‘Train Dreams’ Is One-Way Ticket to Snoozeville

Clint Bentley’s “Train Dreams” is about the life of Robert Granier, played by Joel Edgerton, who works the railroad during the early 20th century and lives to be 80 years old.

His final words at the end of the film are, “Beautiful ain’t it? Just beautiful.” That sums up how I feel about the film overall. “Train Dreams” sure is purty to look at, and it’s duller than a pile of dirt.

This period drama reflects on the optimism and struggles of those living during the early 1900s, and how the industry and obstacles changed for the entire world. Granier is ably played by Edgerton, whose character is a sort of stand-in for long-suffering, working-class types who believe hard work can lead to a good life.

Edgerton reminded me of my grandfather and some of the values he carried with him until the end of his life. Yet, the actor can only do so much with his character, more a symbol of American possibilities than anything else.

Despite how good Edgerton is here (and when is that not the case?), the film is stolen by William H. Macy, playing an explosives expert on Granier’s team of workers. Macy has all the best lines and walks away with the film in a role that is little more than an extended cameo.

If you’ve seen “Days of Heaven” (1978), then you’ve already watched a vastly superior version of this movie. There are also visuals suggesting aspects of “Badlands” (1973), “The New World” (2005) and “The Tree of Life” (2011), all films by Terrence Malick.

“Train Dreams” is obviously a Malick movie clone, minus the poetry and mystery. The narration spills everything out, providing literal observations that are unnecessary. The contrast to the stale narration here is that the narration in Malick’s film’s provide the inner thoughts and private realizations of the characters, not fodder to push the story along and cater to the audience’s attention span.

A late subplot in which Granier reconnects with a missing family member is impactful, but it’s a fleeting bit that arrives too late.

What I was left with are lots of beautiful shots that could be framed and lovingly hung over a fireplace. The costumes, sets and music are all on the same level as the cinematography, which is the highest praise I could give.

The final scenes are too on the nose, too obvious. Everything about this is familiar, not only in the way it demonstrates that, yes, Bentley is a fan of Malick’s but also in the limitations of the story.

Say what you will about Ron Howard’s commercial, uneven Irish epic “Far and Away” (1992) but it created more suspense, immediacy and rising stakes than anything here.

I get it, Malick is a genius, one of the few poet filmmakers still among us. On the other hand, his approach comes across as pretty wallpaper if there’s no psychological texture and applicable symbolism going on.

Malick’s films look like memories, whereas filmmakers who copy Malick’s style tend to nail the rich visuals but lack the art behind it. Kind of like all the filmmakers who envy Stanley Kubrick but cannot come close to matching his work.

Two Stars (out of four)