SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

I live in Oregon so I was interested in this movie. To bad it went on and on and never ended. It almost starts to go somewhere, it even heads in a direction, but much like the wagon train, it is hopelessly lost. This movie is terrible. It confirms why I never trust the critic's reviews on movies. Only film students and someone obsessed with wagon trains should be forced to watch this film

This is a powerful little film about faith and the lack of it. It is somewhat thinly disguised as a historical western. Although quite poetic in it's expression it is firmly anchored in true historical events. As far as westerns are concerned, director Reichardt certainly breaks all the rules. John Ford and Howard Hawks wouldn't like Meek 's Cutoff, but Ford would understand from the opening scene what it 's all about. It's about people of faith, the pilgrims traveling to the west with no clue about their surroundings, destination let alone destiny, pressing on against the odds pretty much on faith alone.It is a film about leadership crisis. The hired guide of the small wagon train he leads, Stephen Meek, is unsure in a landscape which has dried up since his last visit. He tries to hide his self-doubts by bragging about his past exploits but only makes things worse. The pilgrims begin to see him as a liar and a cheat. Is it a good idea to follow him deeper into the desert or should they turn back to the regular Oregon trail? As water supplies diminish the question becomes one of life and death and inevitably starts to divide the settlers.Here is a film where the characters pray a lot, read the Bible all the time and face temptations and doubts in the desert. Yet none of the reviews here I have read mention religion at all. Really no bells ringing? When the settlers capture a native American who has tracked them, they face the question of what to do with their fellow man. Will they succumb to prejudice or do the Christian thing? Yes it is a film about Christian values as well.Some reviewers complain about lack of character development. Maybe they saw a different film. Michelle Williams convinces as Mrs. Tetherow, a young wife who begins to find her voice to openly challenge Mr. Meek and his set of values. When Meek loses it and intends to kill the Indian prisoner, the viewer will be surprised to see her counter move. "I'd be careful" is a line of hers from that powerful scene that stays in my mind at least. In a film of very sparse dialogue Michelle Williams manages to communicate her thoughts with looks and expressions, great directing and acting here and I would say a lot of character development.The films changes after the capture of the Indian with even more Christian motifs and leadership challenges. Should the settlers follow the unreliable and unsympathetic Mr. Meek or the unknown Indian who doesn't speak their language but knows the land, and should they listen to a woman? Everyone, the native included, now has a lot more to fear in this alien wilderness. Oh yes, this is a film about fear, real fear of unpleasant death hanging very close.I find it very difficult to understand why so many reviewers complain so much about the abrupt ending of the film. Well I was surprised, too. Having never heard of the Meek cutoff I too expected to see what finally happened to the lost wagon train. After all, for once I was watching a western that could end in disaster, death by starvation or native attack, settlers killing the guide, guide killing the settlers, a happy end... anything. Instead you got the end credits all of a sudden! The hints in the final scenes gave some clues. The settlers seemed to have found at least the beginning of the end of the trail. But to make sure I simply looked it up after the film (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meek_Cutoff). After all, I can read. Hey, it is not a secret what happened to the wagon train, to Meek and even to the Indian after the events of the film. Yes, in real life! The film follows, limitations of a small budget withstanding, those historical events fairly faithfully after all. However, I would not look the events up before seeing the film, as history contains spoilers in this case. Some people have seen all this and yet they feel nothing happened in the film. I am sorry but I have to disagree. I was on the edge of my seat a lot and enjoyed it a lot. Few films have a sense of time and place like this. So it's slow, but if a film tells the story of folks walking with their wagons through a highland desert and the timing is realistically right the film just has to be slow. Just adapt to it, after all you are sitting comfortably and have nothing to complain about compared to the people in the desert.

Although defined as a genre, the western has been a diverse one. From the idealized image of the Old West in John Wayne's movies to the revisionist image in the spaghetti westerns to the indictment of big business in Robert Altman's "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" to over-the-top satire in Mel Brooks's "Blazing Saddles", this genre covers many bases. But it is likely that few if any westerns have been like Kelly Reichardt's "Meek's Cutoff". This one portrays a group of pioneers making their way across the west in the 1840s. Their guide claims to know which way they're going, but it's not clear that he does. The pioneers run into a series of problems along the way. Ambiguity arises when they come across an Indian and don't know whether to view him as the enemy or employ him as a guide.There's little dialog in the movie, and some of it is muffled (as though we're not supposed to know what the characters are saying). The only obvious thing is that this group of people is trapped in this barren landscape, not knowing if they'll reach their goal. I suspect that the end is deliberately ambiguous (like the end of John Sayles's "Limbo").This is the first Reichardt movie that I've seen, and it impressed me. It's not a masterpiece, but I liked the unusual look at the Old West. Also, this is an atypical role for Michelle Williams. Far from her glamorous roles, she plays a dowdy individual who fires a rifle if she fears for her life (her bonnet obstructing her side view reflects the lack of connection that the characters with the rest of the world). Co-stars Bruce Greenwood, Paul Dano, Will Patton and Zoe Kazan put in fine performances also. I recommend the movie.

I looked up this film after I saw it mentioned on some internet list of the Top Twenty Five Westerns of the past twenty five years. Along with such heady company as "Unforgiven", Open Range" and "Dances With Wolves", I was expecting at least a compelling story even if it wasn't your traditional shoot 'em up sagebrush saga.Very disappointed. This is a film that ends abruptly and leaves the story's conclusion up to the imagination of the viewer. Fair enough, but given what we've watched for almost two hours, even one's own evaluation comes across as ambiguous because everything we've come to know about the travelers is steeped in ambiguity. Until Emily Tetherow (Michelle Williams) takes her stand against the title character Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood), essentially effecting the 'cutoff' of the story, the rest of the group are basically spineless followers unwilling to make a decision one way or the other regarding their guide's expertise. The men in particular offer no alternatives preferable to simply staying the course, while Meek himself attempts to regale them with past exploits and victories. I'll give the kid Jimmy (Tommy Nelson) a pass because after all, he was just a kid, but at least he showed some initiative by wandering off every now and then to get the lay of the land.Now there's a way to look at this picture that makes it brilliant if you want to take it there. I'm not familiar with Kelly Reichardt's other film work and don't know her politics, but if you want to see the film as an indictment of a political system that's directionless (demonize the party of your choice, it works both ways) in a world fraught with danger, then the movie is spot on. While the citizen/viewer grows increasingly afraid for the direction of the country while it disengages from the world and terrorist tyrants fill the vacuum, it's going to take an Emily Tetherow to make a stand, one way or the other. One path leads to death, the harder path means fighting one's way back to triumph and survival. The easy way gets us where we are now.