End of the Rope

The last 20 seconds of the ending film credits tells it all, it is a work of fiction. Sadly, I was really looking forward to this film, as I read the book, but I was really disappointed for many reasons. Both sides of my family for 3 generations lived in the Watford City, ND area, and many generations of both sides of my family are buried in the Schafer Cemetery. I grew-up hearing about the brutal Bannon crimes committed on the Haven family farm, who are also buried in the Schafer Cemetery. The film is entirely too long and slow. The invented fire backstory was fiction, and only made Bannon seem sympathetic, which historically he was not! Charles Bannon, by my relatives firsthand accounts, was a greedy, ruthless murderer of men, women, and children. The code of silence from the lynching in and around Schafer and Watford City, North Dakota persists until today, almost 93 years later. My grandfather showed me photos of Bannon in a Watford City museum when I was young, and he appeared to be the embodiment of evil. Conversely, the actor in this film looked like an alter boy. This film was a REAL missed opportunity to tell a truly tragic history, and while laws were broken, justice prevailed. Hopefully, someday, there will be a more historically accurate and chilling 'reboot' of this film and story.

It'd be curious that a journalist who covered the case in person at the time was entirely written out of this 'based on a true story' film (they have one guy show up with a camera and he gets shooed off right away - twice, and speaks no lines.), except that this is, at the least, a half-fictionalized account. Meanwhile, it spends a languorous amount of time showing a mob gin itself up with hate-rage inside a church.

There are also no historical facts recorded that 22-yr-old Bannon burned down a family home with three children in it. None. This is adding an extra justification for the hanging that never existed.

The pacing is somewhat uneven, with a few needless stretches of filler content. That stuff could've been replaced by scenes depicting the murdered family members' characters instead. But nope, the victims are totally invisible in this. Any of the action and drama that lead to the crimes being committed is also left out. Was this done out of respect or neglect?

So, it's rather poorly written, and has silly dialogue at times. And, while it's hardly unlikely to have occurred, it just seems ridiculous to hand out badges and guns for a manhunt to what are clearly depicted as a bunch of unruly townie hotheads. One of the actors in the posse couldn't even ride a horse right during the chase scenes.

Also, are they kidding?: The sheriff hands the prisoner a sliced open can with the jagged lid still on it?! Suicidal/homicidal opportunities much? I mean, yeah, they totally didn't protect the accused while in jail IRL, which lead to his death instead of a trial, but Come On!

Sadly, the production overall just isn't very good. It's noticeably amateurish on many levels, but most markedly in the script, direction, and the acting. Chris Bylsma as state attorney Sam Taylor, and Joseph Bezenek as the town's alcoholic, sexist crap-stirrer, Jarvis, give noticeably uneven performances that are less than believable throughout. Joseph Gray is quite good when not directed to be overly stone-faced, anguished, or aggressive.

I can't get over all the movies lately where the music is so loud. This movie the music is louder than the people talking as though it's some kind of musical and the dialogue isn't important! It's a historical account, can the music already! I read the information about the movie on Wikipedia. I was really hoping to get an accurate depiction of the course of events. Once again, though, the music is too loud! Why do the movies always have to do that? I would have given this movie a better review except for that major distraction. It's quite sad about this history of this town and how tempers flare.

After watching a disaster last week I was very cautious this week... this time the Western was watchable and I could say: a pleasant one to watch, regardless the low budget and the length!

In spite of the somewhat harsh lighting and editing, Charlie Griak's cinematography was not too bad, and the actors in this film give a respectful and honest rendition of a disturbingly real-life event, with dialogue that feels genuine rather than the paint-by-numbers dross that has become the norm in Hollywood over the past ten years.

Unfortunately, I doubt that this film will ever receive the 'box office' respect that its effort deserves... so, enjoy it while it's still out there...

First thing first. Objectively speaking, the movie is good on all technical levels. It's also a good re-telling of an historical fact.

I've read someone saying "the fire at the beggining is all fiction" this is not true. The fiction is that being the sheriff's family. But it's recorded "the Schafer community also believed Bannon murdered three children of another family he had worked for and burnt their house". You can even google this if you don't believe me.

So basically, the adaptation of real facts is not "fiction" in a way that deserves critique. All movies based on a true story "stretch" the truth a bit to fit it in the narrative. But overall, you can't tell me this movie doesn't actually attempt to depict the facts of the town with sincerity.

It should be told, that the movie doesn't take a strong stance regarding lynching and the death penalty. It just narrates the story, and shows you the grim reality of it all. There's no propaganda involved. It's very objective in this regard, which I respect.

It's not a movie I regret watching. But It's not a movie I'll rewatch a lot. Everything on it was good. But you can't the deny the movie is slow. Too slow for it's own good. The movie would've worked better with a runtime of 1h:30 minutes. Or as a miniseries divided into three weekly episodes. It's a good docu-film. It's just not a fun movie to watch. You can watch the first hour easily. But I had to watch the second hour the day after.