I don't get it.
---
DEAR MODS: Please reduce my posting quota. 30 minutes is way too much.
Dude is a regular guy tryna to get revenge, he is the relatable hero. All his goofs u could see urself making
shareYeah, no. Only an idiot could make that many mistakes. I didn't relate to him at all, so if that was the director's aim, it failed.
🐺 Boycott movies that involve real animal violence (& their directors) 🐾
I can only speak for myself, but here's why I liked it (and why it's help up on it's 2nd/3rd replays):
-Minimal dialogue - the opening is almost all told through actions. This is very hard to do as a writer/director and is impressive.
-The whole tale is about the futility of revenge and the idea that there's 2 sides to every story. From the other family's perspective he's just as evil as he thinks they are. Also he got what he wanted, great, but look what it got him: in even deeper trouble. Things you do can effect more than just yourself.
-The acting is superb and very natural.
-The action scenes are very well done and intense. However they're not overplayed. They went with the 'less is more approach', which I always like to see.
-It seemed more real than the average action movie. The guy killing people isn't a government agent or a trained assassin, it's some run of the mill guy who feels like he wants revenge but isn't prepared for the consequences.
-They did a lot with a low budget.
Those are the ones off the top of my head anyway!
'Get yourself a real dog. Any dog under 50 lbs is a cat and cats are pointless' - Ron Swanson