By PillartoPost.org--John Malkovich and Sam Rockwell bring Martin McDonagh's dark comedy to the screen. Critics agree about the acting. Almost everything else is up for argument.
Martin McDonagh, the Oscar-winning filmmaker behind Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, In Bruges and The Banshees of Inisherin, returns with Wild Horse Nine, a black comedy involving two veteran CIA operatives sent to Easter Island in 1973, shortly before the military coup against Chilean President Salvador Allende.
John Malkovich and Sam Rockwell play the agents, with Steve Buscemi, Parker Posey and Tom Waits appearing in supporting roles.
The film opened in American theaters November 6. Its early critical reception ranges from outright admiration to serious objections about its handling of political violence, guilt and redemption.
Here is how six major review outlets see it.
1. TIME OUT — FIVE STARS
Review by Phil de Semlyen | September 3, 2026
Time Out offers one of the film's most enthusiastic endorsements, awarding five stars and suggesting that McDonagh may have made his finest film yet. The reviewer considers Malkovich's performance a triumph, particularly his ability to transform a morally compromised intelligence officer into a figure of unexpected poignancy. The review admires the outrageous dialogue, the chemistry between the leads and the film's treatment of mortality. Beneath the comedy, it finds an aging man confronting the consequences of a life devoted to violence.
Copy & paste for compete review: https://www.timeout.com/movies/wild-horse-nine-review-2026
***
2. ROGEREBERT.COM — THREE & A HALF STARS
By Matt Zoller Seitz | Venice Film Festival review
RogerEbert.com sees something deeper than an eccentric buddy comedy. Its review examines how McDonagh uses friendship, Catholic notions of redemption and the approach of death to explore whether men responsible for terrible acts can recognize their moral failures. Malkovich and Rockwell receive particular praise, along with Buscemi. The reviewer acknowledges the film's leisurely pace and wandering conversations but argues that its apparently incidental exchanges gradually acquire emotional significance.
Copy & paste for complete review: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/wild-horse-nine-martin-mcdonagh-sam-rockwell-john-malkovich-film-review-2026
***
3. FINANCIAL TIMES — THREE STARS
By Danny Leigh | November 5, 2026
The Financial Times finds much to admire in Malkovich's performance and McDonagh's sharply written exchanges, but questions whether the film successfully balances farce and tragedy. Its central reservation concerns redemption. Can a CIA veteran involved in supporting brutal political interventions be transformed into a sympathetic figure simply because he is dying and beginning to regret his past?
The review finds moments of inspired comedy but suggests the screenplay makes reconciliation with its protagonist too convenient.
Copy & paste for complete review: https://www.ft.com/content/52643872-ed99-4e6b-a893-0d248ad67c60
***
4. THE GUARDIAN — THREE STARS
By Peter Bradshaw | September 3, 2026
The Guardian finds McDonagh returning to familiar territory: argumentative men, extravagant language, sudden violence and an uneasy relationship between affection and cruelty. Bradshaw enjoys the verbal sparring between Malkovich and Rockwell but considers the film less charming and less consistently amusing than the director's best work. The American political backdrop brings additional machismo and bloodshed without necessarily strengthening the comedy. The verdict is mixed: worthwhile performances, some entertaining passages, but hardly another In Bruges.
Copy paste for complete review: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/sep/03/wild-horse-nine-review-sam-rockwell-john-malkovich-martin-mcdonagh
***
5. EURONEWS — A STRONG ENDORSEMENT WITH RESERVATIONS
By David Mouriquand | November 6, 2026
Euronews sees the film as a satisfying collection of McDonagh's familiar strengths: ferocious language, eccentric characters, philosophical digressions and melancholy comedy. Malkovich dominates the assessment. The critic considers his performance among his best and suggests he will be a serious contender during the coming awards season.
But the praise comes with reservations. The film introduces American interventionism as a substantial political subject without fully exploring it, while its female characters receive less development than the central male partnership.
Copy & paste for complete review:***
6. THE NEW YORKER — THE DISSENTING VOICE
By Justin Chang | October 30, 2026
The New Yorker delivers one of the sharper objections to McDonagh's film. Chang admires the actors' abilities and the island cinematography but challenges the screenplay's moral perspective. For him, the historical suffering surrounding the Chilean coup becomes secondary to the emotional predicament of an American intelligence officer.
The review also finds the film's shifts between political satire, sentimental friendship and mortality insufficiently convincing. Its central complaint is that McDonagh asks audiences to extend sympathy and forgiveness to a protagonist whose actions have contributed to enormous human suffering.
It is an unusually pointed challenge to a film that many other critics find deeply moving.
Copy & paste for complete review:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/11/09/wild-horse-nine-movie-review
***
SUMMATION: THE CRITICAL DIVIDE
By PillartoPost.org | Film Review Roundup | November 7, 2026
Six critics, six perspectives, and one unmistakable point of agreement: John Malkovich is the chief attraction. Where they disagree is over what the film accomplishes beyond its performances. Some see a darkly funny meditation on death and friendship. Others see an entertaining screenplay struggling to reconcile its sympathy for aging CIA operatives with the deadly consequences of American foreign policy. Perhaps that is the question McDonagh wants moviegoers to argue about afterward: Can a man who has spent his life doing terrible things become sympathetic simply because he has finally begun to understand what he has done?
A film shouldn't be criticized simply because it offers a tilted view of a world event. That's like demanding a cross-country road trip or a barstool conversation in a Tribeca saloon explain the human condition. You can't take all the anguish that came out of Chile and expect to squeeze it between the doors of a crusty old sedan. Keep it in perspective. This is a barstool conversation turned into a movie. If the conversation doesn't work for you, finish your drink and move on to the next joint.
No comments:
Post a Comment