Well thanks everyone for taking time to watch my selection. Like many of you I vaguely remember seeing this film years ago. I remembered the premise and some of the scenery/cinematography which seemed like enough of a reason to revisit it.
It's hard not to be drawn in by the opening of this film (unless you're like my girlfriend who immediately demanded we stop watching). That rare steak in front of our supposed military hero lets us know what type of film we're in for. I think that's one of the best parts of this film. It's got style. Most of you guys have pointed out the flaws of the director, namely most of the action scenes, but it's unfortunate that this was her last major film. It's hard to watch this film and not see promise. At times the film falls into traditional fight scenes when it could have kept with a more visual style. Wikipedia tells me that Bird was the 3rd director on the film so maybe that effected some of this.
I also agree with my fellow reviewers that it was great to see a film about cannibalism from another perspective. The film did a good job of mixing a pioneer story (the Donner party) with native stories, in a time when the 2 were colliding. Gaining power from eating your victims has popped up from time to time in films and mythology. The immortality of the wendingos reminded me of vampire films where the damned learn to embrace their powers. A unique and refreshing idea.
Where many are confused by the humor of the film, I thought it was mostly used to convey the madness of the characters. Cannibals are some sick people and I would imagine they have a pretty sick sense of humor. Especially when they're borderline immortal.
One of the things that struck me the most in the film was the story arc. It rises and falls only to rise and fall again. This unique story arc puts the viewer on edge. You never know when the story will take another direction. Something I'd like to see more of, especially in suspenseful films.
Ultimately, the movie misses when it pulls punches and succeeds when it is confident in itself.
Good point about the humor, well said. Still, what exactly is the point of him posing as this survival victim, only to reappear as this general? I was thinking afterwards his commander was also involved, (seen tasting the stew) so was it like a cannibal takeover of that fort, or something else, or just something nonsensical?
ReplyDeleteMaybe to cover up for his crimes perhaps? That was the idea I got.
ReplyDeleteI thought the survival victim act was his standard method of getting into camps and doin his thing. When he wasn't able to seal the deal he returns as the general to finish the job.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's a stretch?
That sounds like it would be a lot more logical. With little communication out there in the west at the time it would have been easy to do such things.
ReplyDeleteokay i can buy that, and good point about the communication too
ReplyDelete