Most of the negative reviews are reflective of what those viewers want the film to be. Unfortunately for them that isn't how art works. I see complaints of "disgustingly making him sympathetic" or it was boring.
How exactly can the filmmaker make him a villain before he's a villain? The whole point of the film is what leads up to the very well documented atrocities he commuted. I don't think we are in any danger of forgiving him through the lens of history. People just want to be offended. As for it being boring, I would suggest folks taking ten seconds to see what a film is about before they watch it and rip it for being something else. Again, the viewers problem not the film's.
The acting is superb and it appears everything is pretty spot on to what we know about his teenage years leading up to his plunge into depravity.
Sorry it didn't make things up to entertain people or avoid other's indignation.
If you're a rational adult with a grasp on the concept it's a rather well-executed indie adaptation of an interesting graphic novel. Worth a watch, unless you want to see the exploitation of 17 innocent guys being murdered of course. That's not here.
The acting is superb and it appears everything is pretty spot on to what we know about his teenage years leading up to his plunge into depravity.
Sorry it didn't make things up to entertain people or avoid other's indignation.
If you're a rational adult with a grasp on the concept it's a rather well-executed indie adaptation of an interesting graphic novel. Worth a watch, unless you want to see the exploitation of 17 innocent guys being murdered of course. That's not here.