Directed by:
S. Craig ZahlerScreenplay:
S. Craig ZahlerCinematography:
Benji BakshiCast:
Kurt Russell, Patrick Wilson, Matthew Fox, Richard Jenkins, Lili Simmons, Evan Jonigkeit, David Arquette, Fred Melamed, Sid Haig, Maestro Harrell, James Tolkan (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
S. Craig Zahler makes his directorial debut in this Western horror set in the 1890s. When local doctor Samantha O'Dwyer (Lili Simmons) suddenly goes missing along with a crook and deputy sheriff the only clue left behind is a single arrow, the marker of a group known as the 'Troglodytes', infamous for their brutality and cannibalism. Samantha's husband Arthur (Patrick Wilson) sets out with a team of three men to retrieve their captive townsfolk. The band includes Sheriff Franklin Hunt (Kurt Russell), womaniser John Brooder (Matthew Fox) and 'back up deputy sheriff' Chicory (Richard Jenkins). Their rescue journey is fraught with violence and misfortune, but their foe is much more savage than they could have predicted. (Works Film Group)
(more)Videos (1)
Reviews (15)
Thanks to Bone Tomahawk my girlfriend got laid again. Nothing happens at all for 90% of the film, which at 133 minutes is literally Martyrs of the highest caliber for me. (Those who like boredom and slow narrative will be in their element). An aimless wandering through a desolate landscape with a not very interesting story and with uninteresting dialogues that will not make you smile or even think, in short, it is not interesting. What is nice, though, is surprisingly decent cast and about three nice good scenes at the end, but I could have watched that on YouTube in five minutes and would have saved myself two hours twenty minutes. The savages and their screams are impressive, but putting the cards on the table at a time when the viewer is disgusted and bored is something that not even Indiana Jones would have been able to save. 50% so for the production quality and the actors, but otherwise boring. The scariest thing about the film so far is the rating. Story 5/10, Atmosphere 3/10, Gore 5/10, Visuals 6/10, Action 1/10, Entertainment 2/10.
()
Dialogue as if from a contemporary Manhattan conversational movie, theatrical performances, an atmosphere that is anything but western, amateurish cinematographic work with space and, in the end, a hole in the logic that makes it look like the filmmakers are mocking their audience. Bone Tomahawk reminded me of some festival bizarreness from the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival awarded the Ecumenical Jury prize. But I watched it to the end, because to see such cruel and brutal scenes in a western with a cast of A-listers is even rarer than the painfully bad direction.
()
Bone Tomahawk is broadly discussed and written about as a horror movie in a western setting or, conversely, a western that turns into a horror movie at the climax. This is a one-dimensional view, however, as S. Craig Zahler created an inventive revisionist western in his exceptionally polished debut. The new concept in his interpretation does not mean dirt, nihilism and rejection of heroism, which deconstructionist films like Unforgiven fall back on by default. Zahler brings forth a much more inventive, well-developed and original grasp of the iconic genre. The masterfully written film re-establishes the western for today’s cynical and enlightened times in that it conceives its iconic attributes with a sophisticated perspective, while concurrently updating its basic narrative formulas and ethos. Therefore, the Indians here are not savages, but rather in the figure of a professor they become a biting personification of the wrongs committed by white men, which goes beyond the cowboys not only in being familiar with nature and its wonders, but also with the breadth of knowledge, wit and intelligence. Similarly, the protagonist’s wife can be sarcastic, rational and intelligent, while adhering to the role of object and trophy. Heroism inevitably becomes synonymous with limitations, ignorance and stubbornness. The film’s most essential roles are played by troglodytes as anonymous monsters who defy rationality, returning danger, mystery and, mainly, an element of the strange to life on the edge of civilisation. Those are the ideal erratic, bestial savages like the Indians in the tales of the Wild West, before their traditional depiction took on the foul taste of genocide. As a result, Bone Tomahawk can place in the main female character’s mouth a memorable and eloquent line that provides scathing commentary on the machismo of the film’s men and, at the same time, serves as a heroic celebration of their tenacity and determination.
()
I think that, when it comes to film quality, there has never been a better horror movie with aboriginal cannibals. A week ago I complained that in Roth's Green Inferno hardly anything happens for half of the film. Here, the proportion between “introduction” and “action” is even more sober, but it doesn’t matter at all when you can see the difference in talent between Roth and the first-time director S. Craig Zahler. Ninety minutes are dedicated to introducing characters stubbornly determined to rescue the abducted inhabitants of a village. That’s enough time to sincerely start rooting for them, which also helped by the superb performances. The extremely brutal final half-hour then feels like a sucker punch, because the tribe of cannibals don’t fool around. It is very clear for everyone that these nice characters have walked into a place where they should have never been at all. I never imagined that the horror genre could blend so smoothly with the western. But Bone Tomahawk is both a really good western and really good horror. Very close to perfection.
()
A garbage story filmed at a meandering, and therefore boring, pace that doesn't bother with logic and heads towards a dumb ending. The brutal opening and the first 20 minutes or so look very promising and seem to set up an atmospheric, gritty film that deviates from established norms. However, from the robbery and kidnapping in the deserted town onwards, it starts losing its grip and relentlessly gets worse and worse. The peculiar anachronistic dialogues are more of a nuisance as if Zahler was lightly inspired by Tarantino. The biggest mystery to me is why I still gave it two stars when I genuinely suffered in the second half. Maybe I was influenced by those enthusiastic comments and high ratings from my favorites. Well, we'll meet again and when I remove it from my memory slowly and painfully, they will explain to me what the cleverness and entertainment of the film consisted of. Overall impression: 30%. I remember a cannibal western that, in my opinion, reliably outperformed Zahler. That film was Ravenous from 1999, even though Bird wasn't a leading directorial figure.
()
Ads