This is literally the first time I have seen a movie that was almost purely ruined due to the poor dialogue. Browse through some of the quotes to get an idea. The second and arguably equally or more important flaw is, simply put; This movie is literally one of the most boring films of alltime that tries to present itself as a serious piece of cinema. There is absolutely no semblance of a plot until the last 20 minutes of the movie, which beforehand is largely led by a string of seemingly random and nonsensical events, the most perplexing of which is when Budd stops to get a drink at a vending machine, passes a woman sitting on a bench, then sits next to her and the two begin inexplicably making out for minutes until he departs as suddenly as he arrived while the two never exchange a single word of dialogue. Also the scene in the beginning where Budd convinces a corner store worker to get into his van and drive off with him to California, after the two say barely more than a few words to each other, ending with him saying "Please.... Please come with me." felt painfully staged unrealistic, and sappy.
Finally when the plot revealed itself to us during the last 20 minutes, I would like to make clear that unlike a lot of people I DID finally understand the point of this film, and what it was trying to express. Essentially this is a movie about a man who is clinically insane and has hallucinations, and therefore nothing displayed on screen is necessarily reality. I was in fact a strong advocate for another poorly received film, which like this film, was showing what an insane character with a mental disorders sees, rather than what the reality is "The Hand". One major difference between both movies is "The Hand" shows context behind the displayed events, whereas in this film there is no context whatsoever in any scene aside from the last 15 minutes. Nothing displayed beforehand makes any sense and it could mean or represent ANYTHING.
If at least there was meaningful dialogue it could have been interesting, but with every scene and every character droning out 3 or 5 word sentences at the same tepid pace, it is not how people converse, it is not engaging, and it quite literally seems as though the actors are forgetting their lines. Compare this now to a movie like "Warum Lauft Herr R. Amok" Which like this film has literally no plot until the last 5 minutes. All the conversations in it were very engaging, very realistic and played out almost like a documentary which is what this film NEEDED to do in order to succeed in what it set out to do, and how it set out to do it, but quite simply, the people involved in this film thought they were vastly VASTLY greater than they really are to have made this, DO not know good cinema, and did not put the effort here.
To be fair, the ending, when a plot was finally established was quite powerful, and the talk between Budd and Daisy IN ITSELF, was moderately well conceived which is why I gave this film a second star. This moment would have been quite effective in its own contained capsule, as everything that happens before these 15 minutes is completely inconsequential to this scene, and moreso, when it is revealed that the scene was Budd's hallucination, so then too was everything that preceded this scene, which was the ONLY scene of the movie with any shred of value to it, though appearing rather cheap and amateurish when the best it can do is to utilize such visionary artistry as seen in Japanese porno films with the censored fellatio scene, in which Chloe Sevigny claims that the sex act was not simulated, which absolutely floors me, for since it is censored, and given that any real sex act would therefore be irrelevant to the viewer, that is basically like saying "I don't suck dick for any artistic end, I do it just for the taste of it." I find that very amusing, but nonetheless it has to be said, if this scene was its own short film, it would have been effective.
I hate to use the word arrogant, but when you produce a movie that 1. Has awful dialogue 2. Has plot devices that make no sense and have no context. 3. Is essentially an entire illusion of the main character. 4. 50% of which is comprised of nothing but shots of driving on the open road, which have NO artistic point; if they expect the viewers to find meaning and value in illusions which essentially have no meaning or context and are not even interesting, that is pure arrogance, and this film is indeed nothing but self indulgence. The point is, if you're like me and you watch a new movie a day, some of which are very well done and MUCH more clever, witty, well crafted, and have real meaning and an actual, why bother INVENTING a context behind an entire illusion of a movie to give it value and meaning, when it is painfully boring, illogical, and staged, and 50% of it literally consists of watching a man driving and walking.