So much potential wasted - SPOILERS -

Rating: 5/10 (5 April 2018)

I'm giving this movie 5 stars solely on the performance of the cast and what COULD'VE been an original screenplay. I took issue with many parts of the film and storyline in general, as well as the ending that feels almost incomplete and leaves the viewer with many questions.
I spent the first half of the movie thinking this was based on a true story and that made the entire thing FAR more interesting. It was only when I googled it midway through that I realized it was fiction and was highly let down. Knowing that the writers, director, and producer could've piloted this ship wherever they wanted and ended up with THIS? Well, that's disappointing.
First off - how and why did Peter Dinklage agree to do this film? His character was extremely flat and overly pointless in the end, and we're left wondering why he even existed in this film in the end. Did they write the character to simply provide the alibi to the new police chief? It sure feels that way. And what was the point in the date he and Mildred went on?
Second - is ANYONE facing charges for ANY of their transgressions? How can you assault the local dentist, march into the local police station and verbally assault a police officer, lob Molotov cocktails at the police station until it's a fiery inferno that nearly kills a man, and then get away with all of it with little - if any - questioning? What about Dixon torturing suspects, or nearly killing Red? Nothing?
Isn't our supposed protagonist's character arc centered around her anger and resentment from someone else getting away with crime(s) and seeing very little effort from the police (at least in her eyes)? Isn't this why she, and most of the town for that matter, despise Dixon? Was this intentional irony or just a massive oversight?
Why did 'crop-haired guy' even stop in the gift shop and terrorize Hayes in the first place? How often does this guy from Idaho (a good 8-10 hours away at least) just come hang out in this small MO town, and why? His actions and character make zero sense outside the scope of being an obvious plot device.
I get that the lines between protagonist and antagonist were supposed to be blurred by the end of the movie, it was fairly easy to spot that attempt; but it WASN'T so clear how this even tied into or resolved the overall story. A "flip-flopping" character arc only works if the viewer sees how it affects the overall theme or answers any questions in the end; not here though, it's left entirely open ended and the writing is vague enough to leave the viewer wondering. DID they kill the man in Idaho? WOULD they kill the man in Idaho? Are they GOOD people or are they BAD people?
I have no idea either way and the writing is poor enough to leave the viewer with a crapshoot 50/50 guess in the end instead of an "OH I GET IT!" kind of feeling. I get the reasoning behind not making it completely obvious, but at the same time people watch movies for their entertainment and artistic value and don't want to leave it feeling like there's another episode next week to wrap it all up - when there isn't.
Luckily I downloaded and watched this movie at home for free; I would neither suggest or advise against anyone doing the same.