The reviews on here are more polarised than I think I've seen before. So which is it - a low scoring film worth 3/10 or less, or a film worthy of 7/10 or more?
I think it is the latter. The current IMDB average of 7/10 seems about right. It is not perfect but it is very good. The answer for you depends on what you are like and what you are prepared to bring to it.
My aim in writing a review was to try and give ways to separate the one-out-of-tenners from the high scorers so you can tell if you want to give it 150+ minutes of your time.
Here goes....
If you love the 10+ minute scene of a gunman trapping a fly in his gun at the start of Once Upon a Time in the West, give this a try. If it drove you nuts, don't.
If you've ever enjoyed an early Takeshi Kitano (a master of underacting) and the inactivity as well as cinematic poetry are enjoyable to you, and the flare ups of sudden violence are acceptable to you, give this a try.
If you often watch a film with your phone in your hand and your attention split - just don't bother with this.
If you always need fast-paced action, shouting, loud music and overacting this is not for you and you will end up with a rating of less than 3 or 4. If your cinema diet is mainly fast, loud blockbusters, don't bother with this. This is not for those that need the film to constantly poke at them to keep them engaged. If you are one of them then just move on to another film. Don't waste your time.
A lot of the one star reviews basically just say nothing more than "boring", "slow" or "worst film ever." They say nothing about the film unless you know the reviewer. Do people really mark films down for "moral ambiguity" or because some questionable characters do ok and don't get their come-uppance? Come on! It's not a fairy tale - the world is not fair.
This film rewards concentration. It is dark (visually and in tone) but even has some quiet humour. If you appreciate some of the more subtle or poetic films that are not afraid to be understated with their acting and sparing with their action give it a try.
I am no great fan of Mel Gibson. He probably peaked with Mad Max for me as far as enjoyment of his films. Vince Vaughn is growing on me but I would have avoided him completely not too long ago. There is certainly no star loyalty inflating my score here.
The film is languorous at times. It lingers. Deliberately. The camera is almost fixed for each scene which feels like it is deliberate as well - your eyes get time to explore. It is not as poetic and metaphor-laden as Kitano but it is very nicely visually put together and immerses you in the world the director has built. The lighting and pace fit and are cohesive and consistent with the world of the film.
The lack of soundtrack is quite stark - the only music during the film is from characters' car stereos. There is no flashiness or gimmickry. Relative to most films there is a lack of close-ups or zooms.
The runtime was not an issue for me - there is not much padding out. It could probably have a light trim without losing much. It has the pace and character focus of a good quality TV mini-series (maybe 3 episodes) and if it was one I suspect people would accept it more. It is not typical of the films we seem to generally be served up. And that is a good thing for me.
Hopefully this may guide you on whether you should align yourself with the 1 stars or the 7+ stars..... before you watch and invest 2.5 hours. Enjoy. Or avoid.
