IMDb RATING
5.2/10
5.8K
YOUR RATING
A suicidal artist goes into the desert, where he finds his doppelgänger, a homicidal drifter.A suicidal artist goes into the desert, where he finds his doppelgänger, a homicidal drifter.A suicidal artist goes into the desert, where he finds his doppelgänger, a homicidal drifter.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This neo-noir should have been better. It could easily have culled an 8 from me. But the writing did not deliver. It's almost as if the writer-director lost a bet, and had to pull out the plot points that meant the difference between this being a good film people would talk about, vs something no one's heard of. Which is a shame, because the writer-director is one of hollywood's most lauded writers going.
I'm soft for desert movies. This one starts out well. Then it moved to L.A. and fast lost its momentum, its pacing, and sill in plotting. And Mark Wahlberg's part? Just filler. Same with Goggins. Literally nothing more than someone for the protagonist to speak to so we don't have to use thought bubbles. In fact, most of the other actors that have talking don't need them, because they don't go anywhere in the story.
If you're watching this in hopes of a twist, then don't bother. There is none.
Otherwise, there's oddly inserted literary references that would only come from a director who was also a writer. Shakespeare, Melville, don't add to the story. They barely even fulfill the purpose of making this story feel more philosophical.
A screenwriter who submitted this script would have been rejected if he was new. Something this flawed could only get greenlit if the writer was already A-list, as this writer was. It violates one of the so called "rules" of scriptwriting -- that every scene, every act, every word, has some role in moving the story forward. This one had too many that didn't.
It's an ages-old conceit that experienced hollywood filmmakers like to make films about hollywood that reveal its meaninglessness, its shallowness, its callous narcissism. This one does all that. Complete with asskissing personal assistants or bedraggled personal assistants. PAs are the lifeblood of the industry, but are rarely depicted in compelling ways. This film is no exception. But not in an instructive nor satisfying way.
Films are too expensive to make merely to make a statement that the film biz doesn't matter. But this one sure works hard at it.
I'm soft for desert movies. This one starts out well. Then it moved to L.A. and fast lost its momentum, its pacing, and sill in plotting. And Mark Wahlberg's part? Just filler. Same with Goggins. Literally nothing more than someone for the protagonist to speak to so we don't have to use thought bubbles. In fact, most of the other actors that have talking don't need them, because they don't go anywhere in the story.
If you're watching this in hopes of a twist, then don't bother. There is none.
Otherwise, there's oddly inserted literary references that would only come from a director who was also a writer. Shakespeare, Melville, don't add to the story. They barely even fulfill the purpose of making this story feel more philosophical.
A screenwriter who submitted this script would have been rejected if he was new. Something this flawed could only get greenlit if the writer was already A-list, as this writer was. It violates one of the so called "rules" of scriptwriting -- that every scene, every act, every word, has some role in moving the story forward. This one had too many that didn't.
It's an ages-old conceit that experienced hollywood filmmakers like to make films about hollywood that reveal its meaninglessness, its shallowness, its callous narcissism. This one does all that. Complete with asskissing personal assistants or bedraggled personal assistants. PAs are the lifeblood of the industry, but are rarely depicted in compelling ways. This film is no exception. But not in an instructive nor satisfying way.
Films are too expensive to make merely to make a statement that the film biz doesn't matter. But this one sure works hard at it.
In no way is this a great movie, but it kept me engaged to the end. Would I watch it again? Absolutely not, but it did have a few redeeming qualities. Specifically:
1) First and foremost, I thought Oscar Isaac was excellent in it. He is clearly the star of the movie and had all of the best lines (Not that there were many of them).
2) There was a bit of suspense in the cat and mouse game between Hedlund and Isaac.
3) I wanted to know how it would turn out and the ending was slightly different than what I expected.
The cons: 1) Hedlund's character is a real jerk and you can't stand him. Almost made me root for Isaac's character. 2) You never really understand why Hedlund's character is so unhappy and such a jerk. 3) The pace moves very slowly at times. 4) Nothing particularly innovative or creative about the script.
The cons: 1) Hedlund's character is a real jerk and you can't stand him. Almost made me root for Isaac's character. 2) You never really understand why Hedlund's character is so unhappy and such a jerk. 3) The pace moves very slowly at times. 4) Nothing particularly innovative or creative about the script.
Richard Roeper gave it 4/4. I give it 2/5. It was a cool premise that went nowhere really fast. Acting was good. Story was meh.I only wish it had a lot more going for it.
It was like showing up to a BBQ but only being served salad. Definitely not recommending.
It was like showing up to a BBQ but only being served salad. Definitely not recommending.
"This started in the desert and it's gonna end there. You understand? This has to play out." Thomas (Hedlund) has headed out to the desert in hopes to find himself or at least meaning to his life. When Jack (Isaac) shows up Thomas thinks something is a little off. After Jack's intentions are shown it becomes a game of cat and mouse, that doesn't end when they leave the desert. This is not a bad movie and does have it's moments, the problem is that it is just not that memorable. There is some tenseness and excitement to this and the acting is very well done but there is just something missing. I don't mean to sound so harsh toward this movie, but I watched it 2 days ago and can't actually remember enough about it for this review. That has never happened to me before. Overall, not bad, but nothing that will stick with you. This could have been better. I give this a C+.
Poor thriller reuniting Garrett Hedlund and Oscar Isaac a few years after they drove to Chicago together with John Goodman in Inside Llewyn Davis. Both are more or less on equal footing here, though. Hedlund plays a screenwriter who goes out to the Mojave to commit suicide. Instead, he meets up with dangerous drifter Isaac who pops into camp obviously just to kill him. Instinctively he resists death, but in the process angers the drifter. When Hedlund returns to civilization, Isaac follows him, hoping to continue their game of death. Not much about this works. Hedlund is a boring actor, and Isaac gives his worst performance ever, at least since he's been a star. You'd think the script must have looked great on paper, but the dialogue comes off as silly and desperately trying to be cool. Walton Goggins and Mark Wahlberg also waste their time in this. It does look good, and it has a few good moments, but, in general, it's just bad.
Did you know
- TriviaMark Wahlberg's first supporting role since Date Night (2010).
- ConnectionsFeatures Les rapaces (1924)
- How long is Mojave?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $8,253
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $3,303
- Jan 24, 2016
- Gross worldwide
- $8,602
- Runtime
- 1h 33m(93 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content