Temporarily out of stock.
Order now and we'll deliver when available. We'll e-mail you with an estimated delivery date as soon as we have more information. Your account will only be charged when we ship the item.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca.
Synopsis: Item Type: DVD Movie Item Rating: ""NR Street Date: 09/13/11 Wide Screen: yes Director Cut: no Special Edition: no Language""ENGLISH Foreign Film: no Subtitlesno Dubbed: no Full Frame: no Re-Release: no Packaging: ""Sleeve""
A few of the other reviews here hint at the truth of this film, in the context of it being too challenging for current tastes or in the rare company of Kubrick's 2001. What they really say, unintentionally, is that this film is not only difficult but exceedingly unpleasant and boring.
The director seems to be on a mission to capture the real experience of being on a poorly-supplied wagon train lost in unfamiliar territory and going weeks at a time without other human contact. In other words, mind-numbingly tedious and dull. Painful. Stifling. And surrounded by unpleasant, mainly stupid people who make you wish you were elsewhere (brilliantly acted by a cast uniquely capable of portraying unlikable characters experiencing the worst boredom of their unsympathetic lives.)
A reality purist, he even recreates the experience of watching other people have a conversation just a little too far away to be able to hear it. So the words spoken become irrelevant, adding nothing to the plot, because the perspective of whichever poor soul was missing out on this conversation didn't experience them. You can feel just how frustrating it would have been to have not been included in the conversation. And if frustration and confusion are feelings you hope for when you sit down to watch a movie, go for it. If you are more likely to respond to strong dialogue, intelligent plot turns, interesting characters, beauty, action, humor or emotion, you're probably not "serious" enough for this. We made it 55 minutes into the film and gave up. If you think that's too soon to give up on a film, maybe you'll like this. WE thought it was 55 minutes we'll never get back.
This movie is an arrogant, lifeless exercise for film students. Not just any film students; the ones you hope don't graduate and never make films. I earnestly hope never to waste another moment on anything made by these people. And frankly it was too unpleasant to waste any more time criticizing it.
Was this review helpful to you?
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
44 of 56 people found the following review helpful
Avant-Garde Western That's Actually Really GoodNov. 20 2011
- Published on Amazon.com
This is a really interesting film. I'm glad that I read about it before I watched it so that I would know what to expect. If you do that, you will probably have a more enjoyable experience because you will be expecting it to be weird. While I agree that the film was slow and that the dialogue was difficult to hear (I, too, had to turn on the subtitles to understand what was being said), there are some really cool things about this film that I really liked. This is probably one of the most realistic films I have ever seen in terms of reflecting what life was really like for settlers during the time period depicted. I loved the beauty and sparseness of the scenery and I thought that the long periods of silence actually helped allow the viewer to experience the visual aspect of the film without having to constantly listen to people talk. I liked the conversations in complete darkness, I thought they were a really neat touch that added to the realism. Without the use of electric lights, complete darkness is what the characters would have experienced in real life and I like the way that was brought to the screen. It cut through the artificiality typically present in film by not making special allowances for the film viewers, like having lighting when it would normally be pitch black.
In addition, the justification for the full frame aspect ratio is one of the most creative that I have ever heard. I read somewhere, either in an interview or perhaps in the notes written on the DVD packaging, that Kelly Reichardt purposely did not use a widescreen format because she was trying to replicate for the viewer the vision restrictions imposed on the female characters in the film by the bonnets they had to wear. The bonnets restrict the wearer's vision from side to side and create a more box-like picture, so the full frame ratio is supposed to, literally, give the viewer the impression that they are seeing the world while wearing one of those bonnets. I also loved the ending, I love how it just ended abruptly and left the story completely unresolved. We never find out if the characters ever find water or if their Indian guide really knows where he is going or whether he is just as lost as they are. I love the final shot of Michelle Williams' face looking through the tree branches as she watches the Indian guide walk off into the distance, seemingly propelled by some otherworldly quality of which the other characters are ignorant. The culture/language clash between the white settlers and the Indian guide is also very well depicted - the Indian guide does not speak English and does not appear to make very many attempts to purposefully communicate with the settlers. He seems more interested in his own internal world than with anything the settlers are doing. Is he crazy and/or lost or is his unusual behavior only able to be understood in the context of his Native American culture, a culture of which the settlers and likely many viewers are largely ignorant? Interesting question to ponder.
This film is definitely not your conventional western nor conventional example of any other genre, for that matter. "Avant-garde" is pretty much the word here. If you can forgive some of its flaws and embrace the full-on realism and accuracy that the director appears to be going for, you might just enjoy this film. It starts out as a mystery, it remains a mystery throughout, and it ends as a mystery. Definitely one to leave you thinking for a long time afterward.
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
If you ever wonder what it must have been like to WALK across the countryDec 27 2014
- Published on Amazon.com
I thought this movie was absolutely fascinating. If you ever wonder what it must have been like to WALK across the country, this movie will spark your imagination. As a descendant of American settlers, like many of us are, I wish there were more movies like this. It is not a fast-paced Hollywood blockbuster, but that would completely defeat the purpose if it was. If you have an attention span less than 30 seconds, this movie is not for you.
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
WARNING! This review contains more than spoilers - it reveals ALL THE PLOT!March 7 2014
- Published on Amazon.com
I am now in the second half of my life and I spend a large part of my existence watching movies. That one is amongst the absolutely WORST things I ever saw! Below, the description of the whole film, revealing EVERYTHING that happens.
- Minutes 1 to 5: Opening credits. Three wagons and a couple of riders advance through a flat plain. Nothing else happens.
- Minutes 6 to 10. Nothing happens.
- Minute 11. Michelle Williams almost says something.
- Minutes 12 to 14. Nothing happens.
- Minutes 15. Bruce Greenwood almost sneezes.
- Minutes 16 to 17. Some people almost sleep.
- Minutes 18 to 19. Somebody is peeing in the darkness (or may be not...)
- Minutes 20 to 24. Nothing happens.
- Minute 25. An Indian almost appears.
- Minutes 26 to 30. Nothing happens.
- Minutes 31 to 35. Some people almost walk.
- Minutes 36 to 37. An Indian almost re-appears.
- Minute 38. One horse almost farts.
- Minute 39. Somebody almost asks a question. Then he thinks better and shuts up.
- Minutes 40 to 45. Nothing happens.
- Minutes 46 to 50. Nothing happens.
- Minute 51. Some people have a look at the scenario, just in case. Reassured, they carry on. Doing nothing.
- Minutes 52 to 60. Yes, you guessed right. Nothing happens.
- Minute 61. A bored to death vulture drops dead from the sky.
- Minutes 62 to 70. Nothing happens.
- Minutes 71 to 80. Some people start to wondering why nothing happens.
- Minute 81. The sun almost shines.
- Minutes 82 to 90. Nothing happens.
- Minute 91. Michelle Williams hears a suspicious sound. It turns out it is just the paint drying. Reassured, she carries on. Doing nothing.
- Minutes 92 to 97. Still nothing happens, but the plot thickens.
- Minute 98. Some ants are snorring in the desert. It is an ominous sound...
- Minutes 99 to 100. We see something; Not sure what it is yet.
- Minute 101. It is a tree.
- Minute 102. There is a strong possibility that something may happen.
- Minute 103. Now, it is almost certain that something will almost happen! ALMOST!
- Minute 104. The director suprises us with a completely unexpected development. Against all expectations nothing happens! End credits. MASTERPIECE!
This... this... this... THINGY is amongst the worst, the most pretentious, the most useless, the most boring films I ever saw. The description above is hardly an exaggeration - in this film REALLY NOTHING HAPPENS! Stay away from it!
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
Understated EleganceApril 25 2014
- Published on Amazon.com
This is a thoughtful movie that will not appeal to people seeking excitement and thrills, nor will it satisfy people who want everything spelled out for them or who need to have the dilemmas of the characters resolved. The narrative follows the trials of a small group of travelers heading to Oregon along the Oregon trail in the early part of the 19th century, but it is not "about" their trials. Director Kelly Reichardt sits back and watches these pioneers struggle against the trackless wilderness without explaining anything about them or their ultimate fate. What the movie said to me was that we are all simply moving through life without all the information we need and with no guarantees that we will have the outcomes we desire. All we have is our own perceptions about our experiences.
35 of 47 people found the following review helpful
The West was never so sparse...July 8 2011
- Published on Amazon.com
Meek's Cutoff is an ambitious film trapped by a budget too low to properly realize it. The film is based on an actual event that took place in 1845, although it bears little semblance to those events.
The plot, here goes;
Seven, count 'em, seven settlers (not including the fetus inside the pregnant lady) in three, count 'em, three wagons cross the forbidding Oregon desert trusting their lives to their incredibly hairy guide Stephan Meek (played by Bruce Greenwood). It's clear from the get-go that Meek has no clue as to where they are at, much less if they are heading in the right direction. But since any decision they make could be just as bad, they decide to keep following Cousin It...I mean, Meek until they run across one, count 'em, one Native American who may know the right way...or not.
On the plus side, the framing of the landscape, the sparse dialogue, and solid acting elevates this effort above the average "indie" fare. Lead by the really fine Michelle Williams (who bears a strong resemblance to Renee Zellweger), the rest of the cast follow admirably, especially the aforementioned Greenwood, Shirley Henderson (best known as "Moaning Myrtle" from the Harry Potter series), and Rod Rondeaux who plays the Native American in such a way that we have absolutely no clue what his intentions, if any, he has.
Indeed, the very subject matter of how people react in this particular type of situation is enough to generate a palatable tension as they press on into the wilderness. There is also a strong attention to the "details" of frontier life. The gathering of wood, the keeping of fires, the attention to the water supply that helps set the proper mood. Speaking as a amateur historian, there was nothing terribly out-of-place about the clothes, tools, and firearms we see on the screen (the flintlocks were certainly appropriate). I do question the all-metal handles on the buckets and perhaps the general style of the woman's clothing as being more post-Civil War. But even if I'm right, such things tend to get overlooked anyway and it certainly didn't stand in the way of my enjoyment of the film.
On the down side, the limited budget undercuts a great deal of that very tension. Settlers in 1845 didn't cross the street with only three wagons, much less the 1,500 miles to Oregon. But even putting that historical error aside, the party is so small that even if they had stuck to the trail and caught every break, it's almost impossible to see how they could make it. All it would take is some bad weather or running across the wrong type of folks (in effect, bandits) or sickness which would wipe them out. So given the odds, our band of intrepid heroes is doomed from the start and the film becomes a waiting game to see what unfortunate event will eventually do them in.
Also, one sub-plot of a child's discovery of gold is dropped almost as soon as it's brought up and the other characters' reaction to this claim, particularly Meek himself, is impossible to believe. Even if you're stuck out in the middle of nowhere, far from any known source of water, it would take only a few seconds on horseback for any of the characters to verify the child's story. Yet no one does a thing save for one settler who sets up a "marker" so flimsy that a gentle gust of wind would topple it over. And even though there was a reported "discovery" of gold made during the actual event in 1845 (something that has not been verified to this day), why include such a "non-event" in the film itself?
As for the ending, which has generated some controversy, all I can say is that it fits pretty well with what such a low budget film is capable of. So while I wasn't all that miffed, many in the theater I watched the film in were not so generous. Perhaps having invested so much, they were naturally disappointed when it didn't pay off in any direct way. At least the theater staff could be glad that no one thought to bring a bag full of vegetables along.