User Reviews

Its unorthodox – 'revisionist' – take on the Western will stimulate more debate than the story itself. It's sure to be praised for its presumed artistic qualities, but I watch Westerns for their brio and sense of fun, never as art.

My verdict is that 'Meek's Cutoff' is slow – definitely slow and not 'well-paced' – desultory and monotonous. And yet every time the film was on the cusp of being disengaging, it did something to regain my attention. I saw the film twice and still couldn't decide what it was about. This is a film of suggestion. We're responsible for how the story ends.

After a wordless opening, we encounter a motley crew, some Irish but mostly American. They're being escorted, along with their few wagons, donkeys, horses and oxen, across the beautiful and baleful Oregon plains to a valley, where we assume they will settle. Their escort is Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood), a loquacious, over-friendly cowboy, who has a tacit propensity for violence.

An etching by one of the band (prolific youngster Paul Dano) on a dead tree updates us on their progress: 'Lost' (something inhabitants never are in Westerns; their sense of geography is always mind-bogglingly good). They've been travelling for several days in the wrong direction and are in desperate need of water. Meek insists they will reach their destination soon.

Film factotum Kelly Reichardt, here director and editor, keeps us in the dark for much of the film. The camera pans back when there is conversation. What dialogue we do hear is muffled and limited (or incomprehensible when spoken by Meek). It's like we're eavesdropping and aren't supposed to know something.

A solitary Native American is spotted. His presence in these deathly quiet lands frightens the band. He is captured by Meek and Solomon Tetherow (Will Patton). Some argue that he will lead them to more Indians, so should be killed; but Solomon reasons that he can be used to lead them to water and their destination.

The band continues their voyage, taking 'The Indian' with them. Still nothing happens. Gradually, an ominous sense creeps in, made palpable by Jeff Grace's eerie score and Chris Blauvelt's atmospheric cinematography. (Both men have played second fiddle on big films, but show their competence as lead fiddlers here.) Suddenly the possibilities abound. Is that a smile 'The Indian' affects when one of the wagons is demolished? Does he plan to ambush them? Will the band ever reach the valley?

Apart from film students and die-hard Western fans, I can't tell who to recommend this critically acclaimed film to. I found the vistas beautiful to behold and I appreciated the tranquility. There's a faintly mystical quality. But I found it plodding and I can't forgive the ending, which I thought was criminally abrupt.

www.scottishreview.net

It's 1845 Oregon. Three families Tetherows (Michelle Williams, Will Patton), Gatelys (Zoe Kazan, Paul Dano), and Whites (Shirley Henderson, Neal Huff, Tommy Nelson) are led by the mountain man Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood) who claims to know a short cut across a high plain desert. They struggle as their water supplies dwindle. When the group captures an Indian, the group is torn about what to do with him.

This is a slow pace movie with long uncut scenes. The style is minimalist. Kelly Reichardt is usually an indie director. That's what this is. It's nine actors and a crew out in the wilderness making a western indie. This is like a waking dream where we are waiting for something dire to happen. The acting is mostly reserved with a steady quiet tone. However I must object to the ending, and rate the movie lower because of it. It is not a proper ending.

I have many friends who don't like most of the high tech movies that involve 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 group of travelers in 3 covered wagons & experience what it was like 150+ years ago for the folks who settled the rugged and undeveloped areas of our country.

Wandering travelers and dependent on a guide who is "lost" and then a captured Indian who is questionable in where he leads. No real communication with the language barrier.

It wasn't pretty. But they did not know much different and had the simpler life in every way imaginable. For those who long for the "good old days" I think this exemplifies that the nostalgic images lack reality At the end we don't know if the party survived, if a baby was born and lived, if the Indian took pity (if it was an ambush) on the brave woman who defended and protected him.

I can envision a sequel with the story narrated by the young boy in the party as an adult looking back. The photography is very rich and tells a story of its own. The music is bold and beautiful. The acting is very well done & well cast.

In a way I was disappointed after I saw it but then in reflection decided I was very amazed with what was conveyed and the real impact it had on me. Not a movie for everyone but a well done work of art

It is interesting reading all of these angry people here, who seem to appreciate having seen an amazing film but don't understand why it does not have a 'three act structure' or Hero's journey. If you are a fan of early Michael Haneke or even Tarkovsky (to a lesser extent), then you will like this film. It is a very gentle observational piece which takes its time to even let you hear human voices. It wants you to feel the wind on the scrub desert or to hear the bubbling of the river.

To make a film like that, especially in America where the audience is weened on cleanly prepared stories that have beginnings, middles and ends, is brave, stubborn and amazingly lucky that Kelly Reichardt was able to raise the money to make it.

Fantastic. Unique, Beautiful.

But just do not expect to be 'told' what happens next, because nothing massively important actually does. Just like life really.

'Who knows what's over that hill? Could be water, could be an army of heathens…blood or water' – the words of Stephen Meek, a hardened pioneer of the Western front, whose name is more than a slight contradiction of character. The year is 1845 and Meek is the guide for members of three families who have left the settlements on the thriving Eastern Seaboard of America and are now undertaking the last leg of their long journey, through Oregon desert. Although they are at the brink of their destination – the uncertainty of their route, the need for food and water, and more than anything the threat of Indigenous tribes – is deeply felt.

Kelly Reichardt has been an intriguing presence on the independent scene for several years now. While sparse and potentially esoteric, her previous films Old Joy and Wendy and Lucy felt very unique, rich in atmosphere and subtext. This one, shot in the 4:3 aspect ratio – this is clearly not about gorgeous panoramic Western vistas, but an arid environment and sense of isolation, constriction and fear that the characters can't escape. The cinematography is enveloping – every image and sound has clarity of intent and authenticity that's impressive, but not mechanical, there's a level of artistry here that's seamless.

Reichardt has done a remarkable job. The way in which we first encounter this group has an almost voyeuristic dimension. We observe them bringing their belongings across the river, cages and basket across, a woman pregnant. The classic wagon vehicle. We see the necessity they feel to wade through and continue on their journey no matter what. Reichardt's not interested in fulfilling the conventions of the genre or even screen writing at large – nothing is indicated, nothing is too obvious – and the decisions she makes in terms structure and thematic elements are felt on a subliminal level, right up until the final shot. By defying expectations of the genre and her film becomes all the more engrossing.

This is quite a simple story about people with simple customs and practical needs – driven by a need to fulfill their 'Manifest Destiny' – the inherent right they feel to colonize this new land. Setting off on the journey, Meek himself tries to enforce his high status, telling the youngsters cautionary tales of bears and brutes and emitting a seemingly affable macho persona. For the rest of the group, there is a sense of communal obligation and not too much time for soul-searching or camaraderie. Reichardt does not draw attention to anything - whether it be the name actors she has playing these very pared down roles or the multitude of themes and messages running beneath the surface.

Among the eclectic ensemble of actors in the film is Michelle Williams, Reichardt's muse previously on Wendy and Lucy – who continues to go from strength to strength in proving her versatility and conviction as an actress. Here she plays Emily Tethero – a young mother on this trek, and eventual moral compass for the audience. She's invisible in the role - in the best sense; there is no big announcement or introductory close-up of her arrival on screen as 'Two-Time Academy Award®-nominee Michelle Williams', now playing dress-up in the desert – the blatant heroine of the piece. No, Reichardt is smart and knows how to treat the audience with intelligence, she does not indicate anything. However, as the narrative unfolds, Emily's increasing speculation over their route, her concerns about water and private ideas of gender roles makes her an adversary for Meek.

These tensions come to a head however when they encounter a Native American Indian. From the moment this happens – Williams' character immediately decides to take very practical action to the threat. But soon enough this Cherokee man becomes a possession for the group, an entity they fear so intensely yet cannot let go of – they interrogate him to find out the route, to know of any more like him who may attempt to destroy. The fear of the Other is palpable and the ultimate intent of the film is revealed.

However, Emily Tethero is the one who listens to him – she hears him praying despite not understanding his words, she also repairs his shoe. She begins to become more lenient with him, despite her upbringing and societal beliefs. As the group's situation begins to become more desperate - these various gestures and allowances enrage Meek – with a turbulent dynamic beginning to form and some consequence and yet it never descends into hysterics.

If the job of the artist is to deepen the mystery - then Kelly Reichardt has succeeded. By the end of this film there are no clear answers. There is no sense of the world being set to rights by this story, the film does not presume that what it is has to say about race relations (still relevant in 2011 and beyond) is closing the book on the topic, not for the characters, nor the audience. The film is not about these people's ultimate destination because the sense of closure and satisfaction felt at the end of most movies is an illusion - an entertaining one, which we can suspend our disbelief to enjoy, but an illusion nonetheless. Here that kind of compromise is not necessary, and to witness this on screen is like a window into the past.

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.

Kelly Reichardt's western 'Meek's Cutoff' is dour, unmelodramatic, realistic, claustrophobic, and ultimately unresolved. These qualities are (along with its striking use of the semi-desert of eastern Oregon) the film's strengths; but ultimately, also its weaknesses. While there's atmosphere, not a lot happens; and while the film is pleasingly un-glib, there's not too much characterisation either: the braggart explorer, the Puritan settlers, the mysterious native, none of the characters go far beyond stereotype, even if their micro-behaviour is impressively restrained and convincing. As a piece of recreated history, the film has merits: but as dramatic entertainment, it's sadly guilty of not even trying.

Meek's Cutoff is a weak movie. We are forced to watch the daily monotonous routine of three families lost on the way to Oregon. Their seemingly incompetent leader Steven Meek (played by the unrecognizable Bruce Greenwood) assures them that they will reach their goal shortly and that they will find water... neither promise is being kept. Along the way they encounter a lone Native American, who is despised by Meek since, as he claims, knows "what they are capable of". Since the Indian's native language is not translated via subtitles, the movie viewer is in the same boat at the characters in the movie: We don't know what he is saying. We don't know whether he understands what the Americans are saying.

While Meek is still on the "warpath" and wants to get rid of the Indian, one of the wives, Emily Tetherow, played by Michelle Williams, has been showing some compassion and protects him from Meek. This is about the only scene in the movie that stirred some emotion in me. The rest did not impress me at all and I certainly didn't like the ending... "let the audience decide". In my opinion, this is the weakest part 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 feel much sympathy for their plight. All in all, the movie is not as poetic as the critics make it out to be, nor is it a masterpiece. This is definitely not a Must-See movie...

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.

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

Meek's Cut off works on a couple of levels.

1. It's a kind of revisionist western movie, at odds to show the real kind of people moving through the continental landscape and odyssey immortalised in old style westerns. These people were poor, religious, often clueless but fortified by their simplicity and determination to seek a fortune. The Indian presence highlights a tension and paradox for early settlers and their guides, where they were reliant on Indians and Indian knowledge to complete their journey. 2. The over all feel of the movie is one of hardship and breakdown of trust. It's about chance and gambling of one's life. Now this serves to emphasise a kind of truth about the risk early settlers took but it also reflects the traumatic journey the real Steven Meek took when he guided settlers through the Oregon desert back in the 19C. The film tweaks certain portrayals. Steven Meek is portrayed as a rough-neck, hard drinking never-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 way through for the first settlers. But Meek was in real life a local fur trapper, who was married and both he and his wife worked hard to rescue the settlers they he had inadvertently led into adversity on that trip. Also to add that the native Indian who accompanied them was not a prisoner and came along specifically to make sure the party could keep near a good supply of water. The disastrous trip saw the loss of perhaps more than 1/10 of it's members but up to 1000 did finally reach safety which was in fact due to Meek's raising the alarm at a near by settlement. Much of the loss of life was due to camp fever and a shortage of supplies. Also the bringing of too many livestock helped to compete with grass and water supplies along the way. Meek was guilty of not knowing the landscape where he had indicated he did and this promoted despair and agitated the fatality rate. But to give him his due, the land at key sections had been utterly changed in appearance by drought that year and it was this that caused him to lead the party to near total disaster.

You're better off watching paint dry. That would actually be a much better way to spend your time. In the end at least you'll have accomplished painting something. This movie accomplished absolutely nothing. I don't know how anyone could like this film.

The time I misspent watching this film was the longest hour and forty minutes of my life.

I knew I was in trouble right from the endless opening shots, which are beautiful but, shall we say, LANGUOROUS in the extreme?

How this interminable trek through nowhere wound up on some critics' best Westerns list is a mystery Sherlock Holmes would be hard pressed to solve...