Genres

Visitors Review

Jason Best 2012-05-23 04:10:39

Be warned. Some stretches are almost as much of a slog for the viewer as they are for the pioneers... But Meek's Cutoff conveys a far more realistic account of what life was really like on the frontier trail than John Wayne or Clint Eastwood ever did.

Colin Covert 2012-05-22 21:53:34

Reichardt serves the broccoli of historical pedantry, deliberately withholding the delicious cheese sauce of entertainment.

didier-20 2012-05-21 22:10:08

Unfair on the original Meek ?

Meek's Cut off works on a couple of levels.1. It's a kind of revisionist western movie, at odds to show the realkind of people moving through the continental landscape and odysseyimmortalised in old style westerns. These people were poor, religious,often clueless but fortified by their simplicity and determination toseek a fortune. The Indian presence highlights a tension and paradoxfor early settlers and their guides, where they were reliant on Indiansand Indian knowledge to complete their journey. 2. The over all feel ofthe movie is one of hardship and breakdown of trust. It's about chanceand gambling of one's life. Now this serves to emphasise a kind oftruth about the risk early settlers took but it also reflects thetraumatic journey the real Steven Meek took when he guided settlersthrough the Oregon desert back in the 19C. The film tweaks certainportrayals. Steven Meek is portrayed as a rough-neck, hard drinkingnever-do-well chancer who was quite capable of being a cold killer.This may well have been true for the guides like these who led the waythrough for the first settlers. But Meek was in real life a local furtrapper, who was married and both he and his wife worked hard to rescuethe settlers they he had inadvertently led into adversity on that trip.Also to add that the native Indian who accompanied them was not aprisoner and came along specifically to make sure the party could keepnear a good supply of water. The disastrous trip saw the loss ofperhaps more than 1/10 of it's members but up to 1000 did finally reachsafety which was in fact due to Meek's raising the alarm at a near bysettlement. Much of the loss of life was due to camp fever and ashortage of supplies. Also the bringing of too many livestock helped tocompete with grass and water supplies along the way. Meek was guilty ofnot knowing the landscape where he had indicated he did and thispromoted despair and agitated the fatality rate. But to give him hisdue, the land at key sections had been utterly changed in appearance bydrought that year and it was this that caused him to lead the party tonear total disaster.

J. Hoberman 2012-05-21 07:44:39

Recalls Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man and even Werner Herzog's Aguirre: The Wrath of God in its evocation of frontier surrealism and manifest-destiny madness; the Reichardt approach is, however, more stringent and pointed in its weirdness.

Ian Freer 2012-05-18 17:22:18

This impressionist Western won't be everyone's slug of bourbon but it's a slow burn that will richly reward the patient.

Stuart Klawans 2012-05-18 10:11:38

You might be tempted to call Meek's Cutoff an exercise in feminist, multiculturalist piety if these two latter characters had any clear idea of what they were doing, or an overriding motive other than self-preservation; but they don't, and you won't.

Tim Evans 2012-05-16 02:13:08

Reichardt's parched tale builds up a pressure cooker of tension and loyalties are strained and doubts are sewn... but then doesn't seem to know what to do with it.

malcolmgsw 2012-05-15 10:24:06

A Cure For Insomnia

I do like a good western.the trouble is that this is nothing like agood western.it is truly awful.i am not even sure what this was aboutas the sound was mainly muffled and indistinct.The film began on a lownote and went down from there.however i do recommend this film for anyinsomniacs,i guarantee you will get a good sleep.I managed to sleepthrough whole chunks.My only disappointment was to wake up and find thefilm still on.There is one scene that caught my notice.that was whenthey were trying to get the wagon down the slope.It just reminded mehow much better John Ford had handled a similar scene.To those whothink this is a masterpiece well you are entitled to your opinion butto me i think that you are a touch deluded.

leiser18 2012-05-13 20:17:59

Meek

Meek's Cutoff is a weak movie. We are forced to watch the dailymonotonous routine of three families lost on the way to Oregon. Theirseemingly incompetent leader Steven Meek (played by the unrecognizableBruce Greenwood) assures them that they will reach their goal shortlyand that they will find water... neither promise is being kept. Alongthe way they encounter a lone Native American, who is despised by Meeksince, as he claims, knows "what they are capable of". Since theIndian's native language is not translated via subtitles, the movieviewer is in the same boat at the characters in the movie: We don'tknow what he is saying. We don't know whether he understands what theAmericans are saying.While Meek is still on the "warpath" and wants to get rid of theIndian, one of the wives, Emily Tetherow, played by Michelle Williams,has been showing some compassion and protects him from Meek. This isabout the only scene in the movie that stirred some emotion in me. Therest did not impress me at all and I certainly didn't like theending... "let the audience decide". In my opinion, this is the weakestpart of the movie and I hate endings that are loose ends.Of the other characters, Solomon Tetherow, played by Will Patton,seemed the most likable next to his wife (Michelle Williams). However,I did get a sense of their hardship and desperation, but didn't feelmuch sympathy for their plight. All in all, the movie is not as poeticas the critics make it out to be, nor is it a masterpiece. This isdefinitely not a Must-See movie...

MOSully100 2012-05-13 04:04:55

Incredibly Dull

I always considered myself slightly snobbish in my choice of films. Andreading numerous reviews of this and a trailer that gripped me to myseat, I considered that this was going to be a truly outstandingwestern... But I was wrong. Its dull, I felt close to sleeping whensuddenly it would transfer to a daytime scene. To spoil things to saveyou from a dull film. Nothing Happens! This film needed at least someform of tension to keep the audience's attention. Maybe the trailerfalsely presented it but I expected a psychological tensity while thegroup are close to physical violence. But instead I got a film thatobserves the oppression of men and the beginning of the genders revoltfor power and equality. And anyone who says I just didn't get it, Iunderstood every bit of symbolism and the idea behind the ending(Cutting off without an ending to suggest their journey wasnever-ending) but it needed something to keep its audiences' attention.Its pretentious and I think all critics who enjoyed this film immenselyneed to take a serious look at their own snobbery.

Laura Clifford 2012-05-13 06:04:00

In Reichardt's latest, she takes the great American film genre - the Western - and makes it her own by making the point of view distinctly feminine.

Roz Laws 2012-05-12 15:14:10

We watch them trudge for miles, growing tired of listening to the squeaky wheel of a wagon.

DarleneBicycle10 2012-05-09 19:35:23

slow paced but you dwell on it for days afterward

I have many friends who don't like most of the high tech movies thatinvolve car races, shoot um ups, special effects & overall fast pace.well, here is a movie for you! Slow & easy it is You take a small groupof travelers in 3 covered wagons & experience what it was like 150+years ago for the folks who settled the rugged and undeveloped areas ofour country.Wandering travelers and dependent on a guide who is "lost" and then acaptured Indian who is questionable in where he leads. No realcommunication with the language barrier.It wasn't pretty. But they did not know much different and had thesimpler life in every way imaginable. For those who long for the "goodold days" I think this exemplifies that the nostalgic images lackreality At the end we don't know if the party survived, if a baby wasborn and lived, if the Indian took pity (if it was an ambush) on thebrave woman who defended and protected him.I can envision a sequel with the story narrated by the young boy in theparty as an adult looking back. The photography is very rich and tellsa story of its own. The music is bold and beautiful. The acting is verywell done & well cast.In a way I was disappointed after I saw it but then in reflectiondecided I was very amazed with what was conveyed and the real impact ithad on me. Not a movie for everyone but a well done work of art

Kelly Vance 2012-05-08 22:32:56

Demanding, ultimately mesmerizing variation on an antique theme wanders off into a wilderness of its own where the essential stoic loneliness of what we call the American character comes into focus.

Derek Malcolm 2012-05-02 05:02:39

A sterling effort, determined to tell some of the truth of the times.

Brian Tallerico 2012-05-01 14:59:32

Thanks to brilliant directorial decisions matched by a cast that was clearly inspired by this unique effort, this will surely be one of the most memorable films of 2011.

Rex Reed 2012-04-30 01:09:52

Who goes to the movies for 104 minutes of punishment? Where is John Wayne, now that we need him?

mickerick2000 2012-04-29 11:41:37

To slow and never ending

for me it was a complete let down.. For 2 hours i watched them walkalong the desert and i was wondering will they find water, Who will bethe first to die and will the Indian lead them to water or an ambush.Well the film finished and i had none of the answers so what was thepoint of the film? why put questions in your head then leave you tomake your own answers.Maybe we were supposed to re-live the waysettlers made the journey but surely if you walk through Indian countryyou have someone ahead scouting for water or Indians and who would keepa heavy table in a wagon and leave gold in the desert and how did theymark it ? a stick with some cloth wrapped around it, They were lost howthey gonna find it again they had no map come-on they would have filledjust about everything they had.Im sorry but to me it was like watchinga fish swim around a bowl,I waited for a climax and didn't get one,Themost exiting thing in the whole film was an empty wagon rolling down ahill

John DeSando 2012-04-23 05:12:42

A slow but rewarding journey

It's the Oregon Trail, 1845, and nothing much is happening to a lostwagon train of three families. It's the film Meek's Cutoff, andmountain man Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood) is the guide whose cutoffhas landed the voyagers without water and no idea where to get it or totheir destination, traversing the Cascades.As in any good seafaring tale where all you have is the ship asmicrocosm, so too this meager setup is rife with life or deathproblems, one of which is what route to take and the other what to dowith a captured Native American (Rondeaux), who may or may not behelping them find their way to water. You just can't tell. Killing himis what Meeks suggests; sparing him is the decision Emily (MichelleWilliams) makes with her gun pointed at Meeks as he prepares to shootthe Indian. Although she can't really qualify in the current Hanna,Lisbeth Salander kick-butt motif, Emily is impressive for her courage.A story that begins with reading from Genesis about the Garden of Edenis asking for allegorical interpretation along the lines of man'ssinfulness and the dangers free will poses. Along the way is adiscussion about trust, not in the Lord, but in Meek or the Indian,representing two poles of thought about survival, and to whom thepassengers must make allegiance as they decide which direction to goon. It's not difficult to see the universal applications aboutdecisions we make and trust we honor.Director Kelly Reichart keeps a steady Terrence Malick hand in it all,showing sunny, sweeping, barren landscapes where hope and despair cantravel together and low-key hovels inside tents and under cliffs, wherelittle hope can live with so little light. Even the landscapes areimprisoning as she sometimes seems to use a box-like aspect ratiorather than the wide screen almost always used in Westerns.Sometimes it seems like Days of Heaven or Badlands, and other times itis its own moral landscape, slowly exposing the feeble underpinning ofcivility, which crumbles in the face of Meek's prejudice and thedemands of survival.Just don't look for an easy solution: Reichart is quite good at forcingyou to ask what you would have done. She's giving no help as you makeyour cutoff to a better life.

gerrycongdon 2012-04-22 23:10:37

Good film, slow but worth it

This is a very very good film. It is quite slow paced, with lots ofdetail and story, and to enjoy this film you do have to really watchit. Then it will draw you in. I have been thinking about this film on and off for a few days since Isaw it - which is unusual as most films just wash over me. Myconclusion is that this is a film about trust. The reason for myconclusion is that the small band of settlers decide to trust theNative American more than Meek. How can this be? How is it that aNative American, unknown to any of the group, not treated well andunable to speak any English is trusted more than Meek? Well, Meek is anegotistical monster and a failure at life. Loud, boastful, uncaring,and incompetent he exemplifies everything that you don't want in aguide. The Native American by contrast is clearly spiritual, careful,clever and restrained. The group choose to trust him more than theuseless Meek. So it shows that when it comes to personal survival thenall prejudices are quickly forgotten, when it comes to things thatmatter, then race, language, culture and religion, well none of thesethings matter. We as humans are able to rise above all of this when thegoal is important enough.It is also a film about independence and reliance. It is clear at theend of the film that the Native American is happy to be independent andself contained. He has no fear. In contrast the settlers refuse to eversplit up, and deem it vital to stay as a group, they are in an alienland, they fear what is around them and are clearly out of theiremotional and physical depth. Some say the end is unclear, to me thisis not so. The Indian has fulfilled his part of the deal, he hasdelivered them to water - the tree signifies this. He can then leave,and he knows no none will stop him. He is secure in his position, thesettlers have been saved but in truth they do not belong in thisenvironment, they are in reality invaders. In this sense it is inmicrocosm a simple tale of the whole North American experience.I'm sure others will draw very different conclusions from this film,but then that is why it isn't a "movie", really it is art. Yourresponse to the film shows you who you are and what matters to you.