ShareThis Page
Movies/TV

Review: 'Hell or High Water': No country for desperate men

| Thursday, Aug. 18, 2016, 2:06 p.m.
Jeff Bridges (left) portrays Marcus Hamilton and Gil Birmingham is Alberto Parker in 'Hell or High Water.'
CBS Films
Jeff Bridges (left) portrays Marcus Hamilton and Gil Birmingham is Alberto Parker in 'Hell or High Water.'

A contemporary cops-and-robbers chase set in a string of dusty, near-shuttered West Texas towns, “Hell or High Water” is destined to be compared to “No Country for Old Men.”

This smart, superbly crafted neo-Western more than holds its own in that exercise. In some ways, “Hell or High Water” is more enjoyable than the Coen brothers' film, which although technically flawless, projected a sense of moral severity that grew tedious and self-important by the minute.

Like that 2007 film, “Hell or High Water” addresses changing times and the breakdown of community through the lens of old-fashioned good guys and bad guys. Here, though, the foe isn't a hyped-up embodiment of irrational evil but something far more specific, structural and utterly of its time.

It takes awhile for the heroes and villains to come into clear focus in “Hell or High Water,” which begins with a beautifully staged bank robbery, wherein Tanner Howard (Ben Foster) and his brother, Toby (Chris Pine), fumble their way through what's supposed to be a slick, perfectly timed heist. “Y'all are new at this, I reckon,” an unfazed employee says with the kind of laconic, raw-boned humor that permeates Taylor Sheridan's script like a cooling aquifer.

In time, the Howard brothers come under the scrutiny of a Texas Ranger named Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges), who with his partner, Alberto Parker (Gil Birmingham), sets off on a not-quite-high-speed chase through the scrubby expanse of Texas for their increasingly confounding quarry.

What the Howards are after and why only gradually emerge in Sheridan's expertly executed script. (He also wrote last year's drug-war drama “Sicario.”) Their characters reveal themselves, as well. Driving their getaway car or grabbing breakfast on the run, it becomes clear how different Toby is from the hot-headed Tanner, who sees himself as a romanticized “lord of the plains,” in the tradition of the great Comanche tribesmen.

It's been obvious for a while now that Foster is an accomplished actor, especially in roles like the tightly coiled, wild-eyed Tanner. The revelation here is Pine, who dons a mustache and greased-back hair to deliver a subtle, well-judged portrayal of a good man gone bad — but maybe with good reason, hinted at by the foreclosure and debt-consolidation signs the duo pass on their way from ghost town to ghost town.

There's deep grief in “Hell or High Water,” as well as grudging, rueful wit and sinewy home truths about ethnicity in a pre-post-racial America. If the filmmakers are too obvious in their depiction of the Big Bad Banks, they still deserve credit for bringing style and solid values to a movie that winds up being less about crime, comeuppance and genre cliches than continuity, change, the cruel legacy of dispossession and the fight to create a usable past. In a word, “Hell or High Water” is terrific.

Ann Hornaday is a Washington Post writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me