User Reviews

Another brutal film by director Zahler. He made a film again in his own style and with his own signature. It's also a great movie. At first, the film lasts too long and it seems to me that some scenes could have been shorter or cut out of the film, especially in the first hour or so. However, everything will be paid later. The story is not at all simple, there are a lot of characters and most of them have a good background and developed characteristics so that we can understand their choices. The film has several unexpected decisions, and I like that when the film is not predictable. Some really brutal and tense scenes in the last third of the movie. I can't understand the various criticisms of this film, the film follows some well-known rules, it looks very fresh and original. In addition, I have to praise Mel Gibson, one of his better roles, especially lately.

...from writer-director S. Craig Zahler (Bone Tomahawk, Brawl in Cell Block 99). Various characters are on a collision course, including a pair of suspended cops (Mel Gibson & Vince Vaughn), an ex-con (Tory Kittles) and his brother (Michael Jai White), and a mysterious European (Thomas Krestchmann), as they all seek a big pay-out from a heist.

Zahler takes his sweet time developing characters before the big event goes down, as the heist doesn't occur until around the 90 minute mark in this 158 minute film. The dialogue is sharp and often funny, and the characters are all fully drawn. The performances are very good, with Gibson and Kittles the stand-outs. There are a few surprising moments, as well as the over-the-top ultra-violence that is a Zahler hallmark, although this one is less gory than his previous efforts. The film looks more professional, as well, with good, atmospheric cinematography. Recommended to fans of crime films and noir, but only if they have the patience for a slow build-up.

This film is a difficult watch for the first half. There are many who may even say it is boring, tedious and laborious. And I would be one of them. And yes, perhaps some scenes could have been quickened up and other scenes re-shot to give the opening half of the film more pace.

Having said that, this was unquestionably a serious character-driven film that had many sad and serious undertones but also welcome moments of light humour. I believe this was absolutely deliberate by a very out-there and intelligent director who brought an initially slow script to life and copperfastened by excellent acting throughout, particularly from Gibson and Vaughn.

For me, it is the real-life questions that are asked of us, the viewer, not during this excellent film, but long afterwards, that mark this film out from many others which have considerable less impact.

I would most definitely recommend this film as an excellent watch. But you will need to pass the endurance test of the first half or so, and then you will get your reward over the second half.

The reviews on here are more polarised than I think I've seen before. So which is it - a low scoring film worth 3/10 or less, or a film worthy of 7/10 or more? I think it is the latter. The current IMDB average of 7/10 seems about right. It is not perfect but it is very good. The answer for you depends on what you are like and what you are prepared to bring to it.

My aim in writing a review was to try and give ways to separate the one-out-of-tenners from the high scorers so you can tell if you want to give it 150+ minutes of your time. Here goes.... If you love the 10+ minute scene of a gunman trapping a fly in his gun at the start of Once Upon a Time in the West, give this a try. If it drove you nuts, don't. If you've ever enjoyed an early Takeshi Kitano (a master of underacting) and the inactivity as well as cinematic poetry are enjoyable to you, and the flare ups of sudden violence are acceptable to you, give this a try. If you often watch a film with your phone in your hand and your attention split - just don't bother with this. If you always need fast-paced action, shouting, loud music and overacting this is not for you and you will end up with a rating of less than 3 or 4. If your cinema diet is mainly fast, loud blockbusters, don't bother with this. This is not for those that need the film to constantly poke at them to keep them engaged. If you are one of them then just move on to another film. Don't waste your time. A lot of the one star reviews basically just say nothing more than "boring", "slow" or "worst film ever." They say nothing about the film unless you know the reviewer. Do people really mark films down for "moral ambiguity" or because some questionable characters do ok and don't get their come-uppance? Come on! It's not a fairy tale - the world is not fair. This film rewards concentration. It is dark (visually and in tone) but even has some quiet humour. If you appreciate some of the more subtle or poetic films that are not afraid to be understated with their acting and sparing with their action give it a try.

I am no great fan of Mel Gibson. He probably peaked with Mad Max for me as far as enjoyment of his films. Vince Vaughn is growing on me but I would have avoided him completely not too long ago. There is certainly no star loyalty inflating my score here. The film is languorous at times. It lingers. Deliberately. The camera is almost fixed for each scene which feels like it is deliberate as well - your eyes get time to explore. It is not as poetic and metaphor-laden as Kitano but it is very nicely visually put together and immerses you in the world the director has built. The lighting and pace fit and are cohesive and consistent with the world of the film. The lack of soundtrack is quite stark - the only music during the film is from characters' car stereos. There is no flashiness or gimmickry. Relative to most films there is a lack of close-ups or zooms. The runtime was not an issue for me - there is not much padding out. It could probably have a light trim without losing much. It has the pace and character focus of a good quality TV mini-series (maybe 3 episodes) and if it was one I suspect people would accept it more. It is not typical of the films we seem to generally be served up. And that is a good thing for me.

Hopefully this may guide you on whether you should align yourself with the 1 stars or the 7+ stars..... before you watch and invest 2.5 hours. Enjoy. Or avoid.

S. Craig Zahler films are a genre onto themselves. Much like Woody Allen or David Lynch movies. So keep that in mind.

Admitted, it's not one of his best, and about 30 mins too long, but it's an anti-hero story.

Characters like this exist in our world. Real life problems are a part of this movie too. Unfortunately, like life, theres not always a happy Hollywood ending.

I enjoyed this movie. Then again, I enjoy S. Craig Zahler's style of story telling

Anyone who saw S. Craig Zahler's directorial debut Bone Tomahawk knows what a remarkable talent he is as a filmmaker. His ability to build tension and invoke anticipation through his storytelling is unique. His talent is somewhat reminiscent of that of J. C. Chandor, although Zahler's films are more hard-hitting and pessimistic. In his latest film Dragged Across Concrete, his view on the state of affairs in modern day United States is grim, perhaps even cynical, but he argues darned well for his stance, and the film should definitely evoke reflection in everyone who watches it. The first half of the film is absolutely riveting. It's a showcase for almost everything that good movie storytelling can offer: There are complex characters and relations, there is segment upon segment which take on a life of their own and tell a separate little story, and there is that looming atmosphere which we all remember from Tomahawk. Add to that the cohesion of it all and how Zahler's script ties in and ultimately makes the sum of all its parts seem larger and more intelligent. Eventually, the crime plot comes into full play, and one could make an argument that it is not as innovative as everything else Zahler has to offer here. But there's also a poetic side to the banal hopelessness of the final predicament; as if the conclusion of it all was inevitable not for lack of ingenuity in the writing, but simply because of the nature of these characters and the society that shaped them.

I'd you like derivative, stupid buddy buddy cop thrillers that's are loud with slam editing like the obnoxious Fast and Furious movies, then this movie is NOT for you! It is an uncompromising gritty movie that lets the audience e make up its own mind about morality. It is unflinching and disturbing. It is unsentimental and dark. It is brilliant

I'll make this quick. For the first hour of this movie I wouldn't say it was bad I guess it qualifies as a slow burn because the dialogue was witty and the actors are supreme but it was undoubtedly teetering on boring and after seeing a lifetime of a thousand movies you lose hope that things will turn around and become epic. Low and behold "Dragged Across Concrete" is the epitome of that kind of film and as you think back on the time it spent building backstory you become appreciative of that time spent. It's well choreographed and directed and events happen in the blink of an eye which amplifies the moments many will feel are quite disturbing. All in all it's not apologetic when dealing with race or degrading gender but it's a film that will be on a short list of classics that are memorable and well received. These are films worth paying for and it's a tragedy their not promoted like most Hollywood duds.

S. Craig Zahler's ambitious third feature from 2018 borrows liberally from the house of Mann & Tarantino as we have this mini epic of some 'off the book' cops out on the trail of a score since both have been suspended due to leaked footage to the press over a violent Q & A they conducted. Mel Gibson & Vince Vaughn (returning from Riot on Cell Block 11) play the grey area flat foots who get word from an insider (the great Udo Keir, also from Cell Block) that a certain party is in town for a score. From the opposite end of the gig we see the other players on the field, a recent parolee out to make good for his mother & wheelchair bound son who decides to go along w/the gig as a favor to his buddy played by Michael Jai White, a pair of shadowy hitmen/thieves (dressed like Snake Eyes from G. I. Joe) out collecting hardware & the main player himself, played by Thomas Kretschmann (Von Strucker from the Marvel Universe). The target is some gold being held at a bank & the bad guys are proficient enough to pull off the heist but they don't know the cops are on them which leads to a lengthy but muscular final act which may be the death of all concerned. W/stylized (& nearly arch) dialogue, which Q. T. would be proud of, delivered by seasoned vets all chewing on solid roles, the film is a long but satisfying ride. W/additional help by the likes of Don Johnson, Jennifer Carpenter & Laurie Holden as Gibson's wife.

This is an usual movie. It has a crime noir feel, although not sure it is crime noir. It has a True Detective feel in a movie formate. There are some strange , noticeable pacing choices in this movie that intrigued me- like the interest in food consumption. It is a crime drama with some intersecting stories and a stellar cast. Vince Vaughn and Mel Gibson play suspended Detectives looking to improve their fortunes. They are definitely imperfect, but not as imperfect as their roles and accusations may seem. Michael Jai White and Tory Kittles play hard up criminals also seeking to improve their fortunes. Obviously those two paths cross. There is more here. There is a subplot that makes this more interesting and complicated. The Direction is unusual-as I said the pacing is very deliberate. The cast and performances are the strength of this one, even by the minor characters. There is a through line of humanity and struggle in this one. This is worth seeing but do not be fooled-it is a crime movie, not really an action one.

I haven't stopped thinking about this film since I watched it randomly the other week on Netflix. I had skim read reviews on here prior and saw lots complaining about the length and how slow it was. However, I thought I'd make my own mind up. I found the pace really authentic. The character development was brilliant. At first I did find the constant unnatural one liner back and forth dialogue between the two protagonists forced. But it is forgotten by the brilliant storyline. This film really takes you on a trip, it'll make you feel all sorts of emotions which is what makes a good film in my opinion. This film turned out to be one of the best films I've seen in years. And it will be one I watch again. I think the issues with length and taking offense from the film are generational. And that's reflected in the reviews. Definitely.

Writer-Director Zahler's First 3 Movies All Break Away from Current Hollywood Trends of Quick-Cuts, Wild Action, F & MF Bombs, and Relies on Personal Handicaps, Disabilities, and Displaced, Desperate, Low-Level Characters Up Against it.

All 3 Films are "Anti-Hollywood", if you will, with a Proud "Indie" Take on B-Movies of the Past Reincarnated for the New Millennium.

Major Characters Die, some Survive but Not Unscathed, and Most, whether Anti-Hero or Villain, are Singular Unique Stereotypes, an Oxymoron, that Capture Our Attention as being Fresh and Worth Watching.

Even if the Running Times are Way Above Average, and Wallow Contemplatively for Your Consideration as a Style of Yesteryear that Shaped the Movie Circuit in the Second Half of the Last Century.

Here Mel Gibson Plays a Melancholic Cop who is Pushing 60, still Retaining the Rank He Had at 27. With a Wife, an EX-Cop with M. S. Trying to Raise a Teenage Daughter in a Less than Adequate Neighborhood.

Vince Vaughn is 20 Years Younger than His Cop-Partner Gibson, who Reluctantly Helps Him on an Iffy Heist, while Both of Them are on Suspension.

Tory Kittles is an Ex-Con with a Son in a Wheelchair and a Wife who is Descending to a World of Prostitution and Drugs, and He Turns to an Iffy Robbery to Get it All Straight.

The Tone is Neo-Noir and the Dialog is Ultra-Sarcastic and Pithy. Most of it Plays Out at Night and the Suspense is Interrupted Periodically with some Nasty Violence and Gun-Play.

It's a New-Take on an Old-Rake of Street People that are Caught in a Cruel World with Not Many Outs.

For Those Looking for Something Familiar that is Out of the Ordinary, just Like Zahler's 1st 2 Films, this one is also...

Worth a Watch.

Hadn't heard anything about this film before it came up on my Netflix. When I saw the 2 hour and 39 minute runtime I almost took a pass on the film. I'm so glad I didn't. Honestly, once the film started I was drawn into the story by the characters and the acting. The characters are well developed and the acting is solid. Really interesting pairing of Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn, they work brilliantly opposite each other as do Michael Jai White and Tory Kittles. The dialogue reminded me of Quentin Tarantino. Though I really enjoyed the film, It is extremely slow paced and it could have used some more editing but over all this film is worth watching.

I just read about how this didn't get a theatrical release because it was too long, these suits have no vision. So happy this director trusted his vision enough to not let it be butchered by the studio. I would have loved to see this in theaters.

I think the pacing was awesome. Some people are saying it was too slow but I think the time it took to get us more indepth with each character paid off. If you really enjoy a good film and don't need action packed explosions to keep your attention, you will really appreciate this film.

I am now a fan of this writer/director as I don't find many who get it right. Often these writer/director films go off kilter and don't have the right checks and balances. This guy should be given the steering wheel more often and trusted whole heartedly by the studios.

"It's bad for you, it's bad for me, it's bad like lasagna in a can." Anthony (Vince Vaughn)

Writer/director S. Craig Zahler blew me away with Bone Tomahawk, as eccentric a western as ever made. In Dragged Across Concrete his two white, male suspended-cops' (Anthony and Brett, played convincingly by Mel Gibson) heist takes a more traditional path but has dialogue continually as crisp as my headliner, though decidedly less explosive and ironic than Tarantino's Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.

Although you may think you have seen this gritty and yet mellow thriller before, Zahler has expertly and innovatively conducted us through an eccentric but dangerous underworld of robbery and treachery. I suspect in real life the double-dealing happens more than we would guess.

Two-handed dialogue, ala Tarantino, about fast food and family, for both the two protagonists and the bad guys, alternates between the mundane and the philosophical, anchovies, and murder. Although conversation is not as caustic as that of Tarantino's loveable crooks, the wordplay rings truer about daily living, even for those involved in robbery and murder.

The wonder of this heist is that we get to know even the bad guys, Russian and Latino, as the director keeps the camera steady on two crooks driving the getaway van and talking about family and the growing danger of the robbery. Or getting to know a victim through an extended visit to her paranoia about leaving her apartment and child for numbing work at the targeted bank. Fate will decide her future, and we are the more empathetic for having spent time with her.

Dragged Across Concrete fulfills the promise of its hard-edged title: its heist is memorable, multifaceted, and microscopically treated as if we were in the planning and execution. Along the way there's humor to lighten the death-threatening caper.

Brett catches the ambivalent crime-stopping the two are indicted for: "And it turns out that sh-t's more important than good, honest work." This is a good, honest heist film about characters not so good or honest but interesting nonetheless.

Hell yeah, what's not to like in here? I have read some reviewers saying it was too long, I have to disagree with that... the character developement is amazing, the atmosphere is kept strong the whole time, there's nothing needed to be removed. If you've seen some other Zahler's stuff you know you're going to deal with pretty dark ambiances and sometimes intense graphic violence, but if you're OK with it, you'll have a pleasant ride. Speaking about violence nothing feels free here, it's raw and tense, obviously, but contrary on Winding Refn or Tarentino, you don't get that exagerated feeling. A solid dark heist movie which I enjoyed almost as well as Heat from Michael Mann.

As a fan of Zahler's films, this film was on my watchlist. Hav njoyed Asylum Blackout n loved Bone Tomahawk. Yet to c the new Puppetmaster n Brawl in Cell Block... Like Tomahawk, this film is also slow but not at all boring. The dialogues r good, the character development is brilliant n the acting is top notch. With Gibson n Vaughn, who can doubt acting. The pacing of the film is complimented with engaging chat, strong development of characters n a sense of brooding dread. Before diving into the brutality n shocking violent showdown, we r given solid tension n witty one liners. Not on par with Bone Tomahawk but still a good one time watch.

I got a bit annoyed with Mel Gibson's character talking about probabilities and statistics. The runtime is too long for thrill and suspense to be maintained. In overall, I think it needs to be trimmed down to have the tension and excitement.

Dragged Across Concrete is the third film from writer/director S. Craig Zahler, after the superb horror-western Bone Tomahawk (2015) and the fatalistic but excellent prison drama Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017), films which represent a throwback to true Grindhouse. Synthesising disparate genres, and featuring sudden and often extreme violence, both are methodically paced (132 minutes each) and emotionally dark. In Dragged, the gore has been toned down (although not the violence), the nihilistic worldview made more apparent, the genre mashup more complex, and the pace more languorous (a whopping 159 minutes). And much like them, Dragged is morally repugnant, ugly and stoical in equal measure, both exploitative and demoralising. And immensely enjoyable.

Set in the fictional city of Bulwark, the film follows three main stories. In one, Henry Johns (an excellent Tory Kittles) returns home from prison to find his mother (Vanessa Bell Calloway) turning tricks in her bedroom, whilst his wheel-chair-confined younger brother Ethan (Myles Truitt) is kept quiet with videogames. In the second story, Det. Brett Ridgeman (Mel Gibson) and Det. Anthony Lurasetti (Vince Vaughn) are suspended without pay by their boss, Ridgeman's ex-partner, Lt. Calvert (Don Johnson, still effortlessly cool), after Ridgeman is filmed standing on the head of a Latino drug dealer during an arrest. As Ridgeman wants to move his family out of the bad part of town in which they live, where his daughter Sara (Jordyn Ashley Olson) is being harassed by a local gang, and his wife Melanie (Laurie Holden), a former cop now suffering from MS, is miserable, he decides he's done playing by the rules. The third story sees Kelly Summer (a superb Jennifer Carpenter) reluctantly returning to work after maternity leave, despite suffering from severe separation anxiety.

Narratively, although Dragged is easily Zahler's most densely plotted film, much like his previous work, it's predicated on character rather than story, spending a lot of time on conversations that do little to advance the plot, but add layer upon layer of character information (think the "royale with cheese" scene from Pulp Fiction (1994)). No spoilers, but one subplot in particular benefits greatly from this technique, so that when it erupts in sickening violence, the emotional impact is all the stronger, because we've gotten to know the person; think of the character of Breedan (Dennis Haysbert) in Michael Mann's Heat (1995), a subplot that hits as emotionally hard as it does because Mann spends so much time introducing us to characters who seemingly have nothing to do with the rest of the film. Same idea in Dragged.

The script is also dynamite from start to finish, with some fantastic lines sounding like they were ripped directly from Michael Mann; Johns, for example, says at one point, "before I consider that kind of vocation, I need to get myself acclimated", whilst he reminds Ethan, "pops is a yesterday who ain't worth words". This kind of highly expressive overly literal way of speaking is exactly the way the aforementioned Breedan speaks or Frank (James Caan) in Thief (1981). This kind of dialogue keeps things lively, but it also illuminates character; Lurasetti, for example, is the more laidback of the two cops, saying things such as, "it's bad like lasagne in a can", which is not the kind of simile one would image Ridgeman coming up with.

Aesthetically, working with his regular cinematographer, Benji Bakshi, Zahler stages most of the film either at night or in shadows (or both), so much so that a central scene in a well-lit building in the middle of the day seems washed out and garish by comparison. Brian Davie's production design is also worth mentioning, with the characters' living spaces completely soulless, all muted neutralising colours and generic furnishings, like they've moved into a showroom and haven't bothered to bring their own stuff or repaint.

Wearing his influences very much on his sleeve (directors such as Jules Dassin, Don Siegel, and Jean-Pierre Melville; and novelists such as Charles Willeford and George V. Higgins), given what his films say about masculinity and violence, it's no surprise that Zahler is seen as a quintessential right-wing filmmaker in a very left-leaning Hollywood. Although he claims he's not interested in politics, and asserts that he didn't vote for Trump in 2016, nor does he plan to do so in 2020, the Daily Beast still referred to him as "the Hollywood filmmaker making movies for the MAGA crowd", which is not only reductionist, it's not even accurate, as there is nothing in his films to suggest he subscribes to Trump's hateful and divisive rhetoric (it is possible, after all, for one to be a right-wing conservative without being an advocate of Trump's self-serving politics).

That said, if Zahler isn't explicitly engaging in socio-political commentary in Dragged, then he is epically trolling and baiting outrage culture. This is a film partly about two racist cops who complain about political correctness, trial by social media, and metrosexuality (amongst other things), and who use (gun) violence to try to set their world to rights, and they are played by noted Hollywood conservatives Mel Gibson (he of the 2006 anti-Semitic rant and the 2010 racism controversy), and Vince Vaughan, who rather amusingly believes the way to tackle gun violence in the US, is to introduce more guns (no, really). The casting seems like provocation, and one can imagine Zahler getting considerable satisfaction from watching SJWs losing their minds trying to parse the metatextuality of it all (and the fact that there are so many one and two star (and one and two sentence) 'reviews' on here from accounts clearly set up just to trash the film without having seen it, would suggest he has very much succeeded in getting under someone's skin).

However, it's in relation to this point where Dragged is most open to divergent interpretations. Namely, does Zahler simply depict the characters' racist and misogynistic antics, or does he sympathise with their toxic mindset? True, he certainly doesn't outright condone their behaviour and opinions, but neither does he outright condemn them. Neither man is presented as a hero, but neither is presented as a villain either.

Despite his claims that the film is apolitical, it's hard to deny that some of the dialogue has a political flavour. So, for example, Calvert states that "being branded a racist in today's public forum is like being accused of being a communist in the 50s, whether it's a possibly racist remark made in a private phone call or the indelicate treatment of a minority who sells drugs to children. The entertainment industry, formerly known as the news, needs villains." This comment also calls to mind Trump's never-ending refrain of "fake news". Another example is when Melanie says, "I never thought I was a racist before living in this area." That's a hell of a loaded statement in a film that's apparently not interested in race relations.

Moving away from racial issues, Ridgeman laments to Calvert, "for a lot of years I believed that the quality of my work, what we do together, what I did with my previous partners, would get me what I deserved. But I don't politic and I don't change with the times, and it turns out that's more important than good honest work. So yesterday, after we stop a massive amount of drugs from getting into the school system, we get suspended because we didn't do it politely." It's hard not to hear Zahler behind such an impassioned sentiment, someone who may believe (and may be correct) that PC culture has gotten to a point of unworkable absurdity.

There's also the issue of (perceived) misogyny in his work. All three of his films depict relatively helpless women who must be saved from evil men by righteous men, so does Zahler himself think of women in this way, as inherent victims who require men's protection, or is he simply able to understand such a mindset?

The line between critical commentary and ideological endorsement is razor thin, and it's a line that Zahler walks throughout. Which is one of the things that makes the film so fascinating. This is the first film he's made that's more likely to alienate audiences because of its ideology than its violence, as he takes risks here that other filmmakers would never dream of, resulting in his most politically interesting and ideologically complex film thus far.

Easily dismissible as a right-wing manifesto, there is much more going on than such binary politics would suggest. It's certainly more to the right than the vast majority of Hollywood output, and there is a case to be made that Zahler is positioning himself as a conservative ideologue railing against cookie-cutter Hollywood political correctness. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that he's avowing a white supremacist doctrine, or that the film is a hate-filled alt-right diatribe, a paean to intolerance. This is not a message movie; it's a Grindhouse B-movie character piece. It's a little self-indulgent. It's unapologetically incendiary. It's possibly offensive. You may see it as shining a not unwelcome light on a culture of inherent racial intolerance in law enforcement. You may see it as commenting on a world where women are expected to be mothers and full-time workers. You may find it appallingly racist itself. You may shake your head at its endemic misogyny. And that ambiguity, more than anything else, speaks to its quality as a provocative work of art.

Basically this movie is close to unwatchable. It moves very slowly while the two cops deliver one line after the other about how todays society is corrupted by identity politics, feminism and whatnot. To me the two cops come across as assholes. Allthewhile the pacing is really slow and most of the time nothing is happening. If you want to make a movie that does not push a political agenda, why not make one that simply tells a good story?

What a terrible movie, don't waster your time, it's like watching paint dry. Really slow and boring

For a truthful Imdb rating review, please do select the ratings by HELPFULNESS sorting order first.

I have never before seen SO MANY 1 or 2 star Imdb ratings for a movie back to back, then for this crappy movie. That is to say if you select HELPFULNESS at the sorting order.

If you select REVIEW DATE at the sorting order however, then you will see many ridiculously high ratings. The studio who made this crap has been able to artificially hype this movie up to 7 stars, which is indeed a disgrace for Imdb's truthfulness. BUT the studio who made this crap has NOT been able to circumvent the truth about this movie, BECAUSE when you select HELPFULNESS at the sorting order this movie has only gotten 1 or 2 star ratings. DESERVEDLY so.

I give it 2 stars for the effort in TRYING to make something special and FAILING at it magnificently !

I mean seriously, WHEN a director, ANY director has the guts to make a movie last almost 3 hours, such a pretentious director better make sure there is brilliant acting, beautiful photography and magnificent storytelling to be seen. Only a very few masterpieces are brilliant that last almost 3 hours long. The Godfather is one perfect example. Francis Ford Coppola directed that classic movie with utter brilliance though and it was captivating from beginning to end, nearly 3 hours long that The Godfather lasted. BUT this director "Zahler" dares to think he can fascinate us for almost 3 hours long as well, when after 5 minutes this movie already began to bore the heck out of me.

PRETENTIOUS. That's the best word describing this movie. PRETENTIOUS horse manure. It wants to copy Quentin Tarantino with it's laid back dialogue style, but it fails miserably.

INCREDIBLY SLOW AND BORING. Really you just gotta check it out for yourself how it is possible to make such a boring movie. Anyone, really ANYONE else could have made a more interesting picture. Excellent study material for filmstudents to experience what NOT to do. NEVER BORE THE PUBLIC. PLEASE....