TL;DR
Wild Horse Nine is Martin McDonagh's film following two CIA agents on a mission to Easter Island. It features top acting, magical vistas, and neat screenplay payoffs, but suffers from drawn-out pacing, unlikable characters, and repetitive bickering. Fans of McDonagh's storytelling will enjoy it, but viewers wanting high tension or fast pacing should skip it.
Martin McDonagh is back with something new. I have seen all his films and like them to varying degrees, but the fact is that none have beaten his wonderfully twisted feature film debut In Bruges. I was slightly skeptical of the acclaimed The Banshees of Inisherin which, despite fantastic actors and vistas, had a slightly too uneven pace for my taste, even if much else worked. The new one is called Wild Horse Nine and also offers beautiful vistas. The plot is simple. At least the parts you actually want to reveal: Two CIA agents are on a dangerous mission that takes them from Santiago, Chile to Easter Island. Short and concise.
McDonagh already has an introduction. He has been acclaimed for basically all his films, primarily Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Seven Psychopaths is probably the film I remember the least of. If anything. He has also, true to form, written the screenplay himself. The cast list contains some really big names. Sam Rockwell and John Malkovich play the odd duo. Their boss is played by Steve Buscemi. In other roles, we see among others Mariana di Girolamo, Ailín Salas – and Tom Waits!

We start with the acting, which is at the absolute top. From all sides. Rockwell has always been a favorite. Malkovich as well. He is the one who perhaps stands out most here. He is a pure damn joy to watch. From his facial expressions to small movements. It is a superb cast to follow and the acting is clearly the film’s greatest strength. Then the settings are magical, but on the other hand, it’s probably impossible to fail when filming in a place like Easter Island. It is very beautiful, in any case.
The screenplay oscillates between brilliant and a bit repetitive. There are dialogue exchanges that are absolutely fantastic. The dynamics between Malkovichs Chris and Rockwells Lee take me a while to get into. At first, I’m annoyed that they are just bickering and throwing insults and seem to generally loathe each other. Over time, a certain understanding develops, but somehow I still think, even in hindsight, that it grates a bit. They actually like each other, quite a lot in fact, so the jargon becomes a bit tiresome. Maybe that is part of the problem here – none of the characters are likable and most seem to loathe each other. Lee’s strange relationship with his wife also remains a small seed that doesn’t really develop – and part of the plot around them is actually left hanging in the air, but it somehow works anyway even though his reaction to a certain twist feels rather cool. The involvement of world politics and the hints at both the JFK assassination and Chris’s knowledge of the impending revolt in Chile are neatly interspersed in the screenplay and create extra interest.

My biggest problem is the pace. Just like in Banshees, it is very slow and drawn out. Nothing wrong with that in itself, really. McDonags has never built films on tension; he builds them with interesting characters and subtle dialogue and unexpected twists. He succeeds in that here too, to some extent. The problem is that for quite long periods, very little happens. However, I love how things are tied together. For example, there is a scene quite early in the film where the characters sit in an entertaining conversation that, however, seemingly leads nowhere. At that moment, I think it feels like a pointless filler scene. But it isn’t. The same goes for Lee’s reaction at the dinner table one evening when he scolds his table neighbors. At that moment, I think it feels like a strange reaction that doesn’t really fit the character. In hindsight, I can understand what leads to it. They are tiny, neat setups for bigger things.
That might be my biggest problem. Again, the pace doesn’t need to be high. It’s not an action movie. But Wild Horse Nine feels too long for its own good, even if those who love McDonags’ way of telling a story will almost certainly love it here too. But sure, there is a lot of long-winded dialogue that could easily have been trimmed, like sometimes staying in the scene longer than necessary. A big plus is that it offers quite a few laughs. A lot of subtle humor and unexpected dialogue exchanges. A personal favorite is Chris’s internal monologue about dinosaurs. It makes me laugh out loud. There are also a couple of slightly emotional scenes that are nice, even if I don’t get close enough or sympathize enough with the characters to be truly moved. In summary, I stick to my personal favorite being In Bruges. Fans of Martin McDonags’ films have an early Christmas present to look forward to because there is much to like in Wild Horse Nine, despite the uneven pace and rather long runtime.
Review Highlights: Q&A
What is the story about?
Wild Horse Nine follows two CIA agents on a dangerous mission traveling from Santiago, Chile to Easter Island.
How are the acting performances?
The acting is the film's greatest strength, with John Malkovich standing out alongside strong performances from Sam Rockwell and Steve Buscemi.
Is the film fast-paced?
The pace is very slow, drawn out, and uneven, featuring long periods where very little happens and dialogue that stays in scenes longer than needed.
Does it have much humor?
The film offers subtle humor and unexpected dialogue exchanges, including Chris's internal monologue about dinosaurs, that generate genuine laughs.