Bone Tomahawk

A slow journey movie with excellently played characters. Kurt Russel was just made for this western, Fox is a convincing as the arrogant bastard and Wilson is a regular guy with a wife holed up in a cave full of Indian cannibals. The action is swift and when the action eventually comes toward the ending, it’s naturalistic and good and bloody. The butchery in the cave is unarguably the zenith of the movie. (08/12/2015)

It’s nice to come across a genre film that takes its time, lets the shots fade out and, instead of quickly satisfying viewers, slowly builds the atmosphere and the depiction of the characters. Thanks also to the patient and precise work with the mise-en-scène and the old-school linear narrative, it’s easy in the first hour to fall under the impression that you’re watching a classic western. In fact, Bone Tomahawk is a post-classic western combined with a cannibal horror movie (at the same time, the second half of the film can be seen as a subverted variation on hixploitation). Conducting themselves with the straightforwardness of cowboys, the men, one of whom is a cripple and the other a purblind widower, are branded as idiots by the self-sufficient female protagonist, while the ignorant attitude towards native culture has bloody consequences, and the theory of the frontier (between wilderness and civilisation) is not only taken to hellish extremes, but can also be related to the genre bipolarity of the film, which quite thought-provokingly explores the overlaps of horror movies and westerns (fear of strangers, the arrogance of the powerful white man). Though the ending doesn’t provide the satisfaction that I would have expected based on the care taken in the preceding two hours, Bone Tomahawk is still, together with The Hateful Eight, the best western updated for the troubled times in which we live, and by drawing from the exploitation tradition, it is far wittier and honest than The Revenant. (22/10/2017)

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. (05/04/2021)

A mix of proper western atmosphere (the sounds of the prairie, the small town, the sets) with an uncompromising carnage that is so explicit you see it in mainstream films only every 5 years or so (last time in The Hills Have Eyes 2), because it goes far beyond the normal. S. Craig Zahler focuses mostly on the characters, their symbiosis with the wildlife and their interaction with each other. The script is utterly unpredictable until just before the finale, when it turns out to be a slaughter. Cut or speed up the first half, stretch out the second half and it would probably be a bit more entertaining. (24/04/2016)

Rough, raw, brutal and uncompromising and yet based mainly on the characters. And what will disappoint you even more is the unstyled and rushed ending, which lacks a proper finale and which turns away from those characters. The ending is simply too brief and quick considering how slow was in the first three quarters. (17/12/2015)