criterionforum.org

Oh, I am not at all down on this film. If anything, I'm trying to temper down expectations so people don't get disappointed.

Hoberman on Meek’s Cutoff.

Does anyone know if Oscilloscope handles distribution in Canada as well? If so, then I guess I'm shit out of luck. For a while, anyways.

Guido wrote:Does anyone know if Oscilloscope handles distribution in Canada as well? If so, then I guess I'm shit out of luck. For a while, anyways.

According to imdb, they are. I know it's opening in Toronto mid-May.

Reichardt interview in the Guardian

saw a poster for this saying it will open in Mid May here in KC....good to know it's going to get a decent release after all.

Wow. I can't believe this isn't going outside London for the UK release tomorrow. Claire Binns and City Screen truly are a shower of c**ts, if any further proof were needed.

Not sure what you mean, It's showing in Eight cinemas in London:
Notting Hill Coronet, Odeon Covent Garden, hmv curzon Wimbledon, Renoir, Ritzy Cinema, Aubin Cinema , Rich Mix, Greenwich Picturehouse

Corrected. I meant wider within the City Screen network, ie. outside London + Curzon Soho, Curzon Mayfair.

Amazing that they think the trite nepotistic debut of Ken Loach's son is more interesting to a wider audience than Meek (which will no doubt dominate the reviews tomorow).

Loach's son has a movie now? Let's just hope he has more talent than Costa-Gavras' son.

Nothing wrote:Corrected. I meant wider within the City Screen network, ie. outside London + Curzon Soho, Curzon Mayfair.

Amazing that they think the trite nepotistic debut of Ken Loach's son is more interesting to a wider audience than Meek (which will no doubt dominate the reviews tomorow).

It's also showing in Cambridge, Liverpool, Newcastle and Edinburgh.

ie. at the handful of provincial arthouse cinemas still outside the City Screen network. Your point being?

Saw this at FF last night and I want to reiterate what Tom Hagen said. This is not Days of Heaven and it's not There Will Be Blood. It's a lot closer to Van Sants' Gerry. So while it's Reichardts biggest budget yet, I would say more actually happens in Old Joy or Wendy and Lucy. So yeah it's kindofa ballsy movie in that respect. It's full of atmosphere and landscapes(despite Reichardts assertions to that it isn't) the photography is amazing and all the performances are top notch. It puts you in this world. I personally wish that she had opted not to use a score at all. I loved the sound of Wendy and Lucy and this would have been a perfect film to just let the sound design resonate. So anyone who's seen it please post some thoughts on the ending.

Spoiler

Maybe I'm reading too much into it or not enough but was it supposed to be a case of them proceeding to follow the Indian to their own deaths? I mean the American Indian as a symbol would represent a dying breed right?

Alan Smithee wrote:

Spoiler

Maybe I'm reading too much into it or not enough but was it supposed to be a case of them proceeding to follow the Indian to their own deaths? I mean the American Indian as a symbol would represent a dying breed right?

Actually, it's based on a real incident, where the settlers (mostly) made it out alive, Meek included. According to what Reichardt said at a recent Q&A, the film's abrupt, "ambiguous" ending was in great part a financial necessity; they ran out of money during the filming and had to pack up and go home before shooting the planned conclusion.

Was anyone else bothered that the ending and the stark, "existential", minimalist aesthetics and atmosphere had very little if anything to do with the blatant and worn socio-cultural critique that was constantly coming to the fore in the dialogue and action? Personally I felt that the film's genuinely accomplished visual and aural style served to do little but give the often ham-fisted script an aura of profundity it hadn't earned. Williams' restrained and graceful performance redeemed the words coming out of her mouth a little, but every time Greenwood appeared his hamming brought out all of its clumsiness again. In other words, an interesting curiosity, but too contradictory to have much impact or meaning past its pretty images.

Nothing wrote:Corrected. I meant wider within the City Screen network, ie. outside London + Curzon Soho, Curzon Mayfair.

Amazing that they think the trite nepotistic debut of Ken Loach's son is more interesting to a wider audience than Meek (which will no doubt dominate the reviews tomorow).

For what it's worth, I just got back from seeing the film at a City Screen cinema here in Norwich, where it opened today. So it is slowly but surely starting to play elsewhere.

Can't add much that hasn't been been stated here already - the acting and cinematography are great, and the film is continually gripping up until the last ten to twenty minutes, at which point it runs out of steam somewhat.

Spoiler

John Sayles did the non-ending better in Limbo, though I might just need to mull it over a bit more.

I have gone through a lot of conflict over the last 24 hours. I saw this film last night and as the credits rolled, I was frustrated in a way I rarely am. The final half of Meek's Cutoff spins its wheels the way few great films ever have, and I was about to dismiss it altogether when it ended in such an ambiguous fashion. But after some time to think about it, I can't get it out of my mind. As I've said in this thread, Kelly Reichardt is already one of the best and most essential directors working today, and she doesn't quite hit a Wendy and Lucy home run here, but she comes close. This film will surely have more longevity because of the setting and the broader appeal, but it isn't without its flaws. While not as listless as Old Joy, this is a picture that moves at a snail's pace, taking us from a first act during which we hardly know who we're dealing with or where we're going, to a second act that sets up ten metaphorical bowling pins. During the third act, the characters have some reservations about bowling, but make their way through nine frames, and the film ends with a serious consideration given to just leaving the lanes without bothering with the tenth. This kind of ending has been rather en vogue lately, and it's never gotten under my skin as much as it did here. The characters go too far, literally and metaphorically, and are left with a decision of whether to either turn back and die, or go forward and maybe die. As a logical 21st century atheist, I'm rather fascinated with the fact that this film poses this question as a legitimate one, but it's a rather brave move to move forward with the theme. Unfortunately, that leaves the third act feeling rather flabby, as the same question posed in the first hour of the film is the one we're left with at the end, and it's difficult not to feel like that old man in the theater who loudly grumbles when a film ends without tying everything up. It's the one-Cache-too-many syndrome, and I'm sorry that it hit me with this gorgeously shot and well-acted piece of work.

All this being said, I'll be giving it a second chance on Wednesday night with my very conservative and traditional father, and now that I know what to expect I'm thrilled to find out how he'll find it, considering the fact that it has a western by-way-of Andrea Arnold pace that could frustrate even the most devoted fan of minimalist cinema. It's the best film I've seen so far this year (though I'll admit that I really need to play catch-up), and yesterday I was trying to decide whether I even liked it. It's a testament to Reichardt's ability to paint the kind of picture that stays in your mind for a long time, one that peels in reverse until it becomes pristine.

What was your problem with the ending. When I went there were a ton of groans too, but I can't think of how to drag the film out any further. All the story that could be told was told by that end point and to be honest I found this to be a more fulfilling experience than Wendy and Lucy. The film didn't feel as much about the people as the environment, the landscape is the star. In that sense the film came to me as Malick by way of van Sant. The frame is constantly full and busy even as the humans are invisible specks.

My problem with the ending was that the last 30 to 45 minutes of the film didn't take us any closer to it than we already were. It's one thing to end a film on a note of uncertainty, but the same thing was still being considered at the end of the film that was being considered at the beginning of the third act.

Spoiler

I don't know how many more shots of Michelle Williams sizing up the Indian I could take, and ending it on one felt like a cruel dagger into the viewer's chest. But I'm starting to see the masochistic appeal in that the more I meditate on this picture.

The point made when the decision whether or not to kill him still applied: Let's follow this guy; after all, he's healthy and obviously hydrated. I found the conflict to be tough to swallow, but in historical context, I guess I've just got to fucking swallow it.

After a certain point I thought it was just the one guy and maybe the blonde who still felt that way and they all had motives for it. I didn't really give any thought to that aspect though. That question was basically for me a timer of when the movie would decide to end itself and what I was concerned about was more how this wrench affected the group. There's something like a Walter Hill movie in how we are treated to the ensemble. first they are a single entity without distinguishable qualities between them and only as the film goes on do we find them to be individuals. The plot point you're concerned of is just there in my experience of viewing the film just accelerates that aspect.

If Beckett had written a "western"
or set a play in the "Old West"

You've got me in suspense, what would happen?