Most reviewers have referred to this as a Western, but I feel that puts a label on it that is misleading. The setting involves a colonial power and subjugated indigenous people in 1870 New Zealand, but it could have been 1870 Australia or Canada or Mexico or United States or any number of other countries. It is a fiction based upon real people and events with a late 19th century New Zealand setting. One needs to view it without the preconceived notions and if so done, you will better enjoy it.All that said, I would highly recommend viewing the recently released 'Utu Redux' version. It is a bit shorter with a greatly improved image and sound. It has been digitized and is now available on region free DVD and Blu-ray. Since its 1983 release, it was bastardized by various distributors with length changes and quality losses. The director, editor and original cinematographer spent much time and expense to get back the film they intended. 'Utu Redux' is that film.

It is not too bad for an attempt at trying to make a movie that appeals to a wide audience as well as having a semblance of historical accuracy.But it is a bad movie when it come to script and character development. In those aspects it is very like a lesser Spaghetti western. It is even more like one in some of the scenes that are created, including the small town in an open plain.There is no decent music to carry the movie along. We also also don't get decent cinematography.Bruno's eventual development of quadruple barrel gun provides some light relief, along with the ingenious method of loading. And then his his next role in the movie is to fall asleep! A few other stereo-types are thrown in along with subtitled maori language in place of bad dubbing of Italian.At least they didn't make Utu 2.

Leonard Maltin, practically the only film critic who has written a review of this film, states that it is "downbeat, dull, and full of stereotypical characters - without the compensating power of Australia's not dissimilar 'The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith.'" It's a shame that the movie has only this professional opinion from Maltin and no others, even though Maltin is a critic with whom I usually agree. Being one of the few people who has probably seen both films, I have to disagree with Maltin's assessment. While "Chant..." was a very serious meditation on the nature and effects of racism, this film was intended as a lighter, more entertaining Western-type movie filled with sudden dark humor - the kind of macho, action-filled movie that director Walter Hill in the U.S. used to make years ago. I don't think it aspires to be the masterpiece that "Chant..." was, but that does not diminish its qualities.Really, for a simple Western revenge movie, there are several interesting themes here. The first is the difficulty of maintaining a conflict between two peoples living in such close proximity. The British settlers, and even members of the British army, seem to be social neighbors with the Maori natives - trading, speaking each other's languages, and even joining each other's armies. Not only does this make pure hatred nearly impossible, but makes it difficult to accurately assess the motives of the people around you. There is something universal in this theme - this may be one of the reasons the U.S. had such difficulty in the Vietnam War, in that it was both relying-upon and fighting a local people.The second, more obvious theme, is the self-perpetuating effects of revenge, which never seem to dissipate. Every character here seems to have their own personal obsession with some kind of individual revenge. Ironically, the one character who seems the most internally-conflicted and the one with the most to hate - a socialized Maori who has learned English and French and even joined the Queen's army, witnessing atrocities on both side - is the only one who can carry out "without prejudice" a formal military execution.I somewhat understand why Maltin disliked this movie. A possible flaw is that there is almost no expository on how the character Te Wheke metamorphosizes from a loyal British Army lance corporal to a heavily tattooed, brutal Maori warmonger who will kill anyone who gets in his way. But on the other hand, this movie is not a character-study of Te Wheke, it is more of an essay on the futility of pure revenge, or "Utu." Really, the best reason to see the movie is its technical qualities. Director Murphy has a real kinetic feel for visuals - like Scorsese, keeping his camera constantly moving among the chaos of 19th century guerilla warfare. The acting is generally good, and the feel for the New Zealand wilderness is excellent. Yes, this movie could have been better, and probably should have been better given the greater seriousness which this subject matter deserved. However, it's worth a rental if you can find it. And if you're not a New Zealander, I recommend watching it twice; it is very fast-paced on the first viewing and difficult to decipher - it gets better the second time.

To me, a good movie uses the introduction to snap your tether of disbelief; the middle to entertain you and deliver you to the end; and the end to make it worth the journey.This movie does it better than any other movie that I've ever seen.The story is about revenge ("utu"), how the cycle starts, how it changes, and the price to be paid to end it.The time and the place are not important, though the movie is beautifully shot and historically valid. The action is only a device to tell the story, though it is compelling and riveting. The subject matter is profoundly serious, though there are elements of comedy even during the most serious scenes.Overall, this is one of the best constructed films that I have ever seen. The pacing of the scenes, the respect for the intelligence of the audience, the dark endearing humor, and the impact of the message all make this one of my favorite movies.The director's cut provides additional scenes that explain some of the details that are missing from the original, but these extra scenes foul the sharp pacing that makes the studio cut work so well.