I hate to judge a film (or agree with a critic) without seeing the thing for myself, but I have to admit that this review sounds plausible. If the movie is indeed 10 minutes of the train attack and 83 minutes of backstory of these guys just being good pals, then, yeah, I could see the film being something of a bore.
I don't know how long in real time the actual attack and takedown took, but it couldn't have been long enough to fill an entire movie. How else was he supposed to fill out the film? I'm more interested in the good guy's back story than the raggedy man's.
I bet this movie is awesome and patriotic and this person of ambiguous sexual orientation has a problem with that, hence the bad review and those of other Hollywood douchebags.
I will defend the Clint until the day I die.
There is iron in his words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in his words of life.
How much of Titanic about a boat sinking was backstory on passengers who didn’t cause the boat to sink?