What the H&## are the critics talking about?

Rating: 2/10 (15 March 2008)

Yes there are some great performances in this movie. But who cares. Some pretty scenes of the desert, like we haven't seen that before. The fact is that this was a movie about nothing. And most of the violence seems to come out of nowhere. Perhaps you might say it was about a horrible man, yes there is a horrible man in it but we know nothing about him, why he is horrible. If you want to make a movie about a misanthrope, at least make it interesting. Give me a reason to care or understand.
I did not mind the slow pace, (and believe me when I say it is slow paced). But I hoped it would lead to something, and I don't mean a shootout, just some interesting revelation or change or SOMETHING. No just a slow, steady, pretty, NOTHING.
Here we have a mish-mash of scenes about a horrid man, we might start to think there is some worthiness to him only to find out there is not. Again WHO CARES. There is no character development whatsoever.
It is clear that the director was trying to make his own Citizen Kane. But while Citizen Kane is slow, it is at least intriguing.
What I find most interesting is the huge outpouring of great reviews for such a poor film. Have these people not seen very many movies, are the starstruck by a great performance, or are they just sheep? Heck if he liked it maybe I should too.
No this is not a good movie. It is in fact just a marginally watchable movie. But if you want to see it, rent it. When it comes out on cable, you will not be able to watch it without switching away at a commercial and never coming back.