buiger 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!

darkthirty I don't like Sean Penn's directing very much, and this early work, The Indian Runner, is no exception. The movie has no core, it's colored with a kind of redneck, anti-authoritarian tweeness that in all honesty taints most of Penn's work, his latest work even more so than the earlier. Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Clint Eastwood, Sean Penn, the whole lot seem to produce such fundamentally banal product, ostensibly in some allegiance to honesty, but ending up being, for the most part, glorified pro wrestling matches, and moralistic, almost as if Hallmark cards had developed a line of Hell's Angels greetings, and make me long for the days of Deliverance, which is a fine movie. Viggo Mortensen's acting is much, much more believable here than that ridiculous Eastern Promises thing he did with Cronenberg, and that's about it. The movie is dead meaningless, and seems to be an exercise, a series of techniques, more than a story. Kudos for Charles Bronson, however, who proves he can act. And I wanted more of Sandy Dennis' character. A lousy 3 out of 10 for this The Indian Runner crap.

Roger Burke Way back in the nineteen-fifties, Neil Sedaka had a song – a hit song – that told how breaking up is hard to do. As I watched this film, for the first time recently, I wondered whether Sean Penn, the writer/director, had been humming that tune as he wrote the script. That's not meant to be a disparaging question, simply because all ideas have to have a genesis somewhere, and a song actually did inspire this story...Highway Patrol Man from Bruce Springsteen, so I'm told.Thinking about the theme however – redolent of the biblical clash between Cain and Abel, perhaps – I can't but feel that while Penn might have set out to make a fundamental statement about why some people do bad things, he ended up showing, instead, that a failure to come to terms with the world is merely an indication of immaturity, a failure to leave childhood behind. To that extent, the film succeeds, but it may have been unintentional.The story, as implied, is well recognized: a good brother (Joe, played by David Morse) – who is a cop – tries to help his younger and wild brother (Frank, played by Viggo Mortensen) overcome his inner demons upon his return from the Vietnam war, in 1963 or thereabouts. Despite all his efforts, Joe is unable to get Frank to change his anti-social behaviour. Eventually, there is a parting of the ways.What makes the film distinctive is, first, the very competent acting by Morse, Mortensen, Valeria Golino as Joe's wife, Maria, and Patricia Arquette as Dorothy, Frank's girlfriend. Second, Sandy Dennis and Charles Bronson appear briefly as the brothers' parents, with both older actors much subdued in their performances – as you might expect. Third, the setting is well located in some small towns in Iowa and Nebraska, providing the necessary backdrop for Frank's dislike of settling down into a job, something that he despises. Finally, the script is well-written and rings true for most of the time, I think; in a crucial bar scene between the brothers towards the end, however, when Frank finally explains the essence of his angst, it left this viewer somewhat perplexed. Joe's response is, in a nutshell: Get over it! Me too...Some of the back-story – done via old home movies – tells us that Frank was a bit of a hooligan anyway – and sometimes a violent one; a number of his actions, upon return from the war, bolster that viewpoint. So, psychologically, Frank is a bit of a muddle, but maybe that's Penn's point. And, although, there is no specific reference to the after-effects of Vietnam upon returning soldiers, I cannot help feeling there is an implied message that what happens in the story is not all Frank's fault. But, I could be wrong.However, just how the brothers come to part, finally, forms the multi-layered plot, with all the gruesome violence, coarse language and nudity – including a full frontal shot of Mortensen for maybe ten seconds. Not until half-way, does filmdom's favorite crazy, Dennis Hopper, appear as Caesar, a coarse, philosophizing bar-tender to whom Frank takes a dislike, with predictably violent results. And that action sets up the denouement for when Frank must leave: break away from his extended family and make his own way, on his own terms, in an increasingly violent world. In that sequence, Joe finally sees Frank as he really is: a little boy, with two toy guns, ready to fight all-comers. From that perspective, the allusion to The Indian Runner is overblown, because that implies a sense of lost times, a romantic past, an independence of spirit that was noble, more or less. In the context of Frank's psychology however, I think Penn stretched the metaphor way out of proportion to the reality of the action.Unless, of course, Penn's own philosophy is fundamentally nihilistic and hence much like Frank's...Technically, though, the film is well done, with excellent editing and special effects; add to that, a host of old country and western oldies on the sound track, perfectly in keeping with small town America.I very much admire Morse and Mortensen as actors, the latter reminding me of a young Jack Nicholson, while Morse has the size and demeanour of a young Martin Milner. Cinematically, they are a well matched pair for this story, with the physical disparities adding to the emotional and intellectual chasm that separates them forever. It's a sad story, yes, but there is, nevertheless, hope left behind as the tail-lights of Frank's car fade to black.Not recommended for children at all.

desperateliving There are a few of us who feel that Sean Penn is one of the major driving forces in American cinema, an actor of pure artistic intentions, utter sincerity and empathy, and thoughtful (if often misconstrued) politics. He's kind of an heir to a few different giants -- Brando, in terms of rough sexuality and pugnacity; Nicholson, in terms of intelligence as an actor (he shares with both a volatile, sometimes over-the-top acting style and tendency to play human beings with emotions rather than playing acting techniques); and Cassavetes, emphasized with this film (which he dedicates to him). He's more meticulous and crafty than Cassavetes, but just as emotionally direct. (And like him, there may be times where you don't know what to think of what you're seeing; I think that's true of anything original, or anything that eschews typical film conventions.) But despite that similarity, the film isn't quite real -- the Indian mythos, the narration of David Morse, Viggo Mortenson hopping on a moving train. It's the stuff of hazy dreams. The whole picture is imbued with a quiet feeling -- you wish you could show it to those on the right who hate Penn for his outspoken politics, just to prove that he cares deeply about exactly the type of people they think he and his Hollywood friends are against.At first the Indian stuff is a little cheesy, but it leads up to a climax where it really works and feels organic. More than being an actor who can direct, Penn is at times a real master -- he's got a rare gift of ending films with a real punch, without it being cheap. Here, the film gets more technically flamboyant as it goes along -- the camera moves a little more, the inter cutting between a few different scenes gets quicker -- and it ends wonderfully. You have to have a certain willingness to go along with the story that Penn's telling (many times characters do things that don't make any logical sense, but emotionally it fits), and the semi-metaphysical closing really worked for me.Part of the value is in the chance to see good actors work; it's strange that actors known for their histrionics so often direct films that are completely devoid of showiness in terms of acting. That is to say, when Mortensen freaks out on his wife (Patricia Arquette, whose constant squeals are incredibly -- and aptly -- uncomfortable), it's tense because of the exchange of emotions and not because of any actorly shaking or screaming. Penn is a very generous director, and I think that's shown by his allowing Charles Bronson to do some of the finest work of his career. The movie feels very indebted to the '70s, what with a few of the zooms, the folk/rock music, and the kind of small, rural movie this is that rarely gets made anymore. (It owes something to Dennis Hopper's own films, I think; specifically in Mortensen's speech about the "math kids.") 8/10