I haven’t. Yet.
I just saw on “on demand” that a movie version of Joe Lansdale’s Neo-Texas Noir novel Cold in July was released this year.
Rotten Tomatoes gives it a positive rating - 85%. Though it bombed at the box office.
I’ll check it out when I have a chance. Lansdale’s a favorite of mine.
Anyone seen it? Opinions?
I take it the answer is “no”. 
Too bad - I know there are other Lansdale fans about on this site.
I’m one…I’ve never heard of it either!
Ah well. At least he had Bubba-Ho-Tep.
Thought I posted a mini-review somewhere but I can’t find it.
Pretty good film. I like how it “veered off course” from the expected type of simple revenge film into something more involved. Nice to be surprised by a plot.
It really got cooking when Don Johnson showed up. Loved his character.
The main issue I had was that Michael C. Hall’s character just kept doing the wrong thing over and over. Just … stupid.
I saw it and enjoyed it. Started out slow and seemingly predictable, but then it took some interesting twists.
I was annoyed by some of the plot holes, but it was a pleasure to watch Don Johnson and Sam Shepard.
Dialogue was pretty good, too.
Finally saw it - I enjoyed it, some nice twists.
They did not really explain the motivation for the protagonist character to keep pursuing the mystery, though. As my wife said, there appeared to be no reason for him to not simply say, “well, that’s weird - but it isn’t my problem” and go on his way.
I do wish that, if they are going to adapt Lansdale, they take a crack at the Hap and Leonard series.
I took it that he was compelled to right a wrong he had unwittingly been drawn into
Spoilers:
He wasn’t really aware that any “wrong” had been committed. Sure, he finds out that the cops are lying about who he had shot - but whoever it was, it wasn’t the man’s son, and what should he care that this ex-con wants to find his son - the ex-con who had scared his whole family with his threats? At that point, I’d be all ‘well, as you can see the guy I shot isn’t your son, so kindly bug off and leave me alone now, thanks’.
To me it was obvious why he was drawn into the craziness, so they didn’t need an exposition to spell it out explicitly. Bear with me as I play movie analyst.
[spoiler]
The movie is about man’s desire to be an irreverent, macho gun-slinging badass who takes justice into his own hands. When we’re first introduced to the protagonist, we see a quiet, straight-laced family man. He is a square in the literal and figurative sense–we know this because of his line of work (a picture framer) and his boring domesticity. We also see his masculinity threatened multiple times. Most notably by his 1) “hen-pecking” wife who doesn’t even submit to his decision to buy the couch he wants without complaining incessantly about it, and 2) the town jerk who publically makes fun of him the day after he shoots the home invader.
The first twist in the movie occurs when he steps out of his comfort zone and rescues the “bad guy” veteran. Deep down he respects this veteran because of his macho sense of family loyalty, plus the mercy he showed his own son (which is a macho virtue…only cowards hurt women and children, right?). The protagonist’s growing distrust of the police department (again, another macho virtue) makes him sympathetic to his former enemy and they form an alliance.
Then Don Johnson’s colorful character is introduced, and what red-blooded American male wouldn’t want to be stick around to see what hijinks he and the other veteran are gonna get into? The protagonist finds their chemistry and scheming irresistible because they are everything he wishes he could be. They are expert shooters, they curse and insult each other but are loyal, they have battle scars, they are irreverent and fearless and epitomize strength.
The second twist in the movie occurs when they realize women are being tortured and killed by the veteran’s son. Which makes him the lowliest of the low and a stain that needs to be wiped out. By the time we reach this point in the movie, the protagonist is completely sucked in because he’s gotten a taste of the wild side and loves it. He has embraced the values of Don and the other guy, and wants to see himself as one of them.
My boyfriend also believes his “square” nature has something to do with why he had to see this to the end. The protagonist’s job was a framer–he liked to set things straight. At the end when they walk out of the burning house, what do we see him do? He stands by the door frame and set it on fire. In effect, he frames the final scene of destruction so that it is perfect.
The last scene shows him back at home, in bed with his sleeping wife. He is clearly uncomfortable and stiff. The message here is that he is a different man now. He is a stranger to his old life. [/spoiler]
As you can see, I enjoyed this movie because it was deeper than a typical action movie.
Woah. I think you guys hit the nail right on the head.
Excellent analysis. 
Thanks!
One of the most telling moments–and its pretty damn subtle which is why I loved it–is when the 3 pile into Don Johnson’s car after some major decision has been made. They are about to do something big and scary.
When the main character gets in the backseat, there is a slight pause in action. What he should be saying at this point is “wait a second, guys. I don’t know if I can go along with this”. But instead he sits there in the back looking like a kid who is doing a good but imperfect job of containing his excitement.
And Don Johnson and the other guy don’t even question whether he has the balls to do what needs a-doing (but you can kind of imagine them silently wondering that). They just start the car and go.