Muddled mess of a movie

I don't get how you all found this so complicated. The Missing father wasn't just a scientist/activist but was working for the company (red leaf) that was looking for the animal. Sam Neill's character wasn't working for the company but was contacted by the company posing as the college to help Martin get situated. He called them because Martian was getting in the way of his personal issues. It was most likely the loggers who killed the father because he was causing them to lose jobs. The second hunter killed the family to cover red leafs tracks. Extreme but not really a stretch.

Disagree. I just saw this on DVD and was pleasantly surprised by how good it was.

As for your points. I mean it is your personal view, granted. However, my take would be:

1. I don't even understand why you make this point. Loner Who is Befriended By Family, that is almost cliche, in life and movies.

2. Why kill the environmentalist? They want to get samples without alerting authorities or other companies. They need discretion. They kill the environmentalist because he might blab, they do it in a remote area so that people think he just had an accident and will never be found. Why kill the family? There is no reason but that doesn't mean a professional killer might not just do it for fun, and leave no evidence, after all it was just an "accident" anyway.

3. What are his choices? If he leaves the tiger he will now have to fight each new hunter who will come after him (he is a loose end) or the boy (because he is a way of putting pressure on Martin). If the tiger lives the toxin will become a bioweapon, the boy might die, Martin definitely will die. Kill the last tiger, make it extinct and the feasibility of their project is gone.

I actually thought the story was, at last, sufficiently complex to get my attention. I had previously watched "The Fountain", meh, pretending to be complex and subtle when it was anything but.

I really enjoyed this movie while I was viewing it, so was a bit skeptical of your subject.

You do raise valid points about some implausible elements. But then again if we toss out all implausibility and make it about a well behaved company looking for medicine then we have no conflict and no story. I appreciate not having every piece of plot buttoned up to fit a screenplay mold.

I didn't catch the name on the RedLeaf stationery, so I wasn't sure if it was the dead father or Sam Neill, but I simply accepted this was the key revelation for M.

I found the 'tiger' interesting and realistic, at least as realistic as an extinct creature could be. I think they made use of enhanced footage of the 1930's animal.

The children and their interaction with Dafoe was charming, and the lisping girl seems like she can really act. The other highlight is in the scenery and the many non-dialogue scenes where we watch M make his preparations, survive the elements, build his traps, and play his tricks.

I thought the movie was good but I find this message board to be a muddled mess though - it's difficult trying to follow a long thread here.

The last Tiger was spotted some time ago, Red Leaf caught wind of it before the competition and hired 'The Environmentalist' to track and kill it for its unique properties which it seeks to exploit for profit before the competition or authorities stifle their plans. Yes, 'The environmentalist' was also a hunter hired by this same company, Red Leaf, to track down the Tiger for these purported properties - he went rogue (or did you miss those parts?). Red Leaf had him killed to protect their commercial interests. They then had his wife stupefied on drugs through the "guide" to keep her from properly pursuing her husband's fate and making public his link with Red Leaf and by extension protect them from inquiry by the authorities.

The Rival Hunter was sent to deal with Dafoe - whom they feared had also gone rogue, after the tip-off front the guide - with the remit to kill him and salvage and complete his work. He killed the remainder of 'The Environmentalist's' family because of their association with Dafoe. This would stifle any investigation into his disappearance by the authorities.

He killed the last tiger to stop Red Leaf sending out more goons, or did you miss that part too?

Dafoe was a loner in his trade, there was no indication as to what his personal life and feelings were thus allowing for the soft spot which he developed for the family.

Bear1027. Your review is rubbish. Sorry to break it to you but it is. I realise some people need everything spelled out for them in films because their attention to detail is as deficient as their imaginations (if reviews like this are anything to go by) but it just takes the biscuit when they slate a movie because of these deficiencies.

My major gripe with the movie is the premise itself. As in, why would a company try to harvest the tiger's organs to create a paralytic agent when we already have several chemical agents that cause paralysis? Are we to believe that the Tasmanian Tiger's harvested organs could lead to the creation of a new paralytic agent that is so much superior to existing chemical agents that it justifies paying people money to go to the trouble of finding the elusive animal and also murdering people?

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

I saw nothing wrong with the storyline but I am not a stuck up snob either. You don't get why the company killed the family? Maybe to send a message... no different than the mob or any other greedy thugs or organization. As for Martin protecting the Tasmanian tiger, how about you wake up and realize that people can't protect anything. If we could every endangered species would not be endangered in the first place.

How do you think animals become endangered to begin with? Man! You don't hear about animal being endangered due to other animals now, do you?

Last, why not enjoy a movie for the sake of the movie? It was good with an interesting storyline. Picking it apart for the sake of picking it apart because you are cynical is pretty lame. Excuse a few flaws, and you might realize that this is a pretty entertaining movie with a fairly original story. You would understand that if you were not coming into the movie all uptight with your head up your butt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U

Methinks perhaps you are trying too hard to find fault with an otherwise well put together movie. I mean, I have my thoughts about the possible lack of a linear story line but the script is constructed in such a way that I believe renders the disconnects as something less than important. The movie is about relationships and finding a greater purpose in one's life. You can't say what a major bio-tech company is willing to do in the frontier-esque land that Tasmania is. Sam Neill's character is clearly a well meaning yet highly confused yocal. What more needs to be understood about his character? The reason for eliminating that supposed last tiger was also clearly laid out in the dialog that Martin spoke toward Jamie and later in the dialog between Martin and Lucy. I would suggest that you simply accept the direction that the movie makers wished to go in order to make their point. I think the reason that you are having problems understanding the direction of the film is because you haven't quite grasped what the film makers were trying to get across..

Which brings me to your first objection: Martin is a loner, indeed. This is central to the theme and is the engine of the movie. This fact is precisely what gives the ending it's considerable power. This is one of the major points of the movie, my friend; his transformation. You see it as an inconvenient "arch" yet it is the most transcendental feature of the movie. How did you miss that?