thatdewd-46634 What a Horrible and disappointing movie...It was so good thru 3/4 of it...It was compelling, and compassionate and then it turned into absolute dog feces...the so called "hero" of the movie got almost an entire family killed, murdered an extinct animal for a futile purpose, and then was considered "good" because he bothered to visit the single surviving orphaned child of the family he got killed, a child he could not adopt because he is a single male.... This was a great movie that turned to absolute dog feces in the last 30 minutes. I don't think I have EVER seen anything so disappointing as this movie. Please DON'T watch it if you have even the semblance of a brain. Disgusting. Disappointing. And Depraved on a Depressed level i cannot even describe....

ncstebb-00587 I just stumbled onto this in a streaming service I subscribe to and I have to say I loved it. I've never reviewed a movie before but I feel compelled to do in this case because of how much I loved it and because the discussions I've read on it make me think that the movie has been misunderstood and underrated.Firstly I really like the slow burning character driven nature of the move. The name of the movie tells it all, it's about Defoe's character, not the company, not the conspiracy, not the toxin or the tiger. It's not a movie that is trying to be too clever either. It gives us hints about what could be going on but it doesn't spell it all out, because the details aren't important and the viewer can fill them in or simply wonder about them as they like.Mild spoilers follow...I've worked in Tasmania as a geologist and I think the snippets of tension between environmentalists and forestry (and other) workers, is really accurate. The beauty of the landscape isn't fully captured either, but I think this is intentional as the starkness of the presentation is in keeping with the tone of the film and reflects the nature of Defoe's character. I once had a very similar experience to one depicted in the film, I was doing field work in the Kimberley, Western Australia for a university and some workers on the massive cattle station we were in came to our campsite at night and fired a shot over our tents. So the fear and animosity depicted between scientists and workers is real and accurate.Bigger spoilers to follow....I loved Sam Neil's character, I thought he was really authentic as the local whose knowledge of the area and its people were useful to the company. He seemed to be looking for some affirmation first as a useful guide and also as the one looking after Lucy's family (I doubt he was aware of how drugging Lucy contributed to the objectives of the company, perhaps for him it just helped maintain his position of importance to the family). Like I said before, the details probably weren't critical to the story being told.Defoe's character too was excellent. Not the one dimensional tough guy hit man of your action movies, he liked to take a bath and took time to clean the bath in Lucy's home so he could use it. I thought the solitary nature of his character was something he worked to maintain because it was an occupational necessity. I thought the scene where he was about to go on a picnic with the family was significant. He felt for the family and was angry that the company had (almost certainly) brought about so much suffering for them in pursuing its goals, but critically at this stage he had still covered up the murder and was willing to steel himself against the hurt he would cause them by abandoning the picnic in order to get on with his job. But then came the death of Lucy and her daughter and the attempt on his own life. At this stage I was glued to my seat, waiting to see how he would react. It was well set up with his last conversation with Jack Minty (Neil), when he said that the company would keep sending hunters until they got what they wanted. The ending was well executed, for a moment we thought he might spare the tiger (as our inner greenies wanted him to), then we thought he'd reverted to type and finished his job. But the final scene made it clear... To massively over simplify the complex motivations of the character, his anger at what had been done to the boy grew too large and he committed an act of vengeance against the company.I found the ending very satisfying and powerful and the story and characters well developed and meaningful. Perhaps there were a few small holes in the presentation, the moments of action, but these are what you expect from a film focused on telling a story with a minimal budget and for me it's silly to consider them as detracting from what is, overall, a superb film.

Dominic LeRose Wildlife is a majestic aspect of existence that is portrayed in cinema. It has never been more mysteriously and brilliantly than in Daniel Nettheim's 'The Hunter.' Willem Dafoe stars as Martin, a mercenary sent to Tasmani by a biotechnology to find the last Tasmanian Tiger that is rumored to exist. The company wants Martin to kill it in order to bring genetic material such as DNA, hair, skull, and teeth to genetically manipulate it or possibly even use the corpse's material for remains. As Martin travels to Tasmania, he stays with a woman and two children who's father and husband researched the tiger and died in the process. But was it from the creature? This film asks questions like "is this species still in existence?" and "how corrupt is man on wildlife?". The film has spectacular cinematography that makes you feel like your standing in Tasmania in the fog and dense, lush forest searching for the creature as well. The mystery and suspense that director Daniel Nettheim incorporates into his film gives the film exceptional entertainment value while capturing the brilliant story. The acting is good, but isn't the main focus of the film. The directing aspects and themes of nature and corruption make this film a monument. Never in a long time has a film been so interesting, intriguing and suspenseful and contains a brilliant topic that is shocking and profound as 'The Hunter.'

Brian Roesch No..., not a love story but rather a nature story. Brokeback Mountain holds the best nature filming by far. I wasn't interested in neither story but I love the nature scenes of both these films. The story could have been different like a hunter following a lost friend's will to find this extinct animal and perhaps ending the film with photography evidence. Killing something doesn't work. The film could have used a little more action. Did the hunter kill seals, polar bears or any type of marine animals? Always think of a possible sequel to a story; therefore you'll have a great film to begin with. Has the hunter ever killed a man before? He seems to have no regret for killing his hostage taker. The end seems like the hunter tossed in the towel on hunting.