The mainstream critics panned Promised Land? Why?! It’s a really good film, with a fabulous cast, excellent writing, nicely directed by Gus Van Sant, and a really timely, important and interesting story. There’s really almost nothing to dislike about this film. I would not call it a truly great film, but it is really good, certainly one of the better films of the year, perhaps even one of the best.

The film walks an interesting line on its topic. Yes, the natural gas companies are predatory and yes people are getting hurt by fracking. But on the other hand, with no constructive or visionary leadership coming from our government, and with the savage bipartisan attacks on what little remains of our social safety net, what exactly are average people supposed to do for money, besides living hand-to-mouth by feeding each other in fast food restaurants? Matt Damon’s character, supposedly the bad guy, is (within the unfortunate context of our current society) actually making really excellent points in his discussions with the townspeople, and his lecture about the importance of “fuck-you-money” is a wonderful and somewhat shocking scene. But his naivete comes across as well, most poignantly when he confesses in frustration to Hal Holbrook that people in these little towns should just get out as fast as they can, to which Holbrook replys “where are we supposed to go?”

At the same time, it is also totally obvious that it makes no sense to simply destroy our land and drinking water through these practices,  and Promised Land gets this perspective across without ever seeming preachy or heavy-handed. It would have been nice if the film had tackled the broader picture here – namely, that pitting completely disempowered and desperate people versus billion dollar corporations (backed by the last 20 years of conservative Supreme Court decisions) is just not a good way to run a country. But I am nitpicking a bit – Promised Land is quite thought-provoking even without this broader discussion.

Matt Damon is incredible. The guy is getting like Robert Redford was in his prime – he’s so winning and so convincing on screen that he can make almost anything work beautifully. He has you actually rooting for the bad guys for most of this film. Rosemarie DeWitt, Frances McDormand and Hal Holbrook give the kind of performances that should be nominated for awards but never are. And John Krasinski is really good in the very interesting role of the environmentalist that shows up to make trouble. Incidental casting and acting is solidly good.

Damon and Krasinski wrote this, and I would say they did a really nice job. They created many memorable scenes through dialog, and developed characters very effectively. And they understand the importance of creating big, dramatic scenes, something the critics really took after them for. (I ask you: why go the the movies if nothing is dramatized, and everything is a flat reflection of the most boring and uninspirational aspects of human life?) The writing does bare the trademark attributes of Matt Damon’s writing, but that’s not a bad thing – he may not be among my twenty favorite screenwriters of all time, but he is quite good.

Ignore the critics and see Promised Land. There are at least 2 Oscar nominated movies it should have trumped in the best picture nominations race.