Funny that another review would be what makes someone feel compelled to add one of their own. Usually I just watch and rate and move along but felt compelled to try and balance the absurdity I saw...
First, the film (which should be the focus) It's a taunt little thriller with an above average cast and many notable moments. It's not breaking new ground or reinventing the wheel by any means but it delivers as promised. In supporting roles Bruce Dern (Nebraska, Hateful Eight) and James Earl Jones (Star Wars, The Lion King) execute a brief master class in acting which is then anchored by the performances of Tammy Blanchard (Into the Woods, The Invitation) and Guillermo Diaz (Halfbaked, Weeds, Scandal). What may surprise many is how David Spade (Tommy Boy, The Do Over) seems to be the thread that ties it all together. I expected to see far less of him but he stands toe to toe with drama heavy weights and seems to slide into the much more serious role with ease. His performance easily makes this worth the watch and yet their is still so much more. Guillermo Diaz character may actually be one of the best written sociopaths iv'e seen on screen in sometime. First disguised as a backwoods moron he slowly unveils a twisted character who physiologically breaks down his victims and I found that to be genuine and quite fascinating.
Now my score for this probably would have fallen between a 7 or an 8, but I saw something here that blew my mind.. a review that gave 1 star, not based on the film itself, but on the reviewers belief that the entire film was somehow socialist propaganda supporting the theft of private property by the American government.
Now I don't want to get into spoiler territory so I'll simply say there is a through story that involves water rights, and who owns them. The implication of the other review was that the filmmakers some how took a stand on that issue and wanted to push that onto the viewer. Are you taking crazy pills?? Did you not see the film was "based on true events"? The implication here is by showing something as it happened, or would happen, some how means the filmmaker agrees with that outcome. Again I don't want to spoil anything so I'll put it this way, it's like saying the film "Spotlight" condoned the molestation of children by priests simply because the film said that took place.
So I chose to give this a 10 in the hopes of offsetting the unfair review of someone who is delusional enough to believes a completely indie made film had a secret socialist agenda.
First, the film (which should be the focus) It's a taunt little thriller with an above average cast and many notable moments. It's not breaking new ground or reinventing the wheel by any means but it delivers as promised. In supporting roles Bruce Dern (Nebraska, Hateful Eight) and James Earl Jones (Star Wars, The Lion King) execute a brief master class in acting which is then anchored by the performances of Tammy Blanchard (Into the Woods, The Invitation) and Guillermo Diaz (Halfbaked, Weeds, Scandal). What may surprise many is how David Spade (Tommy Boy, The Do Over) seems to be the thread that ties it all together. I expected to see far less of him but he stands toe to toe with drama heavy weights and seems to slide into the much more serious role with ease. His performance easily makes this worth the watch and yet their is still so much more. Guillermo Diaz character may actually be one of the best written sociopaths iv'e seen on screen in sometime. First disguised as a backwoods moron he slowly unveils a twisted character who physiologically breaks down his victims and I found that to be genuine and quite fascinating.
Now my score for this probably would have fallen between a 7 or an 8, but I saw something here that blew my mind.. a review that gave 1 star, not based on the film itself, but on the reviewers belief that the entire film was somehow socialist propaganda supporting the theft of private property by the American government.
Now I don't want to get into spoiler territory so I'll simply say there is a through story that involves water rights, and who owns them. The implication of the other review was that the filmmakers some how took a stand on that issue and wanted to push that onto the viewer. Are you taking crazy pills?? Did you not see the film was "based on true events"? The implication here is by showing something as it happened, or would happen, some how means the filmmaker agrees with that outcome. Again I don't want to spoil anything so I'll put it this way, it's like saying the film "Spotlight" condoned the molestation of children by priests simply because the film said that took place.
So I chose to give this a 10 in the hopes of offsetting the unfair review of someone who is delusional enough to believes a completely indie made film had a secret socialist agenda.