‘s new Western epic may have gotten a at Cannes, but once critics got back from festival screenings to their hotel rooms, they posted reviews for — that were far less enthusiastic. is the first film in massive four-picture gamble that he famously leveraged one of his homes to help finance (spending $38 million out of pocket for the $90 million-budgeted film). is three hours and is largely focused on setting the stage — introducing a sprawling ensemble of characters, with the promise of more dramatic events to come in the remaining films.
There are not a large number of reviews for the post-Civil War Western tale so far, but some of the early critiques are pretty harsh. The most common complaint is the film doesn’t feel like cinema so much as a trio of back-to-back episodes of a new TV series, and one that’s rather jumbled at that, as the film jumps between four central storylines. Some are even comparing it to , another decades-in-the-making directorial passion project that has drawn critical fire at the festival.
Here are some early review highlights: — called it a “clumsy slog ...
It plays like a limited series overhauled as a movie, but more like a hasty rough cut than a release ready for any format. This first part of a quartet of films is littered with inessential scenes and characters that go nowhere, taking far too long to connect its messy plot threads ..
. Any of these plotlines might have sustained an hour of compelling television but they don’t add u.
