Joshlore 1 you stole my thunder !!! That said, I admit that i could not have written as sucinctly and with beautiful passion the way you have done here !! A goof here or there is irrelevant , no nit pickers required . You have covered every inch of the narrative with all the appreciation this stunning movie so richly deserves. And I can only add to your words with full agreement that this movie is deserving of far more accolades and true appreciation. Faultlessly presented and unequivocally recommended . Michael....

I didn't know much about the film, but the very fact that it deals with the "Tasmanian tiger" was enough reason to watch it. As a child I had a book about Australian wildlife and one chapter dealt with the thylacine - I prefer that name because it looks so little like a tiger to me. It was so sad to read that the warden in the zoo in Hobart realized that with the death of the last thylacine a whole species had died. It is easy to understand why it such a popular animal: on the one hand it looks like a dog, but on the other hand it is so completely different - just like some kind of extraterrestrial pet. I hope to the efforts of the last years to recreate it through its DNA will be successful but I am rather pessimistic.But now back to the film! I have to admit that I was not 100 % enthusiastic about it. Although it has a mystic atmosphere, the pace of the action is very slow. Apart from the last half hour very little happens. Although William Dafoe's acting was not bad, I had difficulty to identify with the main characters. For me the two real stars of the film were the Tasmanian landscape – and the thylacine itself. I was so completely convinced that it would remain a phantom until the end, that it was a shock for me to see it alive at the entrance of the cave, so small and vulnerable. And after less than a minute the hunter shoots it and burns it, so that even the hope to save its DNA is gone. A sad ending to a sad film.

I just finished this film and found it to be a good watch, it's a slow moving film but a viewer with some patience should find it quite emotionally satisfying. Defoe is once again magnificent and plays a hunter out on the trail of possibly the last Tasmanian tiger left in existence. He comes into a place where he is not wanted by the locals and his only sanctuary is with a mother and her two children who's husband/father was lost mysteriously while tracking the very same animal. The two children play very different parts, the girl a precocious little chatterbox and the young boy very possibly scarred by his fathers disappearance and left speechless. Both children are terrific little actors and even though the boy does not have much to say verbally he still expresses himself quite clearly and Defoe's character seems to speak his language. Overall this movie is very unique and beautifully shot, It's minimal dialogue and picturesque surroundings leave your mind to ponder what is around the bend and what the story's characters may find in each other. if you need a movie with a fast pace and a typical storyline then this may not be what you're looking for but to me it's a very good indie and shouldn't be missed.

No..., not a love story but rather a nature story. Brokeback Mountain holds the best nature filming by far. I wasn't interested in neither story but I love the nature scenes of both these films. The story could have been different like a hunter following a lost friend's will to find this extinct animal and perhaps ending the film with photography evidence. Killing something doesn't work. The film could have used a little more action. Did the hunter kill seals, polar bears or any type of marine animals? Always think of a possible sequel to a story; therefore you'll have a great film to begin with. Has the hunter ever killed a man before? He seems to have no regret for killing his hostage taker. The end seems like the hunter tossed in the towel on hunting.