Meek's Cutoff

The movie starts out real slow. We watch the mundane tasks of the pioneers as they load water, wash dishes, grind meal...There is no introduction of characters. In fact they remain fairly plain. We hear and watch much of the important conversation from a distance catching bits and pieces. 3 devout families have hired Steven Meek, a slightly crusty man, to guide them to Oregon. He takes them into a high plains desert where they wander for weeks. The men suspect Mr. Meek is deliberately attempting to get them lost as Oregon is an area in flux and may go to the English, depending on how many Americans settle there...or not. There is an Indian that pops up from time to time. Steven scares everyone with his Indian stories. Eventually they encounter the Indian and you think the story will pick up, but surprise! It doesn't. The movie ends abruptly. From Meek's words, the film appears to be some sort of metaphor for life and fate as to what path to follow and who to trust, although for the life of me I can't really figure out what it is. The movie won all kinds of awards and I haven't figured that one out either. It was extremely boring. The dialogue was boring. The drama was boring. The people were boring. After a while, the scenery got boring. The squeak of the wagon wheel drove me crazy. Why anyone would waste their time watching this film is beyond me. It isn't accurate history. It is not art and it is not entertaining.

اچھی فلم!

اچھی فلم!

اچھی فلم!

source: Meek's Cutoff

Meek's Cutoff is directed by Kelly Reichardt and written by Jonathan Raymond. It stars Michelle Williams, Bruce Greenwood, Will Paton, Paul Dano, Shirley Henderson, Neal Huff, Zoe Kazan and Tommy Nelson. Music is by Jeff Grace and cinematography by Chris Blauvelt. Story is based on an historical incident on the Oregon Trail in 1845, when frontier guide Stephen Meek (Greenwood) led a small band of settlers across the trail in search of richer pastures. For what was meant to be a two week journey, has now turned into five, and the settlers have this horrible feeling that Meek is lost. With no end to the journey in sight, low on food and water, and becoming ravaged by the terrain, the group starts to come apart at the seams. Those familiar with Kelly Reichardt's work, Old Joy/Wendy & Lucy, will have some idea that Meek's Cutoff was never going to be a traditional Western picture. Often cited as a low-key, minimalist, director, Reichardt has stripped the Western right back to craft a beautifully shot film dealing with the hardships endured both physically and mentally of three families out on the Oregon Trail. Opening without dialogue for the opening seven minutes, where the first voice we hear is that of a child reading Tree of Life, tone is set from the off. We are asked to fill in the blanks ourselves, but it's evident that the group are in trouble, they already look haggard, afraid and near desperation. From here dialogue is as sparse as the terrain they traverse, the wagons crawl at pace, and so to does the film, a slow pace that remains throughout. The interest is all about the characters and their reactions to the situations that arise, no soft soaping or corner cutting, it's stark and uncompromising. This is a different Wild West, the characters are etched into a parched, sun-bleached landscape, there's no romanticism here, just emotional turmoil, it's like the group are in purgatory, desperately trying to reach that Tree of Life on the other side of yet another obstacle. Shot in the 1.33 aspect ratio, this neatly puts the characters front and centre, most tellingly the women, who are the crux of Meek's Cutoff. This viewpoint gives the film a further lift out of the norm, deftly observing the family based woman's place in the West. One of a number of indelible moments in the piece sees the men move away from the women, who have to observe from distance as the men make the crucial decisions, left holding onto the last vestiges of the civilisation left behind, it says so much without actually doing much, something that Meek's Cutoff thrives on. The acting is superb, with Williams, Paton and Greenwood leading the way. This collection of thespians really inhabit their roles, giving the film conviction. Conviction born out by Blauvelt's yellow and brown ochres. Grace's music is also sparse, but telling in a film that mostly deals in quiet conversations, or the natural sounds of wheels turning and tin cups clanking. It's finely detailed and the director wants us to not only examine said details, but also to be part of them. It has already proved to be a most divisive picture, something that is very understandable, even to someone like myself who has been beguiled by it. Where some see a slow crawl where nothing much happens, others see a rich human interest journey where the complete opposite is the case. Regardless of how it eventually works out for the viewer, it remains a film that serious Western fans simply have to see and evaluate. 9/10

What shines; There are a lot of interesting tricks pulled by the director that you haven't seen before. At times I was very shocked and amazed at the reality of what these people went through on the Oregon Trial. What blinds; One word. Slow. besides that your not going to find any happy or eccentrically gay characters here. The characters are pretty basic but Michell Williams and Will Patton are enjoyable along with the rest of the cast. I gave this film a 9. The average American won't agree but if you're in to artistic movies, good acting, and nice aura based movies you will enjoy this. I always enjoy this style film which is similar to There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. Sum= A MOVIE YOU WILL THINK ABOUT FOR DAYS.

It is telling that Reichardt chose to shoot this film in Academy ratio. Right away we know this will not be a romantic image of the Old West, with breathtaking, expansive vistas (although the cinematography is lovely in its own way). Instead, we are constricted, claustrophobic, uncertain of what lies just beyond our limited field of vision. It is a film of quiet desperation, hard-scrabble survival in painstaking detail, and growing mistrust. In some ways it evokes the horror genre, perhaps something like a subdued BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, as the severity of the situation deepens and doubt takes hold. The film manages a sense of gritty realism without resorting to overstating the harsh conditions for dramatic effect. The travelers aren't stumbling around filthy and bloody, they maintain a semblance of civility even as the promise of civilization seems more and more doubtful. The ending will no doubt frustrate many, but didn't bother me one bit. As for the cast, Michelle Williams impresses me again with her thoughtful restraint, and I'm always pleased to see Shirley Henderson. Greenwood does well with a part that could easily have called too much attention to itself, and for once I didn't hate Paul Dano. The score is wonderful, as haunting and sparse as the landscape. I adored WENDY AND LUCY, and quite liked OLD JOY (in fact, that film seems better in hindsight than I gave it credit for). Reichardt is emerging as one of American cinema's most distinctive and worthwhile voices. I look forward to her next endeavor.

Everything about this film is glorious. As much as I loved the Coens' True Grit, Meek's Cutoff is the better western. It was the best film I saw at the 2010 Toronto Film Festival and the best film I saw all year, period. It is graceful and understated, sublime and far-reaching. The cinematography is wonderful, the performances spot-on; I contacted the composer directly, eager to purchase the score. I wrote to the director with my thanks for making the picture. True, this movie is not for everyone. There are no action scenes; there are no shouting matches or shootouts. It's simple on its surface, but has great depth for those who are willing to look for it. It expects you to meet it half-way. The ending is both definitive and ambiguous. The spoon-feeding that the other IMDb reviewers were looking for? (You know, the ones who can't spell or mix up their homonyms?) Not there. Wrong film. See this if you like the films of the sixties and seventies. See this if you know who Monte Hellman is or Jerry Schatzberg. See this if you can imagine a Cassavetes film with much less dialogue or a Hal Ashby film with much less hope. Don't spend your time on this if you can easily rattle off the names of dozens of American films to have wow'd you this past decade. It won't be for you and you'll come here and rag on the picture with your angry, misspelled ramblings.

The movie was always going to be a slow starter from the length of time before any dialogue but this actually didn't start and ended without any conclusion. I've was amazed when the end credits came up because nothing had happened all through the film. If I had an hour and a half of my life to waste I would spend it watching re-runs of an old comedy series that I'd seen a thousand times rather than watch this drivel again. I can honestly say that I have never been so disappointed with a movie and I watch a lot of movies. My main reason for watching this was because of the good rating on IMDb but I'll check other sources in the future if this is what gets a 6.8 on here.