I strongly disagree with the critics this time. I find it distressing and disturbing that in all these "avantguarde" movies, whether in Hollywood or in Europe, being crazy, irresponsible, inconsiderate and harmful to yourself and society is considered acceptable, even positive, along the lines of: "Oh the poor boy, he is just confused, he needs help".The poor boys do not need help, they need to be locked up with the key thrown away into the ocean... This only makes society more violent, our kids will never learn that they should become responsible citizens, since, when watching these movies, it looks like you can do whatever you want, whenever you want and to whomever without paying any penalty whatsoever (in this movie, Frank even kills a man for no reason apart from his own inner rage, and then he simply rides away into the sunset like some western hero with his sheriff brother watching him go...). No wonder our society is falling to pieces!One critic says that the Director Sean Penn must be familiar with split personalities and also violent ones in order to have made this film. This is one of the few things we agree upon. You have to be one sick motherf##### to have written the screenplay and directed this film, not a genius!

Thin story concerns two small town brothers and their struggles over family honor. David Morse is the responsible, straight-laced cop and 'good' brother; Viggo Mortensen, the 'bad' boy, is a former soldier and ex-convict. As an actor (particularly in his earliest years), Sean Penn seems to have modulated his performances under the Method. Turning first-time writer and director for this arty, obtuse drama, he works his script and characters out through the same methodical process, slowing the pacing down to a crawl (ostensibly so we can catch every nuance and inflection). This approach might be fascinating if there were three-dimensional characters to care about, but photogenic Morse and Mortensen aren't really convincing as siblings. Worse, we expect more from prominently-billed veterans Charles Bronson and Sandy Dennis, who hardly get a chance to come through with anything interesting. The picture is balky with turgid sequences, a wobbly narrative and confusing editing (always slanted to point up the artistic excesses). Penn's tricks with the camera show off a talented eye, yet they are mostly an irritation. *1/2 from ****

It is a marvelous film for many reasons and it has many meaningful interpretations. The first we can think of is of course the effect of the Vietnam War on a normal man. It made him someone whose desire to kill, whose need to kill could never be controlled and dominated. Nothing could keep him within the limits of normalcy, that is to say a violence that is purely symbolical or superficial. His desire was not to punch a few noses and be done with it, but it was to kill, and I repeat that was a need for him to be satisfied in order to survive. The second line is that of the two brothers. One chose to be a cop and he killed legally. That's not in anyway easy, but at least you can come to terms with it: you saved your life from someone who wanted to kill you, and that was legal. You can wonder why he shot to kill, right in the heart, but he was entirely justified to shoot, so why not to kill? The other chose to go to Vietnam and there he killed but it was never to really save his life, never really justified because it was not self defense on his own turf but aggression in a foreign country, and the killing was not exactly shooting at combatants, but more often at women and children. This seems to prove that the desire to kill is in any man, good or bad, and that the only choice you have is to do it legally and morally or not. Vietnam produced twisted, distorted and completely warped personalities for whom killing had become a need, just like alcohol or smoking for others. This leads to a confrontation between the two brothers and the dilemma for the cop who has to arrest or shoot his own brother. He chose differently. The third line is metaphorical. The guilt the cop had built in himself after killing the young chap who was running away and then started to shoot at him can only come out, be retrieved and rehabilitated if in a way or another the need to kill is projected into someone else and that someone else is forced to go away. The guilt has to be entrusted to some Indian runner who will take it away as if it were a message he has to go dump in the ocean or the infinite. But this meaning is metaphorically symbolical of us all. We all have to get rid of this death instinct, and here comes the ending of the film. It is a dream society will let us go without making us pay for that death instinct. And the price is called guilt because we have to repress it and then it will go on lurking in our minds forever. There is no Indian runner for our death instinct, just a repressed guilt that may come out one day, but when and how no one knows.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

Really one of the best films in recent American cinema. Definitely Sean Penn's ode to the seventies and personal films. A terrifically acted heart-wrenching tale of family during the Vietnam war. David Morse should be a bigger star. If you have only seen Vigo in large Hollywood films I urge you to catch his amazing performance here. Charles Bronson is amazing as the father. Seldom has a genre actor been used so well in a drama. Patricia Arquette and Benicio Del Toro both launched their careers here. Additionally loved the small "townspeople" in the film. Very real, very strange. It would be easy to root against an "in" Hollywood actor making his directorial debut - however this film is such an amazing find and I consider it a modern classic.