Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

What a language, terrible to hear i quit after 16 mins, a waste of time it was. If movies contain such language I think its made for stupid people who speak like this: you know all the time. It is sick and stealing time, money and very dumb. somebody should tell them and somewhere warn and rate stupidity in movies.

I generally like the "mumblecore" movement, as well as the evolution it has followed till its current state, a bit more commercial and accessible for general audiences. Yes, they still deal with "the problems of pretty people", but what I appreciate from them is the emotional intensity of the stories and the realism of dialogs which somehow capture big truths about human experience in contemporary world... generally accompanied by indie music and a very natural but artistically satisfactory cinematography. Having said all that, I have to admit that the film Digging for Fire ended up being a big disappointment. To start with, the cast of Digging for Fire includes various of my favorite actors: Jake Johnson, Rosemarie DeWitt, Brie Larson, Anna Kendrick, Sam Rockwell, Melanie Lynskey and Jane Adams... but they are all absolutely wasted in their roles. The leading couple (played by Johnson and DeWitt) obviously has the most significant dramatic arc, and it still feels like a secondary sub-plot which might have worked better as the support of a more interesting or personal story. The cliché of the married couple in trouble who needs to experiment a crisis to get reconciled or dissolved has been covered in many other films (even from the same movement); in this movie, it seems a hollow essay in the road to something more substantial... a "workshop" in which the main themes, the rhythm of the tale and an ending which ties the loose ends aren't established yet. And I'm not asking for a moral or an epic and devastating "message" about the difficulty of modern romance; just an ending which doesn't feel like an interruption because the hard disk of the camera was filled. In conclusion, Digging for Fire suggests the construction of a bigger narrative, but it can't be more than that... fragments of a character study without any structure in order to bring them context and relevance.

'Digging for Fire' is a strange film. It's one of those movies that kicks its plot into gear within the first five minutes. We see the young family get to the house that they will be tending and only a couple minutes later a discovery is made. Tim (Jake Johnson) uncovers a rusty pistol and bone. Quickly he jumps to the conclusion that someone was shot and killed somewhere on this property. Of course his wife, Lee, denies that something like that could've happened and forbids him to search any further. But when she takes their child away for the week he keeps investigating. But the strangest thing about this film is how it constantly evolves from here. It's almost as if the discover happened so early in the film to hide the fact that there really isn't anything going on until the halfway mark. I say this because the film ends up not being about the mystery at all. In fact, it's about relationships and having a mid life crisis. Once the film starts to focus on this aspect 'Digging for Fire' becomes MUCH more interesting.The film has a lot of great things to say and, for the most part, the film is able to tell them very well. But the problem is having to wait forty five minutes for things to get interesting. Once things do, trying to find the alleged body becomes uninteresting. Granted, it wasn't interesting before, but as soon as the real plot kicks in it becomes more then just a side note.This is the biggest issue I ran into with this film. It's uneven pacing. The film tries to build up to its fantastic ending but can't seem to get off and running. Just when it starts to, it will cut to a bland scene that kills the steam that the previous scene built up. This is incredibly disappointing because the conclusion to this film is really great. But since the film never had a grasp on pacing it feels almost underwhelming. I will say this on behalf of the film. The cast is excellent. Even more surprising is how long the cast list is. Sam Rockwell, Brie Larson, and Anna Kendrick are just a couple of the other stars here. They may not be in it for very long but when they come on screen their presence is immediately felt. Especially Sam Rockwell, as the won't get on with his life guy. Every time he comes on screen you can just feel how scummy he is. There isn't much more I can say about this film without getting into heavy spoilers so, I leave you with this. 'Digging for Fire' is a good movie. A good movie that is trapped inside a mediocre movie. There is so much great material here and it's a shame to see a lot of it going to waste. Nearly everything it does right is countered moments later with something it does wrong. It's uneven, underwhelming, and often bland. But it also has a lot to say and if you can get past the first forty five minutes you may just learn a thing or two.

I am so psyched to write the first user review of this great film -- soon to be widely recognized as such, I imagine. (See New Yorker, NY Times, Variety etc. reviews -- they're ahead of me.)"Digging for Fire" looks wonderful -- magical, even. Joe Swanberg, as natural a filmmaker as Samuel Fuller (the all-time greatest of the naturals), here has (for the first time?) chosen to shoot on 35mm Eastman color film in Cinemascope ratio. And the results are stunning -- particularly the beautiful night shooting.As the narrative subject matter of the film involves (a) a couple in a conflicted moment and (b) the chance discovery of buried human remains, I was reminded of Rossellini's "Viaggio in Italia" -- and, surprisingly, Richard Brody (in The New Yorker) references Rossellini in his enthusiastic review. The Rossellini film -- though difficult and annoying -- is also mysteriously compelling. While Swanberg's film is far more viewer-congenial (oh alright -- "audience friendly"), a similar spiritual transformation of the characters takes place in both films. But, paradoxically, more satisfyingly in Swanberg's less explicitly and far less portentously "spiritual" film.The acting -- from the wonderful Jake Johnson to Chris Messina in his tiny role to Judith Light and Sam Elliott as Johnson's in-laws and little Jake Swanberg as an adorable 3-year old (type-casting at its best) -- is superb -- an ensemble equal to the great assemblages Robert Altman used to gather year after year. It seems Swanberg may have quite a nice future, for which let us be grateful. (Side note: Interesting "Digging for Fire" is released the same weekend as Peter Bogdanovich's first film in 13 years, "She's Funny That Way" -- each opening in New York on one screen only -- try that one, too -- it's much better than the reviews would have you believe.)