is so languid that nothing that happens in it seems to matter much, not to the characters in it and certainly not to the audience. We know that Mara and Affleck have some profound deep love for one another, not because it's shown to us on screen but because we're told so. They have little to zero chemistry, and Affleck is so unlikable in his taciturn, mumbly way that you don't want to see him end up with Mara anyway. I think I might be a little bit in love with Rooney Mara though, and her presence alone was almost (but not quite) enough to keep me interested. Don't watch this at the end of a long hard day because you will be instantly asleep. Unless that's your goal, in which case pop it in and enjoy. Grade: C-

Ain't Them Bodies Saints The cinematography, music, script will transport you to Texas of the 50s & 60s, to explore the myths from 1776 to 2013--Valley Force, Jesse James,to Florida, Oklahoma, & Washington--an interesting juxtaposition with inner city gangs in Detroit, DC, & Dallas. Bravo! to David Lowery, Dallas writer/director; Bradford Young, Cinematographer; Daniel Hart, music; Mara Rooney, Casey Affleck, Keith Carradine hold scenes from the bedroom to banks to car chases. Young's camera shot with real film and Hart's scores transport you back to the 50s and 60s when times were easier--if you were wealthy & white. If homes & schools & churches & businesses could embrace the good of the times, we might move forward faster in 2013. Enjoy Ain't Them Bodies Saints & read to your child.

Ruth and Bob are a pair of criminal lovers with a baby on the way. After they find themselves in a shoot-out with the police, Bob faces a sever prison sentence. Unable to wait any longer, Bob breaks out of prison and heads across Texas to be re-united with his wife and meet his daughter. The film starts out strong. Casey Affleck gives one of his best performances. Rooney Mara is a little better than she's been in the past. As the film begins, there is a sense the film is going to be part Coen Brothers, part Terrence Malick. But as the film progresses, it begins to go downhill, following a path too familiar. The most surprising part about the film is how stupid Casey Affleck's character, Bob, is. Instead of having any sympathy for him, we grow to dislike this character. Having a dislike or hate for a main character in a comedy can work but for a dead serious dramatic art film, it makes it even harder to watch. It's already a crime thriller without any thrills. David Lowery is, like way too many other film festival award-winning filmmakers, greatly inspired by Terrence Malick. This is not such a bad thing, Malick is a master and we need more filmmakers like him. But when it's overly obvious the director is trying to be like Malick, it becomes a bad thing. Ain't Them Bodies Saints is a film filled with beautiful images and music but it's story is unsuccessful in getting us to care about any of it's characters or any particular out-come of events. A story that makes us not care is a story questionable to bare through.

What is it about the Deep South that's so evocative in cinema? Maybe it's the timelessness. Ain't Them Bodies Saints could be set at any time during the past forty years. The sun seems forever rising or setting in this region, and filmmakers can't help but point their lens in its direction, silhouetting their beautiful actors. Terrence Malick has a lot to answer for. It's hard not to think of Malick's first film, Badlands, when watching this. The story concerns a couple of young Texan criminals, painfully in love. When Ruth (Rooney Mara) shoots policeman Patrick (Ben Foster), her lover Bob (Casey Affleck) takes the blame and goes to jail. Bob promises he'll come for Ruth, and duly escapes incarceration. Meanwhile, Patrick is making moves on Ruth, oblivious to her guilt. All of this is under the wise, watchful eye of Skerritt, played wonderfully by Keith Carradine. As Bob closes in on Ruth, the cops and the gangsters close in on Bob. There are times during Ain't Them Bodies Saints when writer-director David Lowery's style and technique comes across as mimicry, of Malick and also of Jeff Nichols, as well as countless American movies from the 1970s. Thankfully, he also has an interesting story to tell, and it is one presented with rich textures. At times the film flows like a visual poem, with Bradford Young's evocative cinematography melding perfectly with Daniel Hart's stirring music. The effect is of something exquisitely handmade. Affleck's mumbled delivery here exudes danger; he's mythologising himself in the same way he once mythologised Jesse James. Mara is sentimentalised as the angelic mother, but Lowery is wise enough to suggest that this comely vulnerability is an act also - a sophisticated defence against hard men secretly seeking softness. Perhaps the film veers too closely at times toward stylish vagueness and too far from the broken heart of the story. But there is no denying this is a serious, authored work of art.