You won't be disappointed!

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I give anyone props on taking on a Cormac McCarthy novel and trying to make a film out of it. There have been a few successes "No Country for Old Men", "All the Pretty Horses" and maybe "The Road" -- I found that film below average, myself. But hey, who am I but no one. Did Franco fair well with this one? I don't know yet, I'm only 21 minutes in. What caught my eye; as the title to this review states: Lester Ballard (Scott Haze) has the whitest teeth for a character who appears not to have bathed himself or changed his clothes in over a year. Not saying it isn't possible just seems highly unlikely the dude brushes his teeth once or twice a day, flosses etc., Perhaps it's just me, or not, haven't read but one other review and they didn't mention Ballard's clean shiney teeth. The last Franco film I saw was "The Institute" (2017). I hated it. Gave it a 1/10. It ripped off "The Wicker Man" from 1973 and pretty much used every female character as nothing but naked girls to whistle at. Idiotic. I did like "The Sound and The Fury" (2014), another difficult novel to make a film out of. What I know about the over 11,000 films and 10,000 TV shows (by episode) I have rated here is there has to be at least one character one attaches themselves to. Whether you have an emotional attachment or not is irrelevant; just need the attachment because it carries you along the story. Makes you pay attention to the little things; makes you wonder if you can relate in some way. Since Ballard is the one you mainly see in this, that's who we get to attach to.Ballard is an interesting character. I enjoyed the scene where he won the stuffed animals and then enjoyed the fireworks. There you see a sort of gentle side of Ballard. But we know he isn't right in the head and is prone to extreme violence. Mentally he's like a child but not stupid. When he finds the car with the two deceased young boy and girl who died from (more likely) exhaust fumes, at first (like a young pubescent boy) he fondles the girl, leaves, goes back and has sex with her dead body then leaves but leaving the vehicle like it was when he found it, but then he goes back and takes the girl to his shack. Child-like and definitely mentally disturbed.In the first hour of the film I always got the feeling that he wanted to be 'normal' like everyone else. Like when he buys a dress and makeup for the dead girl he's perpetually in a 'relationship' with. Don't know where he gets his money from, did wonder about that. Maybe his father left him some money before he died. Who knows. The film is actually quite slow in its telling. Not boring, just slow. When the shack caught on fire I did wonder if he would go back in and 'save' the dead girl. To his detriment: he did try to save her. It was sort of sad to see him there with just his stuffed tiger and bear watching the shack, his already dead girlfriend, and the other stuffed bear burn. I actually pitied him for a moment. When he shot his stuffed animals repeatedly while weeping and yelling at them, in that moment I felt he was schizophrenic. Then he became a murderer or more succinct: a serial killer. I think he became a murderer because only the dead or inanimate could love him, in his mind. It's hard to understand such people, I guess.

Complete vanity project, inside and out. There was maybe 10 minutes of movie here about an interesting character that should have been a supporting role in something else. It did not carry a whole film.No real story. Vignettes. Severely mentally ill man in the 1960s forced to live in the forest in the mid-west (really thought it looked like the '30s). In loneliness he has sex with a dead girl. After mild harassment from the Sheriff that he probably had dozens of times, he turns into a serial killer. Some very brief macabre elements that were interesting. Scott Haze in the lead was good with what he had to work with, albeit not much. But Franco casting himself in a bit part near the end was ridiculous and distracting. Even more embarrassing was slapping him on the box of the DVD as a co-lead. My theory was that was the distributor, a Chinese company, making a sloppy decision. Just a whole lotta nothing. Don't bother. Many other acceptable and OK movies you could be less disappointed in.

well done, Mr. Franco. after watched this film, i have to say that you are indeed got something we called 'talent'. this film has put you in a totally different category and level. the original story created by the author of 'no country for old man' was such a weird one but in other word, a very very disturbing and sad one. we got a crazy, stone-cold bloody killer in 'no country for old man', now we got a half crazy, half idiotic lone-wolf-like loco hilly-billy roaming aimlessly day and night. we saw him gradually deteriorated, became crazier, became a more and more violent sociopath. he at first was not a rapist but was imprisoned as a rapist, that jail time had changed him into another unsalvageable rapist and a serial killer, an incurable social disease. Scott haze had successfully performed an Oscar level character, very convincing, very intense, very pitiful dejected person who step by step turned into a half human, half animal like tragic role. what made this novel and the adapted film unique is although the 'lester' guy did a lot of unthinkable crimes, we, the viewers, seemed not be able to hate him as we usually hate a vicious killer, murderer or a rapist. this character has gently affected us to sympathize him as a victimized victim. after watched this film, i have found that i could not judge or blame him as a bad person by all means, even he had caused lot of troubles and deaths, i seemed to still consider him as another kind of victim.this is a great viewing experience.

This film is about a woodsman who is violent and lonesome. He is a disturbed individuals disowned and disliked by the village.The main character is a man who is wildly different from the other villagers. He cannot relate to other people, and lives in a world of his own. Despite him being a child of God, his behavior becomes increasingly erratic and violent. He's not a character to like, and not just because of his horrid behavior but also of his appearance. I guess "Child of God" is a good film because it evokes a reaction in the mind of viewers, and provoke thoughts on how a person can descend to such lowly depths. It's not a film to like, but to admire for its artistic achievements.