Dr. Michael Dean Goodman

I love Clint Eastwood, but he shouldn't have made this movie. It's like a big ego trip - "look at me, I can still act, pretend to be a tough guy, pretend to be attractive to women..." The writing (dialogue) and acting are not good. But worse, there are many huge logical gaps in the story - for example: (1) How does Mike find the boy at a cock fight, when there are probably dozens of cock fights in a huge city like Mexico City? Mexico City is not a little village - it's almost 10 million people. For example, if I only knew that you played poker in backroom games in New York city, what are the odds that I'd find the right poker game in an evening? In a month? Ever? (2) And how does Mike then recognize a 13-year-old boy from his picture taken when he was 6? (3) When Mike walks away from his vehicle in the countryside, why does he leave the keys in the ignition so it can be stolen - when Mexico is famous for crime on its country roads? Who leaves their keys in the car most anywhere? (4) Why do they sit in that little town for weeks when they're so close to the Texas border? Why don't they get the car repaired? The boy's father has money enough to fix the leak. (5) Why does the boy's father put up with them taking weeks, without any explanation? Why doesn't he just send a friend across the border to get them, or have their car fixed? (6) Watching how the character Mike walks (and dances), and his history of a broken back, it's difficult to believe that he could break wild horses without breaking his old, brittle bones. Talking to animals, calming animals, healing them - yes. Physically breaking wild horses - no. That's just Clint Eastwood crying "macho". (7) Why do the Federales never check the license plates and figure out that they're driving stolen cars? (8) Why do the police never ask for license and registration, and figure out he's the man and kid they're looking for? (9) How does the mother's goon find them on a side road close to the border (toward the end)? (10) How does the black Mercedes that banged into them and knocked them off the road, afterward (at the border and parked in front of the cafe) not have a single scratch or dent on the passenger side that hit them? (11) How does Mike let the kid go with his father, knowing the father is going to trade the kid back to his mother in return for some money from a property sale, where the kid will again be abused (or run away to the street life like before)? Isn't he condoning child abuse? I could name more of these. The story just strains credibility, and it isn't good enough, or powerful enough in it's ending message, to justify overlooking all it's logical holes. These holes just insult my intelligence and my emotions. I watched it all the way through, rooting for Clint and the movie, but in the end I felt cheated, like I wasted my time, and was taken on an ego ride by Clint Eastwood. Even the title doesn't make much sense - it's not a movie about being macho. It feels like they chose that title because this is an old man's fading attempt to cry "look at me, look at how macho I am (was)".

Clever plot, good acting - BUT some serious plot holes that push me beyond my ability to suspend my disbelief. And the ending (last episode) is very unsatisfying and silly.