I liked this movie a lot, but after reading the critics and many of the comments herein, I can't believe I'm the only one with some nits to pick.
Strengths
1. CINEMATOGRAPHY. If you've ever visited the Southwest, you know that it's difficult to represent accurately on film. Kudos. TTBOME is accurate to the countryside depicted and panoramically beautiful.
2. ACTING. Although Barry Pepper will always be Roger Maris to me, he is easy to hate here and then even easier to be ambivalent about later. Pepper makes a great hostage. Melissa Leo nails the role of Rachel. Nearly everyone else is superb.
3. NUANCE. Why make everything in black and white? The world is beautiful with shades of meaning and so is TTBOME.
4. THOUGHT PROVOCATION. This isn't a kids'movie, but not for the reasons the rating states. My wife called it a "thinking an's 'Weekend At Bernie's'". You do have to think about a lot of things:
a. Roles. Do we like who we are? Do we like what we do? where we live? what others think of us?
b. Racism. Is everyone you meet of Mexican origin undocumented? How about the reverse? Are the bad guys now always the gringos?
c. Economics. If it is so beautiful, friendly, peaceful, musical, and well-fed, would so many south of the border risk all they have to come north of the border and "pick strawberries"? On the other hand, if I lived in Van Horn, Texas, I'd be looking to escape to anywhere else. Seriously.
d. Endurance. Could you survive this trek? I wouldn't make it 100 yards without shoes.
There are other strengths. Refer to the other reviews.
Weaknesses
1. CHARACTER BUILDING. We are given very little reason to believe that Pete would do this for anyone. We are asked to believe that he is deep, e.g., thousand-yard gazes, fierce loyalty, rugged determination; but also shallow, e.g., dalliance with a married woman, gullibility, disrespect for the law. We may like nuance in a movie, but who is the protagonist? Pete is a weak one, considering the milieu he came out of. If he were a match for the country, we'd be cheering for him like Shane.
2. CHRONOLOGY. Stupid! Unnecessary! Contrived! Distracting! Egotistical! Stupid. A poor substitute for character good building.
3. LOGIC.
a. Lou Ann's relationship with Mike adds nothing to the story. He is central and we already have enough to dislike him.
b. Rachel's loyalty to Bob strains at reason. He loyalty to anything is questionable.
c. Gomez' willingness to cut a quick deal with Belmont has no history to back it up.
d. Why is Rachel able to hear every syllable through glass?
e. Lack of conversation between Mike and Pete. If you thought coming clean would buy you your life or even some more time, you'd talk your head off.
f. Cincinnati? That hotbed of INS recruitment?
4. ACTING. Dwight Yoakam will not be offered leading man roles. He's already found his shtick and this isn't it. Tommy Lee's performance as Pete would benefit from a more seasoned director. Joel Coen comes to mind.
5. LENGTH. This could have been over sooner. You especially know that when there are long silences in the commentary version with three good commentators.
6. BIZARRE COINCIDENCE. Am I the only one who thinks Cedillo looks like Johnny Damon? Couldn't shake it.
7. ROTTING CORPSE. OK, we get it. He's a dead guy.
8. CREDIBILITY.
a. Snake bites kill. They really, really kill people weakened by travel, forced labor, deprivation, and lack of a hat in the desert.
b. Law enforcement is not that venal. Venal, yesjust not THAT venal or impotent.
c. Also, which is it? Sheriff and I.N.S. work together or they don't?
d. Sixty grand for a single-wide in Van Horn? Fifty-four? Got to assume that this is prior to the current realty reality.
e. Man #1 is shot by Man #2. By wild cinematic coincidence, Man #1 has been indiscreet with the wife of Man #2, but only because Man #3 has induced him to do so? The mind boggles.
f. How exactly were three distant cowpokes watching soaps they couldn't understand, with excess food they freely give away?
SPOILER. The movie's title gives away the ending.
Strengths
1. CINEMATOGRAPHY. If you've ever visited the Southwest, you know that it's difficult to represent accurately on film. Kudos. TTBOME is accurate to the countryside depicted and panoramically beautiful.
2. ACTING. Although Barry Pepper will always be Roger Maris to me, he is easy to hate here and then even easier to be ambivalent about later. Pepper makes a great hostage. Melissa Leo nails the role of Rachel. Nearly everyone else is superb.
3. NUANCE. Why make everything in black and white? The world is beautiful with shades of meaning and so is TTBOME.
4. THOUGHT PROVOCATION. This isn't a kids'movie, but not for the reasons the rating states. My wife called it a "thinking an's 'Weekend At Bernie's'". You do have to think about a lot of things:
a. Roles. Do we like who we are? Do we like what we do? where we live? what others think of us?
b. Racism. Is everyone you meet of Mexican origin undocumented? How about the reverse? Are the bad guys now always the gringos?
c. Economics. If it is so beautiful, friendly, peaceful, musical, and well-fed, would so many south of the border risk all they have to come north of the border and "pick strawberries"? On the other hand, if I lived in Van Horn, Texas, I'd be looking to escape to anywhere else. Seriously.
d. Endurance. Could you survive this trek? I wouldn't make it 100 yards without shoes.
There are other strengths. Refer to the other reviews.
Weaknesses
1. CHARACTER BUILDING. We are given very little reason to believe that Pete would do this for anyone. We are asked to believe that he is deep, e.g., thousand-yard gazes, fierce loyalty, rugged determination; but also shallow, e.g., dalliance with a married woman, gullibility, disrespect for the law. We may like nuance in a movie, but who is the protagonist? Pete is a weak one, considering the milieu he came out of. If he were a match for the country, we'd be cheering for him like Shane.
2. CHRONOLOGY. Stupid! Unnecessary! Contrived! Distracting! Egotistical! Stupid. A poor substitute for character good building.
3. LOGIC.
a. Lou Ann's relationship with Mike adds nothing to the story. He is central and we already have enough to dislike him.
b. Rachel's loyalty to Bob strains at reason. He loyalty to anything is questionable.
c. Gomez' willingness to cut a quick deal with Belmont has no history to back it up.
d. Why is Rachel able to hear every syllable through glass?
e. Lack of conversation between Mike and Pete. If you thought coming clean would buy you your life or even some more time, you'd talk your head off.
f. Cincinnati? That hotbed of INS recruitment?
4. ACTING. Dwight Yoakam will not be offered leading man roles. He's already found his shtick and this isn't it. Tommy Lee's performance as Pete would benefit from a more seasoned director. Joel Coen comes to mind.
5. LENGTH. This could have been over sooner. You especially know that when there are long silences in the commentary version with three good commentators.
6. BIZARRE COINCIDENCE. Am I the only one who thinks Cedillo looks like Johnny Damon? Couldn't shake it.
7. ROTTING CORPSE. OK, we get it. He's a dead guy.
8. CREDIBILITY.
a. Snake bites kill. They really, really kill people weakened by travel, forced labor, deprivation, and lack of a hat in the desert.
b. Law enforcement is not that venal. Venal, yesjust not THAT venal or impotent.
c. Also, which is it? Sheriff and I.N.S. work together or they don't?
d. Sixty grand for a single-wide in Van Horn? Fifty-four? Got to assume that this is prior to the current realty reality.
e. Man #1 is shot by Man #2. By wild cinematic coincidence, Man #1 has been indiscreet with the wife of Man #2, but only because Man #3 has induced him to do so? The mind boggles.
f. How exactly were three distant cowpokes watching soaps they couldn't understand, with excess food they freely give away?
SPOILER. The movie's title gives away the ending.