KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

GazerRise Fantastic!

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

wikipediacabal Hollywood makes two kinds of movies about drug users: morality tales and stoner comedies. The gritty stories escalate into disaster or death for the users. The stoner films are escapist and absurd. Network and cable TV makes its contributions with documentaries primarily focused on law enforcement and grim images of the 10% of users on the edge of death. Even a show like Intervention obsesses on pathology. Down to the Bone is something entirely different.The film is so naturalistic in its acting and writing that it resembles a documentary or stage play more than a theatrical feature. Plotting is minimal and devoid of red herrings or dramatic heightening. There is just one arc, a woman's effort to navigate getting clean. This is a long look at a real struggle to cope with a real set of problems. Many of those problems stem not from her use but from the complications of trying to be clean. She just can't deal with the mood and energy problems and her attempts to cope don't work. Relationships deteriorate in specific realistic ways. So many details are right. That complexity is practically unique in a script though it is fundamental to the complexity of addiction.It also happens to be shot like a no budget documentary, using basic video cameras, minimal sound design, available light and seemingly not even a color timing adjustment. Unfortunately in 2004 this was what this filmmaker on an ultra low budget could manage. In 2014 this project would have been shot in HD and digitally tweaked to visually support the story and compensate for the color balance and contrast issues. That was Hollywood technology then; it's film student technology now.So the viewer must decide to make the trade off. Because almost no funding was needed, the director was free to create a story that ignores the standard clichés and genre conventions. In return, we get all the eye candy of a small town local news broadcast. The audience for this type of film is tiny but I am grateful it exists. See it on its own terms and you'll love it.

Steve Skafte I saw this because I enjoyed the intense experience of Debra Granik's more recent film, "Winter's Bone". This film, similarly titled "Down to the Bone", covers somewhat the same emotional range. It is a very bleak story, but not entirely the most accomplished one. The problem with attempting an unpredictable story of addiction is in following the predictable life of an addict. This film is neither complex enough or well executed enough to really give us a new way of seeing things. Better cinematography could have helped. Using very cheap digital equipment (though probably more high tech as of 2004), Granik and cinematographer Michael McDonough take "Down to the Bone" in a more vérité-style direction. But the production values are low and poor even by normal documentary standards. This is a style that would only have great merit if this truly was a documentary, and not a dramatic film. The use of a soundtrack and other cinematic devices detracts from any possible grittiness that could have added to the feel.The truth and power lies in the acting, as understated as it is here. It's refreshing to see human lives without a lot of exaggeration or demonstrative emoting. Vera Farmiga is the best thing going here, and I found her style compelling. The other performances are all good, and never feel any less than real. In the end, something about this film feels unfinished. Debra Granik has gone on to do a much better picture with "Winter's Bone". This is in interesting starting place, but it just isn't enough more than that.

mcstrangelove-1 I watched a screener of this film on a lark and almost hit the Eject button when I saw the low- tech titles and dv quality. Just goes to show you that quality film-making and acting have nothing to do with budget. Virtually every film has at least one or two characters that seem like they are "acting" to the point that it takes you out of the film. I was waiting for said character to appear in this one and it never happened. Nor did any expected clichés. Yet, I couldn't stop watching. The director/writers and actors did an amazing job. I felt like I was watching real people (it's hard to believe there was a screenplay!). I can't stand the state of movies today, but at least this little indie brought me faith that good film-making can still be found if you just happen onto it.

teddyryan I had the opportunity to see DOWN TO THE BONE off Netflix. I was really looking forward to it. I think Vera Farmiga is a very talented performer and heard the raves. Unfortunately, the decision to shoot this story on a PD-150 really killed it for me. I saw the short SNAKE FEED and felt 16 was a much better medium. Or maybe I wished Debra Granik had taken a different visual DV approach. I'm not quite sure. But I didn't find the cinematography all that breathtaking. Some reviewers call it gritty - I call it bland. Still, even with that aside, I felt the story moves a little slow and is also mettled with structural issues. The snake motif was cliché in my books. Nonetheless, Vera is great and definitely makes this one worth watching.