The Timber

Frustratingly incomprehensible. Meh. I don't know why young directors like long, pretentious pauses between phrases in the dialogue. Even more puzzling is why actors of the cell phone & video generation mumble & slur their lines inaudibly with affected Brando- like breathiness. Why is it de rigueur these days to shoot quick unexpected of camera cut sequences of puzzling esoteric views that resemble a Georgia O'Keeffe landscape? After 30 minutes of this kind of desultory visual rambling, one grows catatonic relative to what trickiness will come next...the eyes widen and pinwheel...the mind numbs & wanders off... But it's all damn irritating for those of us who actually expected a good tale, well-told. (All these sophomoric devices seemingly serve to cover up the lack of a good script and the absence of a worthwhile story.) This soporific "western" resembles a film school project more than a work meant for human consumption. Presumptuously pretentious, "The Timber" fails at almost every level that I've come to expect of film, except the yawn quotient.

Very different than the norm, normally wouldn't do westerns, or made for video movies. This is probably worth a watch. It shows that a modern day perspective on bankers may not really be too short of what happened in the past but without the violence and the guns and that its easy enough to be shoved into an uncomfortable corner or a place you wouldn't want to be. there's survival in the winter wild outback, the journey, the cold and the hunger too there's also survival in the home, the family and a new born. foreclosure happens in many ways and for many reasons Even in the simplest of these situations lives and relationships are destroyed forever

The Timber is directed by Anthony O'Brien and O'Brien co-writes the screenplay with Steve Allrich and Colin Ossiander. It stars James Ransome, Josh Peck and William Gaunt. Music is by Tim Borquez and cinematography by Phil Parmet.

Two brothers set off on a mission through the snowy wilderness...

The Timber is one of those films that's baffling yet intriguing. One only has to look at some amateur review sites to see that it's reviled and adored in equal measure. Depending on what side of the fence you sit, it's either a misunderstood (and under appreciated) art house Western venture, or a badly edited and incomprehensible mess.

The two brothers played by Ransome and Peck are on a mission to capture their estranged father (Gaunt) who has gone psycho after his Yukon gold well has run dry. This point of reference is not instantly apparent and is quite frankly vague and almost lost in the surreal mix. Upon their journey they encounter problems and weird characters, all this while they also contend with the ghosts of their pasts (for all we know they might actually be ghosts anyway!). The narrative is choppy, punctured by irritatingly long periods of pointless silence, and there seems to be gaps where something else should be formed, thus giving the impression that it was filmed on the fly with mucho improv.

Of course it could well be the intention of the makers was to deliberately make a nightmare/dreamy Apocalypse Now style Oater, and that many of us just don't get it? Or it really is a case of ideas above their station? What isn't in doubt is that it's magnificently photographed, a snowy Western filmed on location in the Carpathian Mountains is a thing to cherish, whilst it is undoubtedly a fascinating production, but conversely it's almost impossible to recommend with confidence. Roll the dice and take your chance... 4/10

This movie was pretty interesting and well-shot in some very scenic, snow-covered mountain locations; however, some of the scenes were a little too vague and unclear as to what actually happened. Perhaps the director wanted to "challenge" the audience in an artistic manner...or maybe the producer told the director to cut the time of the film by about thirty minutes; whatever the reason, the end result was a lot of scenes that didn't really make sense. There was a scene in a cave where it looked like someone got killed...but I'm not really sure who or why. There were several scenes that stopped just before the action started, only to show the aftermath later on, leaving the viewer to piece together what had happened. Overall, I still liked the film; it had a talented cast and an interesting plot.

Does anyone in this day and age know the difference between what we all call a Western and what should be called a movie about early settler days? This movie was not written, produced or directed as a western. Its simply a movie that depicted how tough life was for our ancestors when they tried to spread out about this great country. There was very little in the way pf law and order in some areas while others that were more densely populated enjoyed what we call law and order. All in all I thought it was a terrific show but I agree it was a little slow and you could start to lose interest, but just then something unexpected would happen and life went on with some major change. If people would read this review first they would more fully understand the meaning of the movie and better enjoy it. I am not claiming to be a movie critic nor an expert at all, just someone who enjoys a good movie and good acting. Thanks to you all.