I know its the first scene, so it doesnt spoil the story as a whole at all, but the first paragraph of your review does seem to spoil what sounds like a great opener.

It's not a spoiler. The entire synopsis is built around the kid's mom dying and him having to deal with the family she spent years trying to protect him from.

this fellow is talking about solely spoiling the reveal in that scene. like when a certain reviewer spoiled a part in Black Dynamite where we think he's leaving with his tail between his legs. doesn't spoil the entire movie, but it does ruin the impact.

“Certain reviewer”?

i didn't mean to infer you were that person…if i remember correctly the reviewer was from another website that purports to have cool news. my bad.

however, i agree you did spoil that opening scene.

Just saw it at a preview here in Australia. I have to say… I think it was rubbish. Half the scenes drag on. The script is mostly lively, although about 3/4th of the way through it descends into cliche.

The plot makes no freaking sense half the time. Plot holes abound.

Not to mention:Half the acting is woeful. I certainly didn't see the Mendelsohn you described: I saw a clumsy, flat performance keeping in line with most of his career. Amazingly, in James Frecheville, they've found an actor capable of making him look good. I could never once discern a single emotion in his face. And Luke Ford is a waste; his entire character could have been cut to the improvement of the film. Guy Pearce is adequate, as he always is.

That said, the other half of the acting is incredible, and is utterly responsible for the good bits of it. Jacki Weaver is flat out incredible: This is a performance of incredible depth and interest, as she shifts from stance to stance, from eternal, calm cheer, to panic, to desperation. Her agility in never letting you get a complete picture while projecting tremendous conflict below the surface gives the lie to any claim Mendelsohn or Frecheville have to a good performance: Both believe that impassivity is the same thing as depth. And both Edgerton (as a man who is seeing the writing on the wall and doesn't like it) and Stapleton (who is phenomenal; electric the whole way through) are utterly underused.

I just didn't see the film you did. The script is good at a dialogue level, but confused and clumsy at a plot level. Half the acting isn't there. Thematically, it's deeply confused. Frecheville states a very interesting theme early on (in his opening narration) that the film looks like following at first, but it abandons it halfway in for a far less interesting theme (stated by Guy Pearce; and trust me, you'll know both of them if you've seen the film.)

Overall, a film of great promise, little of it delivered upon.

Hmm, a lot of vague criticisms from Sean Riley, unbacked by well-articulated evidence. Smacks of someone who desperately tries to differentiate himself from the pack, but lacks the understanding or substance to demonstrate the genuine critical prowess that might justify his aspirations to superiority. Anyone who makes the extreme assertion that his movie is “rubbish” advertises that they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

I'd add a bit to your review, Neil, but rather than expanding in detail here, I'll just point you to my blog, The Boomtown Rap, which features my review. Suffice it to say that we agree on the quality of this excellent movie, though perhaps not for exactly the same reasons.

Cheers
Rolan Stein

Have to disagree Sean – it sounds like you're criticising the movie for the sake of it. Totally agree with rossnroller, who ripped you a new one. You're probably one of these types who dislikes australian film because it's australian.

I didn't like the twist ending where Josh shoots Pope…. Or when he decides to leave witness protection to save his uncles from prison! I though Pope killing Josh's girlfriend and turning Josh against him was a masterstroke