Meek's Cutoff : Sundance FAIL

I saw this movie at the Tower Theater on January 23rd, 2011 in Salt Lake City during the Sundance Film Festival. The line for this movie was far-and-away longer than I had seen for any film thus far into the Festival. Clearly, the expectations were great.

This movie was a complete failure on almost all fronts. The exceptions were the score (reminiscent of the score for "There Will Be Blood") and the beautiful cinematography (although it feels as if over half of the movie is a variation of the same "pioneer-wagon-crossing-the-plain" wide shot).

The script needs A LOT of work. Reminiscent of "There Will Be Blood" once again, "Meek's Cutoff" has little to no dialogue for long stretches, including the beginning. But where it worked for "There Will Be Blood," it does not work well AT ALL for "Meek's Cutoff."

The cast gives great performances given the material they were blessed/cursed with. They make the most of it. Although, after the film was over, I can't help but wonder at what could have been; there was so much wasted potential and opportunity in this film!

The audience let out a collective, "WTF? That's it?" groan/gasp/sigh at the film's sudden, unexpected (though not surprising), complete letdown of a ending. It is literally the dumbest ending that could've been written.

I can't believe that these actors - whom I still admire, by the way (especially Paul Dano) - read this script and thought, "Gee, this will be such a great movie! I'll do it!" It is just unbelievable.

And it's hard to really convey how big of a disappointment this movie was without giving spoilers. But I will tell you that only two MINOR things happen in this movie: a Native American is caught by a member of the group, and that one of the three pioneer wagons is basically rendered useless after a predictable accident. That's it! That's all that happens. All of the other shots in the film are of people drinking water, the wagons crossing the plains, Michelle Williams mending a moccasin, etc This almost could qualify as a silent movie, as less than half of the screen time contains any dialogue whatsoever.

I gave this film a 2 out of 10 on IMDb.

Take a look at my vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=37944188

Funny, for all the people that supposedly were dissapointed, the 120 something votes currently on this film average out at 7.9. Maybe you just didn't like it?

I did noticed the film's current rating - and I thought it was ridiculously high. There have been a few critics who've called it excellent, but the audience, in general, was like, "Okay, then I'm glad I wasted $15 and 100 minutes of my life. I should've seen 'The Guard' instead." ("The Guard" was, in fact, playing at the exact same time a few blocks northwest of where "Meek's Cutoff" was playing.)

I guess it's To Each His Own, but IMO this film is a whole lotta nothin' goin' on.

Take a look at my vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=37944188

Thanks for posting your voting history. I think it's safe to say our tastes vary drastically and I'm still extremely excited for this film. Should be fantastic.

My Film Journal - Chrisfilm.wordpress.com

LOL I'm not offended or upset, I'm just curious: could you elaborate on my vote history? I'd love an outsider's perspective.

And like I said, "To each his [or her] own." Maybe someone else can appreciate the things I missed or didn't understand. However, I'd absolutely love it if after both of you have seen it you come back and let me know what you thought.

Take a look at my vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=37944188

It was certainly a different kind of film. But look at the director's past films. They've all had that slow pacing to it (i.e. Wendy and Lucy). The pacing reminded me of The Assassination of Jesse James. It was set in 1845, I believe, and had that slow style that those pioneers experienced. It really brought you into the pioneers thoughts and perspective. They were freaked out about indians and worried about anything. They were low on water and food, and many died along the journey. This film is not for everyone, but it was authentic (at least in the pacing) and offered a different ending than most films display.

The cinematography reminded me of 'The Assassination of Jesse James' but that's about it. I agree with the OP - this movie was all style and no substance. I thoroughly enjoyed 'TAOJJ' and consider it one of my favorite moviesI respected and admired the pacing in that movie. This film just missed the mark for me. At first I appreciated the slow, painful unfolding of the story and felt that it did add to the authentic essence of a pioneer's experience, but by the end I was just like WTF.

"I don't want to make money. I just want to be wonderful."

Well, first and most importantly, you've rated under 300 movies. With such limited experience in what the film world has to offer, it's hard to make judgement on film. I still haven't seen many, but being up around 1600 now, I look back at the things I thought when I hadn't seen as many and chuckle. Second, with only ten or so 10 ratings, and two of those being The Dark Knight and Inception (both very solid blockbuster films, but neither even close to top 10 material), it was solidified that our tastes are extremely different.

My Film Journal - Chrisfilm.wordpress.com

I'm extremely cautious in giving ratings of 10/10. I reserve it for films that I am absolutely blown away by. Say what you will, but the fact is that The Dark Knight not being nominated for best picture changed the landscape of the Oscars. It is the reason we nominate 10 movies now instead of 5. (For better or worse).

Inception is definitely a Top 10 film. It will have the same effect as The Matrix did. 50 years from now my grandchildren will be watching Inception, much as I watched The Wizard of Oz when I was a child. And IMDb users agree.

I have seen more movies than I've rated. I only started rating movies two years ago. And I don't just want to go search and rate all the films I've seen because I saw some of those film 10 years ago and couldn't give a fair rating. I'm trying to build up my vote history.

Take a look at my vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=37944188

mcbillay23 the dark knight was not Oscar worthy for the most part and is definitely not a 10/10 and neither is Inception. Inception is definitely not in the top ten movies, most likely it would be around 250th or possibly even further back.

I have to agree with Eddie. The Dark Knight and Inception were tedious exercises in excess. I even re-watched Inception 3 times at the urging of those who thought it was amazing. Surely there are much easier ways to influence someone's life decisions. But that kind of logic undoes the premise from the get-go. I will give Nolan thishe's ambitious.

You couldn't pay me to sit through another viewing of The Dark Knight, though.

And it's no wonder when you highly praise those two films that you'd be bored to tears with "Meek's Cutoff." What were you thinking? What was I thinking when I watched The Dark Knight???

I hated Inception. Meek's cutoff is in my netflix queue. I liked "wendy and lucy" even though it was depressing as hell. I heard Meek's is really good. I guess I'll find out soon enough. By the way, this has nothing to do with anything, but Drive is the best movie to come out in years in my opinion.

---

by jewellrunner (Thu Jan 27 2011 05:36:22)

Well, first and most importantly, you've rated under 300 movies. With such limited experience in what the film world has to offer, it's hard to make judgement on film. I still haven't seen many, but being up around 1600 now, I look back at the things I thought when I hadn't seen as many and chuckle. Second, with only ten or so 10 ratings, and two of those being The Dark Knight and Inception (both very solid blockbuster films, but neither even close to top 10 material), it was solidified that our tastes are extremely different.

---

I've seen THOUSANDS of movies but rated only 6, mainly because I rarely care to vote on IMDb. So it's quite pompous (not to mention ridiculous) to peg someone as having "limited experience in what the film world has to offer" merely by looking at their IMDb voting history.

with all due respect to you and other armchair film critics.

The dude has his film ratings linked, so he obviously wants people to check them out. If they aren't up-to-date or accurate, he doesn't need to post a link

And I'm curious about this term 'arm chair critic'. Is this an insult of some sort?

My Film Journal - Chrisfilm.wordpress.com

How many tired clichs can you fit in one post? I swear If I have to read another comment where someone mentions wasting x minutes of their lives and they want those minutes back. I'll bite into my mouse pad and scream.

And no I won't take a look at your vote history, your comments tell me all I need to know about how you see film, and how that has no relevance on how I see it.

Now consider yourself reported to the clich police and change your mind numbing ways before its too late.

Exactly

I hate it when aspiring film makers give their opinions about 1. French new wave and 2. Neorealism.

If you don't mind me, I'll reserve judgement when I actually see the film.

I think some of the other users are saying there's a bit of inconsistency with some of your votes:
ie: giving A Serious Man a 3, and The Last Airbender a 5 as well. I think many users would have voted ASM higher, and The Last Airbender much lower.

I'm excited for this film. I expect it to have about the same pacing as Assassination of Jesse James, some people hate it, but I love that sort of storyline.

OMG Just the fact that you gave Bad Santa 1 and Boogie Nights 5 means you're out of your cinematic mind.I'm horrified to ever read what you wrote about them. It looks like you just did not get it..

Say what you want about my vote history but one fact remains: it is MY vote history. It has those votes because they are MY ratings. I have my own unique taste, and every other individual has theirs. That's why their vote history is THEIRS.

There are only two reasons why "A Serious Man" was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars (and it is an insanely non-PC reason, as well): Hollywood has a high Jewish population. Also, given that it was directed by the Coen Brothers, one could expect it to grab attention. (I mean, honestly, look at True Grit: it was fantastic! But it was not really gaining momentum this just-over awards season until it unexpectedly nominated for 10 (!) Oscars. There are a lot of Jews in Hollywood. And, according to some, the Coen Brothers can do no wrong. But I reject any notion that any one actor/actress/director/etc can do no wrong - that's just ridiculous. And "A Serious Man" was a major waste-of-time, even more so than "The Last Airbender.")

You know how critics often refer to bad films as "unintentional comedies?" Well, "Bad Santa" wasn't even funny - it was an unintentional bore. It was just a stupid excuse for Billy Bob Thornton to swear his guts out. Swearing does not a good script make. However, if swearing is done right (as in "The Fighter" - I would nominate Micky's sister as having the best line of the year with, "It's that [effing] girl Charlene, mah, that [effing] MTV girl from the [effing] bah." Instant classic.)

As with the swearing, nudity and sex can ruin a film too. And I know that that's what "Boogie Nights" was all about, so don't tell me I don't know what it's about. But the film just didn't feel like a complete story to me. With a running length of nearly three hours, I would've expected the story to feel more fully-flesh-out than it was. I felt like there were a lot of missed opportunities. And normally I adore Julianne Moore, but no.

Take a look at my vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=37944188

On behalf of fallen Catholic agnostics everywhere, The Coen Bros can in fact do no wrong. Sometimes (FARGO, TRUE GRIT) they're better than others (MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, LADYKILLERS) but ultimately no one can defeat their kung-fu. DAMN, if the Coens did a kung-fu movie!?!?

http://twitter.com/TheLunchMovie
www.thelunchmovie.com

A Serious Man was the best film of the year for a lot of people including me, and I've never even met a Jewish person. Deal with it.

wow, how can you rate Y tu mama tambien a 3?

> Upside-Down, Arriety, Mr Nobody, L'Illusionniste

By the title I thought you were going to say there was an incorrectly portrayed Sun Dance ritual performed in the movie.

---

the cliffsss of insaniteeeeee!

---

Scenic_Deer:

You sound like Charlie Sheen ("Troll!").

If you had seen Moulin Rouge! before the rest of the world at a world-famous film festival, you would've posted your review. That's exactly what I did.

Moron.

Take a look at my vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=37944188

Voting history aside, mcbillay, the fact that you posted on the Sarah Palin message board and glibly reduced Nicole Kidman's magnificent performance in The Hours to "says a few words and lies down next to a dead bird in a scene and that is supposed to earn her a Best Actress Oscar?!" shows that your taste in film is highly questionable.

I love "The Hours." I just thought that Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep were much better than Nicole Kidman. They both had more screen time, by the way, but were only nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

Say what you want, but this fact remains that I am the only one on this thread who has actually seen the movie.

Idiots.

Take a look at my vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=37944188

I just saw the movie, and I think it is terrific! And I loved the ending. The movie is NOT a conventional story, with beginning, middle, and end. If you expect that, you will be disappointed. What it is, is a slice of life, what it was like to be in a small group of pioneers trying to get to livable land in Oregon and virtually at the beginning of the film, you learn that they are lost. But they have to keep going, if only to find some water and a place to settle down. They have a guide, sort of. They worry about Indians. They walk, they don't ride in those covered wagons that you see in all those conventional Hollywood movies. The movie is more atmospheric than anything. Either you like that or you don't but I found its account of one possible pioneer experience both scary and awe-inspiring. I would rate it an 8 or 9.

And if you're not interested in my vote history, then don't look at it! No one made you click the link, but you did; you were obviously interested.

Take a look at my vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=37944188

The IMDB boards are not fan boards. Commentng about the movie, including why you liked it or hated it, is what these boards are for.

Revenge is a dish that best goes stale.

Look at my vote history. I hand out 10's like chocolate on easter. If I enjoyed it and had fun, it gets a ten. You wanna be movie critics make me laugh.


(K) eira

K (N) ightley

(O) rlando

(B) loom

Need I say more?

They are called "boards" by the people who run IMDB, but if you prefer "forums", you are free to use that term; in any case, they are not called "fansites". I read the OP's post, in which he wrote at least six paragraphs about why he did not like the movie, and that can hardly be called trolling.

IMDB hosts boards for discussion of films, and if someone doesn't like a particular film, they are free to post about it, particularly to engage in active discussion, which the OP apparently did.

IMDB does not host film fansites for fan bois and grrls, so there really isn't any need for anyone to troll, or to be called a troll, on IMDB.





Revenge is a dish that best goes stale.

It's a terrible film. Period. It is a FAIL. I call it like it is. If you don't think that because I titled this thread "Sundance FAIL" means that I don't want to participate in active discussion, then you're an idiot. Don't read the thread. Because I disagree with you does not mean that you have to respond to my thread, nor does it mean that I have no right to post.

Calling a movie FAIL (cap. letters) just because you didnt like it is pretty moronic, no matter how you look at it :)
Empire gave it 4 out of 5 stars and I just had to check it out!
I am glad I did, liked it a lot

Just looking at how you write and what that says about how badly your through processing works is reason enough to know that discussion isn't something you were looking for. You didn't get it, wanted to rant like a sad troll and now people are calling you out for doing just that.

How do you account for the 85% fresh rating at RT?



Ola yia tin epistimi!

Because there are only about two real critics left in the US. Most critics are people who started web-sites at the right time. i.e. IndieWire and the like.

But everyone has their heads so far up Kelly Reichart's butt it's not funny. I'm guessing her time as a prof teaching a lot of folks who are now are supposed tastemakers, her membership in the gay mafia and her refusal to even write a decent script gives her all the BS indie cred she needs to pull the wool over the eyes of most modern "critics".

Dying ain't much of a living, boy.

Josey Wales

It's interesting that many of the reasons you hated Meek's Cutoff were the same reasons that I loved it, and have found it to be the first great movie of 2011 (in my opinion).

I think the screenplay is very well done. You're right that the dialogue is quite sparse. Hell, There Will Be Blood is even verbose compared to this. However, I think Meek's Cutoff is well served by its naturalistic dialogue. I'm assuming that you wouldn't be a fan of Kelly Reichardt's other films, as they are also very minimalist in nature. I've always been a strong supporter of the principle of "show, don't tell" in film and literature. Working with such simple dialogue does two things though. First, it makes the scene much more realistic. In real life, people don't always start launching into a dramatic monologue. Often, people guard their true feelings and intentions by keeping to themselves. Especially in a situation like Meek's Cutoff. These characters are functioning in a puritanical society of repression. Women keep to themselves due to their subservience in the traditional familial structure. It's telling that the only woman to speak up is the proto-progressive character of Emily Tetherow (yet another great Michelle Williams performance). Furthermore, the men don't speak up out of pride. It's telling that the only male character who is talky is the immodest Stephen Meek.

Second, working with naturalistic and minimalist dialogue forces the viewer to read between the lines. Going back to "show, don't tell", yes, the dialogue is sparse in Meek's Cutoff, but what little is said reveals truths on many levels. Meek's argument with Emily reflects traditional regressive views of gender (as said in the film, "women being born out of chaos, men being born out of destruction"). Arguments over what to do with the indian reflect man's prejudice, uncertainty, and fear when confronting the unknown. Furthermore, some of Meek's Cutoff's most revealing scenes arise without dialogue. When the group votes on whether or not to move ahead, you realize that the women do not get a vote, reflecting on the subservient role of women in antiquity. There are also several non-verbal cues throughout the film. Unlike the traditional Hollywood western, the characters look horribly grungy and dirty throughout the film. Watching them trudge through the desert and the plains, we experience firsthand the hardships of pioneering.

Also, the cinematography is not a variation of the traditional western wideshot. If anything, Reichardt has created an inversion of the typical western. As opposed to the wide open spaces of John Ford, Reichardt has decided to film in the boxy 4:3 aspect ratio, abandoning widescreen. Furthermore, the horizon line in most of her shots are really high up. As a result, instead of seeing wide open landscapes, with the skies in tow, her shots are down in the dirt, with hardly any of the sky in sight. This choice in cinematography and framing lends itself to the claustrophobic, frustrated feel of the characters in the film. I began to feel very anxious and claustrophobic just looking at the filmAnother way in which minimal choices speak much louder than words in the film.

What I loved most about the film was that, much like great literature, it can be looked at from various perspectives, and is rich with thematic content. On one level, it can simply be construed as a chronicle of the pioneers, and the hardships they endured. On another, it is a Bible story, full of biblical verses during the actual film (as read by William White), and allusions (for example, Emily's husband Solomon coincidentally takes a Solomonic approach throughout the film, splitting the difference between Emily and Stephen Meek). Another approach is one of nihilism, with the most pious character (William White) ending the film in the worst health. What is most impressive, however, is how Meek's Cutoff functions as an allegory to the war in Iraq, something that is evident throughout the film, and mentioned in various interviews by Reichardt. The settlers are strangers in a strange land. The Native Americans have several cultural barriers and do not want them there. There is a history of Native American violence against the settlers, however this doesn't mean that all indians are hostile against the settlers. Meek's approach is one similar to that of the Bush administrationone of hostility based on this past knowledge. Emily's is one more compassionate and progressive. However, regardless of their worldviews, both are left with uncertainty in the end.

Which brings me to the ending of the film. This 11th hour realization that both sides have lost faith is what makes the ending of Meek's Cutoff very well-done, in my opinion. For me, the film is not about seeing these settlers make it to the promised land, or seeing their demise. The main focus of the film is watching their characters and convictions develop. In the very end of the film, they have realized that whether they survive in Indian territory or meet their demise, their fate is out of their hands. As Stephen Meek puts it, he will now follow Emily, who will just follow the Indian. Much like the war in Iraq, the blight has perpetuated itself, and neither side knows what to do now.

One can also read the ending more positively, with the Indian saying a prayer over a fallen William White, showing the humanity of the "uncivilized" native american, and showing that perhaps his tribe will help them in the future. However, regardless of whether you come away from this film with optimism or unbending pessimism, the film lends itself to so much analysis and interpretation. As I have said, it is rich with the stuff of great literature.

However, pretentious thematic stuff aside, the film is also just great to watch. The cinematography looks amazing (apparently the DP has been assistant to both Harry Savides and Christopher Doyle, so I can see where he gets his chops from). The acting is top-knotch. Michelle Williams put in another great performance, and is really becoming a great serious actress. More importantly, I loved Bruce Greenwood in the film. I never would have expected him to play a character like Meek. If anything, I expected Will Patton to play the Meek character. Bruce Greenwood did a great job playing against type, and Reichardt did a great job in casting. As I've already said, I really did enjoy the screenplay. And finally, I loved the ambient music, that really lent itself to the despair of the characters. It reminded me of Johnny Greenwood's Pendercki-inspired score for There Will Be Blood, but less dissonant. While the film is very minimal, it really affected me. Watching the film, I felt the struggle and despair of the characters. The tension in the film was so thick you could cut it with a knife. And this was all because of the subtle choices in dialogue, cinematography, acting, and direction. I can see where this type of minimalist film can get a lot of flack, but I think it continues in a great tradition of naturalistic filmmakers, from Robert Altman (Meek reminded me of Mccabe at times) to Terrence Malick (can't wait for Tree of Life this Spring!). Even though you strongly disliked the film (a 2's pretty low), I'd urge you to watch again with these things in mind.

Oh, brother! Are you serious? There's a reason why no one watches this broad's flicks. They have no story and the little bits of story they do have are completely ridiculous. wendy and Lucy was only realistic to over educated white morons who have never lived in the real world. Everything about that film was phony as a three dollar bill.

As far as your Malick comparisons. Which Malick films are you talking about exactly? Pocket Money? Deadhead Miles? Badlands? Fact is, when people say Terrence Malick they really mean Days of Heaven. The film that bankrupted Bert Schneider and made him leave the film business forever. Fact is Malick has officially sunk two companies now that Tree of Life put one out of business and he helped shut down New Line as well. And most of his films aren't that great either. The New World sucked outright and the only really great flick he ever made was Badlands. Everything else he's done is seriously flawed.

God, I pray this woman is never allowed to waste any more celluloid. But because of pinheads like you it probably won't happen. There will be grants, help form film festivals and people who don't think playing the lottery is a quick enough way to throw your money down the drain. She f-ing stinks!!!!

Dying ain't much of a living, boy.

Josey Wales

What are you? Kelly Reichart's sister? Wendy and Lucy was simply the worst film I have ever had to suffer through. I thought I could watch anything with Michelle Williams in it, but I was apparently mistaken about that. Kelly Reichart shouldn't be making films or be teaching about films. Because she knows nothing about them. She's the worst. The only thing is because she's also pretentious the critics seem content on giving her a pass. A twelve year old with a cell phone could do better.

As for your statement that I should die. Really? Are you a 12 year old. We live in a world where the US is invading countries all over the world, our economy is in the toilet and causing untold real suffering (not the kind of BS that Reichart put in her horrible film) and you're telling me you hope I should die. This is why pretentious little nits like you are so problematic. because you have no soul and you're not very bright.

Dying ain't much of a living, boy.

Josey Wales

This is why I try to avoid the boards for specific films.

ce n'est pas une image juste, c'est juste une image