I had a tough time deciding if I liked this or not, which should tell you something about the film right off the bat. Some of the flaws that others have mentioned below - pacing, music, etc - they didn't really bother me. The sheer stupidity of the accident did, though. It left me hoping that the ending would redeem it, because I was willing to overlook the clumsy plot-device if it was meant to bring together a father and son.
But the ending didn't provide the redemption I was looking for. The father dies - needlessly - and for what? Are we to believe that somehow by killing his father the son will be closer to him? I don't think so. In fact, what I think is that the son will be traumatized for the rest of his life, blaming himself for petting the bear; for not climbing the tree quickly enough; for not making sure the safety was on the gun; for getting lost and following the wrong creek. Let's face it - this boy is going to have issues. And will he pass what he learned on about hunting to his own children? Not likely.
Then I thought that maybe this isn't a story about bonding, like everyone seems to be suggesting. Maybe this is a cautionary tale. Maybe there's a lesson hear about fathers trying to force their sons to be like them. Maybe there's a lesson about toxic masculinity, such as the suggestion that the only way to bond with a boy is to kill something with him.
Or maybe it's meant as a statement that children will always disappoint their parents. The son wasn't the hunter his dad wanted to be, and based on the flashbacks his dad wasn't the hunter his own father wanted him to be.
I don't know. Two things stuck out to me, though. The first is that the most important message the father seemed to get from his own father was about the difference between 'hunting' (for sustenance) and 'killing.' And yet he repeatedly tells his son that they were going to get him his first 'kill'.
The other is that, ultimately, the father got what he wanted. He wanted his son to experience his first kill, and the boy did. The father just never expected that the kill would be him.
But the ending didn't provide the redemption I was looking for. The father dies - needlessly - and for what? Are we to believe that somehow by killing his father the son will be closer to him? I don't think so. In fact, what I think is that the son will be traumatized for the rest of his life, blaming himself for petting the bear; for not climbing the tree quickly enough; for not making sure the safety was on the gun; for getting lost and following the wrong creek. Let's face it - this boy is going to have issues. And will he pass what he learned on about hunting to his own children? Not likely.
Then I thought that maybe this isn't a story about bonding, like everyone seems to be suggesting. Maybe this is a cautionary tale. Maybe there's a lesson hear about fathers trying to force their sons to be like them. Maybe there's a lesson about toxic masculinity, such as the suggestion that the only way to bond with a boy is to kill something with him.
Or maybe it's meant as a statement that children will always disappoint their parents. The son wasn't the hunter his dad wanted to be, and based on the flashbacks his dad wasn't the hunter his own father wanted him to be.
I don't know. Two things stuck out to me, though. The first is that the most important message the father seemed to get from his own father was about the difference between 'hunting' (for sustenance) and 'killing.' And yet he repeatedly tells his son that they were going to get him his first 'kill'.
The other is that, ultimately, the father got what he wanted. He wanted his son to experience his first kill, and the boy did. The father just never expected that the kill would be him.