Gold

I remember very well the feeling I had when I walked out of the theater after watching "Gold" : the movie was so realistic that I couldn't get out of my mind life's knocks during the particular era of the movie - and how lucky I was to live in Europe these days, have a secure job, a house and loving family.

"Gold" deals with a common story of the 19th century in North America : a trek of settlers decide to go up north in search for gold. The variety of characters makes it easy to identify with a least one : there is the lonely guy, the intriguing girl, the elderly couple, the crook ... the harshness of nature and human behavior point out their vulnerability but can also reveal their pugnacity and strong character.

Everything seems to match in "Gold" : the beautiful landscapes without any track of man, the very discreet music, the simplicity of these settlers' habits, the whole making this movie quite fascinating. I absolutely recommend it to anyone willing to see what a contemporary western could be.

Well, it shore is pretty. Little reason to watch this implausible movie, unless, like me, you're a fan of Nina Hoss and you like to watch beautiful scenery.

The trip itself is plausible enough. Plenty of fools made their way to Alaska for this second gold rush. There is even another movie (a better movie) about a similar subject called 'The Far Country' with Jimmy Stewart. But what happens along the way, and the way it is plotted and executed is absurd and comical.

Woe if you were a horse in this movie. Or one of the actors forced to speak the stiff dialog. The two main characters, Nina Hoss as Emily and Marco Mandic as Bohmer are believable enough, but tripped up by a silly plot. It's always difficult to make a movie about a long arduous trip without it seeming artificially episodic and here, the director and screenwriter, have failed.

RELEASED IN 2013 and written & directed by Thomas Arslan, "Gold" covers events in 1898 when a single woman (Nina Hoss) joins a small group of other prospectors heading north through Canada to the Klondike gold fields near Dawson City. Their numbers dwindle as they face challenging hardships.

My title blurb says it all. Just as "Meek's Cutoff" (2010) covered the adversities of traveling in the late 1800s on an alternative route of the Oregon Trail and "The Homesman" (2014) covered journeying from western Nebraska to Iowa, so "Gold" features the challenges of traveling from Ashcroft, BC, where the train tracks end, to Dawson City in the Yukon territories.

Needless to say, "Gold" favors gritty realism to conventional Western staples. Still, there are Indians, Old West boom towns, covered wagons, a possible hanging, alcohol and a believable shootout. I think it's a little more compelling than those other two flicks, although those are worthwhile too if you favor mundane accounts of arduous travel in the Old West. If you'd like to see a more eventful old-fashioned Western covering similar terrain, check out "The Far Country" (1954) with Jimmy Stewart.

I suppose the movie should've contained at least one rain sequence, particularly considering it takes place in the Great Northwest. But shooting in the rain is challenging & costly so the viewer is asked to read in-between-the-lines that they experienced rainy days. The film never shows any of the characters 'going to the bathroom' either, but we're to assume it happened.

A German/Canadian production, THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 41 minutes and was shot in British Columbia, Canada. At least half the dialogue is in German with English subtitles.

GRADE: B

Is this any good? Maybe. It illustrates the difficulty of being among the first in an area, and having to cope when there is no one else around for miles to help. Sometimes there is merely tension, sometimes danger, and sometimes the mood is just plain dismal.

Much of the acting is the same quality as what might be expected when a group sits around the table reading the script for the first time. Some acting is better than that. Even if the acting isn't all that good, the story is good, if you like this sort of thing. I wasn't all that entertained but this just isn't my type of movie.

Though this is supposedly set in 1896, a lot of the "music" sounds more like 1996. It might actually be appropriate but so much of it seems like just noise. Several scenes do benefit from an eerie new age sound that could actually have been performed during the time period, enhancing a very dismal atmosphere. Rossmann does play the banjo, but not nearly enough. He's pretty good, meaning real.

The scenery is beautiful. Some areas don't have trees and don't look quite as good, but that doesn't mean it's not still impressive. Personally I like the trees better than what looks like desert.

I forgot to look for the statement that no animals were harmed. Assuming there was one, a couple of horses do some good stunt work. Or at least someone does a good job of making it look like a horse had an impressive fall.

The movie doesn't quite live up to its title, but it's not too bad, I guess.

Having traveled from british columbia to dawson anyone could see that the initial terrain traveled in the film was inaccurate ... it looked more like the prairies of eastern alberta or eastern montana ... struggles today traveling from vancouver north aren't much different then 120 years ago ... its still about 2300 miles of rugged territory but possible with good planning and a lot of luck ... if you do it, be sure you get to the laird river crossing before late summer rains or you may find yourself mired down with mud ... get past that and dawson is easy ... you can pan for gold anywhere with recreation license ... if you don't have one be prepared to pay a steep fine