Very disappointing...

So much average

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

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.

Director and writer Geoff Murphy who also created another classic flick, Under Siege 2: Dark Territory 1995 has created another gem in Utu.Starring Bruno Lawrence who was also in the classic television series, Frontline 1994-1997.Also starring Anzac Wallace who was also in another classic historical flick, Rapa Nui 1994.Also starring Tim Elliot who was also in an episode of the classic television series, Spyforce 1971-1973.I enjoyed the violence and the settings.If you enjoyed this as much as I did then check out other classic historical flicks, 300 2006, Apocalypto 2006, Ben-Hur 1959, Bodyguards and Assassins 2009, Braveheart 1995, Centurion 2010, Dersu Uzala 1975, Gladiator 2000, Ironclad 2011, Joan of Arc 1999, King Arthur 2004, The Last Emperor 1987, The Last of the Mohicans 1992, Lucky Country 2009, The Tragedy of Macbeth 1971, Mad Dog Morgan 1976, Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan 2007, The Musketeer 2001, Ned Kelly 1970, Pathfinder 1987, Pathfinder 2007, The Proposition 2005, Quest for Fire 1981, The Seekers 1954, Solomon Kane 2009, Spartacus 1960, Tristan + Isolde 2006, The Vikings 1958, The Dead Lands 2014, The 13th Warrior 1999, The Revenant 2015, Embrace of the Serpent 2015, Aguirre, the Wrath of God 1972, Viking 2016, The Naked Prey 1965 and The White Dawn 1974.

While this movie may somewhat accurately depict callous British imperialism towards native populations, and is sympathetic to the trod-upon Maori, "Utu" (Sumerian for sun, but for the Maori it means revenge) ultimately fails as a story and film because so few of the more prominent foundations that the film lays at the beginning are actually paid off at the end.For instance, we see the settler Williamson (admirably played by Bruno Lawrence) understandably go mad in his quest to avenge his wife's death and loss of his home at the hand of Te Wheke, going so far as to construct a frightening, custom four-barrel shotgun. Yet does he actually end up using it in the end? He finally gets the opportunity to execute his wife's killer, only to inexplicably back down and instead allow a Maori soldier working for the "pakeha" (non-Maori, mostly for white man) to do the deed, apparently mesmerized by Maori chanting and suddenly becoming sympathetic to a culture and cause that is not his own.Lt. Scott (well played by Kelly Johnson) is torn between his New Zealand roots (a "pake" born on the North Island) and his adherence to military life, but understandably seeks his own revenge against Te Wheke for the loss of his Maori lover. As we've seen in other films about the long arm of British imperialism, a soldier's military training ultimately wins out in the end. Yet he too backs down from his final judgment and chance to avenge, to allow the Maori soldier (revealed to be Te Wheke's brother) to perform the execution of Te Wheke.Te Wheke himself is driven mad by his vengeance against his former employer (the military), when he came across the destruction of a Maori village at the beginning of the film. At first he is depicted as a cunning warrior out to save his fellow Maori, but he makes some very stupid mistakes in the end, ones that defy explanation and logic (unless you buy the "revenge always trumps intelligence" line). The soldiers are thus shown as ultimately superior intellects in warfare, and while they may have been, Te Wheke was taken so easily, almost casually so, after months of successful evasion. And why did he turn upon his own people? Does madness make him do this? If so, it's too easy and ultimately unbelievable.As a prior reviewer posted, why was the Maori village destroyed at the beginning of the film? Should the viewers assume that this is because the British are on a campaign to wipe out the Maori to take their land? Or was it done as some sort of vengeance for supposed affronts to military authority? But this is never explained, so we must take it at face value that the British imperialists were pigs, yet superior nonetheless to the blundering Maori.Bravo to the filmmakers for exploring the pointlessness and waste of British imperialism and of the concept of revenge, and for showing the dichotomy of Maori killing their own kind in service to a foreign military (as was seen done in India, Africa and countless other island nations and countries during the 1800's British imperialistic campaigns throughout the world), and in alluding to the latent homosexuality of one British officer, further denigrating the indigenous culture they are trying to oppress.But moviegoers seeking to learn more about Maori culture and history should definitely look for other, more competent and complete sources.