A bearded, grubby man whistles softly from the porch of his dilapidated cabin. From the bushes of a forest near Portland comes a muffled grunt, and a truffle-hunting pig trots out to share the man’s breakfast. Behind the beard is Nicholas Cage, a former chef now living off the grid. The movie, called “Pig,” gets underway when someone steals the pig and Cage goes back into the city to find it. (Never mind that truffle hunters everywhere use dogs nowadays.) I haven’t seen it, so this isn’t a movie review, but two professional critics who have seen it offer wildly divergent opinions.
Matt Soller Zeitz, posting on RogerEbert.com, gives it four stars. A couple of quotes: “What a beguiling, confounding film “Pig” is. From start to finish, it never moves as you might expect it to. … While conceding that it won’t be everyone’s, or even most people’s, cup of tea, I prefer to accept everything it does with an open mind and heart, because it’s so clearly an open-minded and open-hearted film.”
But wait. At Eater.com, reviewer Joshua David Stein finds a lot to complain about. “Cinematographically, Pig is shot with unrelenting solemnity. Everything is overcast; everyone’s bummed. The city is bathed in darkness; the forest in shadow. The overarching vibe is womp. … The film actually feels more like endless errands, listlessly run.”
So which is it? If you’ve seen it, did you like it?