148 min
7.2
2016
Austria
In the menacing inferno of the old North-American West, Liz is a genuine survivor who is hunted by a vengeful preacher for a crime she didn’t commit.
Overview
Reviews
Gimly wrote:"If you thought Guy Pearce was a scumbag in part 1 just wait 'til you see part 2! If you thought Guy Pearce was a scumbag in part 2 just wait 'til you see part 3! If you thought Guy Pearce was a scumbag in part 3 just wait 'til you see part 4! If you thought--"
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._
Reno wrote:**The trouble that had never let her alone.**
A story about America, Hollywood cast, but produced and directed by outsiders. A powerful film. Kind of mix of 'No Country for Old Man' and 'Les Miserables'. The narration divided into four parts. The first episode called Revelation. An introduction life around Liz, but full of suspense after every unexpected turn in the story. Then in the second episode called Exodus, a young girl, Joanna introduced and following the third knows as Genesis, goes ever further back into Joanna's life, before returning to Liz's in the fourth known as Retribution.
Maybe Dakota's best performance being an adult actress. As well as the young actress Emilia Jones. They both had played the same character, but in a different timeline. Interestingly, in real life, they share the same birth day and month as mine. From one of the film poster, I thought it was Michael Sheen. Only realised while watching the film that it was Guy Pearce. From writing to the making, it was a very good film. But the story could make some people uneasy. Because everything that's happened between the people and their relationship, not for soft guys. Yet it is a must see thriller, a must see western.
_7/10_
my_skeleton_fell_off wrote:A congregation dressed in black, hymns being sung flatly, an evil preacher, an abortion scene in the first 15 minutes...
I should have known from the title that it wasn't the good western that the cover image conveyed. I could not make it through 20 minutes before I had to shut it off.
It's a movie which seems determined to slander the most beautiful message that exists - the message of Jesus Christ.
It is also another point of evidence that rated "R" and "MA" movies simply means "movies not worth poisoning your brain with".
The actors were great. They played the roles well. But the subject material, the script, and the very idea of it is not worth consuming.
**Psalm 10:4-6**
**4** The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God:
God is not in all his thoughts.
**5** His ways are always grievous; Thy judgments are far above out of his sight:
As for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.
**6** He hath said in his heart, I shall not be moved:
For I shall never be in adversity.
AstroNoud wrote:An extremely grim and unsettling horror-Western with an interestingly structured plot, ‘Brimstone’ can be found either disgusting or superb; I'll go with the latter.
8/10
Filipe Manuel Neto wrote:**A good Western, despite its weaknesses.**
Many decades ago, Italian Western films were a huge success and guaranteed the careers of several actors, such as Clint Eastwood, and directors like Sergio Leone. This film, however, is neither Italian nor American: despite being spoken in English and featuring North American actors, it is a film directed by the Dutch (Martin Koolhoven and his team), shot in Spain and where Hungarians and Austrians also collaborated. Out of this Babel of nationalities, however, emerged a good Western film.
The plot is the strongest point of this film, which wonderfully works the epic style and a tension that grows, chapter by chapter (was I the only one to see in this chapter organization and non-linear narrative some influence by Tarantino?). I won't reveal too much about the plot, but I think I won't spoil anyone's enjoyment if I say that everything revolves around a young woman who tries to escape from a crazed Protestant pastor who is determined to kill her, no matter the place or the circumstances. The film builds an absolutely detestable and maniacal villain, and gives the female character the gifts and strength to defeat him, and to captivate us with sympathy.
The film is not perfect, there are logic flaws, continuity flaws and absurd situations. But the film nevertheless entertains the audience very well. Guy Pearce stands out the most, giving life to a captivating and execrable villain. The actor is excellent and gives us the best work of his career so far. Dakota Fanning holds the central female character and handles the task at hand well, but I felt several times that she doesn't have a challenging task. Kit Harrington can complain even more, since he saw his character killed early and didn't have time to show talent, despite the film being almost two and a half hours long.
Regarding the length, I am of the opinion that it would have been better with about thirty minutes less, and that this denotes a certain sloppiness in the editing and in the selection of the scenes that should have been in the final cut. The film is impactful, it is quite violent, realistic and not suitable for teenagers, impressionable people and animal lovers (as far as I know, no one was hurt in the filming, but there are several intense scenes that include animals). The sets and costumes were very well-designed, despite the fact that the film works in a certain temporal limbo in which it is very difficult to have a sense of the time in which everything happens (somewhere between 1880 and 1910?). The scenarios are also very good, and the soundtrack was very well conceived.
GenerationofSwine wrote:Yeah, another Western, had to wait for the wife to not be home so I could dive into a genre she hates.
Anyway, it's odd how sex and nudity seem out of place in westerns given that in real life prostitution thrived. Historically a lot of what this film is about could be true. But... it doesn't feel like it should be in a Western. Racism and violence, yeah, those can make it in and feel right. Prostitution, certainly... but in a not seen sort of way.
But I don't know, it's a lot of John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart with Clint Eastwood bringing up the rear that sort of defines the genre for people my age.
That being said... it's dark.
But it's done right, and it's well acted, and it plays on the emotions something fierce, it's well acted, it's moody. In other words it's an insanely well done movie, despite that fact that it deals with subject matter that you don't expect coming into a western.
Insanely well done.
