Badly made Western movie

I have watched this movie 3 or 4 times now since I found it quite by accident some months ago. In my mind it is nearly perfect. There isn't a single movie that doesn't reuse plot elements. Not even so called "original classics" that appear to break new ground. Of course there are movies so original they create NEW genres, "Alien", "Star Wars", "Terminator", "Road Warrior" to name a few, but even those movies reuse story lines and plot techniques as old as story telling itself. Criticizing a movie because it's themes aren't 100% original is not enough. You need more than that to put a movie in the trash heap.

It is a "western" but the criticism of the story is not the detractor but reason for its success. Without this "retribution" theme there is no movie. The only reason this stands out is because westerns are one of perfect settings for this type of story. Most of all the good and bad martial arts movies use this. Action flicks like "John Wick", the "Taken" franchise, "Kill Bill" use the retribution theme. Jodie Foster's "The Brave One" and Clint Eastwood's "The Unforgiven" which was the first film that popped into my head, and revived the western and created it's own copycat film genre for a while. All of those movies use the "one guy" pushed too far retribution theme.

No movie ever made was original. The common themes came from the flickering light of fire and drawings on a cave wall and stories told. The familiar theme was was a requirement not a detraction.

This movie good on so many other levels. Its success was the skilled actors in even minor roles. Side line characters in only a few scenes, convincing and perfect in their short time on screen. The wife and son? HOLY COW! The initial driving conflict and they were barely on screen, their spoken words in an unfamiliar language for a western. Not "accents" but subtitles and still building the fear and dread in that short tim. You don't realize how hard it is to pull this off. Without that kind of skill in those simple roles the movie fails. A horrifically evil villain is portrayed in his first scene without creating a cartoon. This film is dirty and gritty and portrays the reality of living in that time better than most westerns. It was short because it didn't need more.

I think it is fresh, stylish and the characters are effective.

Whether it's a 'bad guy', a misguided guy or a 'good guy, any bully or low life, disrespectful person (like some politician) who gets slow or fast justice is a good day to celebrate. How could anyone not like this script, this movie? Oh, unless anyone is a bully or the like.

Why people don't like it but aren't willing to admit even to themselves.
!) The hero wasn't American but a northern European immigrant (who was victimized).

2) The hero did what a whole town of tough frontier American couldn't do because
they sold out, were afraid, unskilled gunmen & were thus outnumbered/outsmarted.

3) A mute woman save him from being shot. How could others be self-righteously bullied or victimized in real life if they are courageous heroes in movies? Takes all the fun out of being a bad ass (unless you took methamphetamines or something).

4) It was not filmed in the U.S. but in South Africa.

5) The killed victims were immigrants & not American.

6) The actors & actresses were unknown &...not American. All about pride &
provincialism, and that's just scratching the surface. No Clint Eastwood, no
John Wayne, no Kevin Costner. Kevin Costner? :)