Surrounded

I was pleasantly surprised with 'Surrounded' since I expected the same hackneyed cliches which, yes, were there, but modified into a watchable movie. The director did an amazing job of balancing those very cliches into well portrayed performances by one and all. There were interesting character studies which included both the protagonist and 'the bad guy'. Is anyone all good or all bad? Depending on the circumstances, are we all capable of sliding between those two moral opposites? The cinematography was well done and landscape scenes downright beautiful. If you are willing to watch a western that not only has the gunfights but asks you to explore the motivations behind the action, give 'Surrounded' a try.

What's wrong with you people ? Why all the bad reviews?? I found it instead very entertaining, well acted and with a very effective direction. Finally a wonderful and stylish modern western, a tale of suspicion and survival in post civil war New Mexico. Letitia Wright is super cool, Jamie Bell delivers a great performance and it's Michael K. Williams last movie, so what are you waiting for ? The three main characters Mo "Washington", Tommy Walsh and Will Clay have layers of complexity addressing racial and gender inequality, anger, suspicion, trustworthiness and faith that will get out during the memorable stand-off with the notorious outlaw. Despite a low budget and a lot of dialogues that in the central part makes the movie looks like almost as a play, there is a lot of action and firepower that won't disappoint any western fan. The cinematography is superb and the locations are great. It definitely worths to be watched, don't miss it.

Surrounded surprises. In the very beginning, you get the feeling that this is going to be yet another Hollywood movie aimed at teaching the audience a lesson on intersectionality in a historical setting. We get a lot of those from Hollywood these days, and suffice it to say that in their self-satisfaction, pedagogical arrogance and commercial intent, they rarely impress.

But in a few minutes, Surrounded takes a different turn. It uses the condition of Mo Washington (a black woman in the Far West) as a true dramatic lever, creating real tension and interest in the character and the story, and it even links it to cinematic history with abundant references to classic Western films (such as Stagecoach or The Searchers), as if saying that one can both see the injustices in history and also appreciate its beauty. It then adds the possibility of a relationship between this woman and a feared bandit (Tommy Walsh, a white man) who becomes her prisoner, cleverly inverting for a few scenes the traditional balance of power between white men and black women. And it even affords the luxury of adding ambiguity on what's right and what's wrong, who's noble and who's evil, by introducing a bounty hunter character and extracting a sense of humanity and victimhood from Tommy Walsh, and making him a potential savior for Mo, while also her main threat. This type of ambiguity, so rare in Hollywood productions today, adds a ton of dramatic interest to the story.

In that effort, Surrounded loses nothing of its political or society message. On the contrary, the message of historic oppression of black and female populations in the past is only reinforced by the reality of the characters and the intelligence of the scenes. In that first half of the film, Laetitia Wright is amazing as a ruthless woman cowboy, reflecting both the strength and contradictions of her character with depth that almost makes you forget the platitude of the Marvel character that she built her fame on.

Unfortunately, Anthony Madler (the filmmaker) seems to throw the towel in the second half of the film, creating a predictable and somewhat silly second half of the film that is more reminiscent of Rambo than of great Westerns in film history. The depth of the story, the mystery of Mo fall down like a soufflé, and all you're left with is just another B-series Western for a lazy Sunday afternoon. It's too bad. It could have been so much more.

I found this enjoyable, it shows the harsh reality of the West, racism in a post-Civil War world and the moral ambiguity of people trying to survive on the frontier. If top reviewer thinks people didn't have conversation along those lines they're wrong. This is rw brain rot setting in. Cinematography was good, a few beautiful shots of the American wilderness, action scenes decent though I don't place particular stock in that. I would have liked to see a bit more with the Comanche (and with subs). It kept me entertained and it was suspenseful enough to not get distracted with movies w/this score. I'd watch something similar again and it's better than a 5.6. Women fought in the Civil War as men. Fact. Deal with it. Triggered rw snowflakes get upset at the mere sight of woman or black person in movies now and downvote things with their Cheeto-encrusted fingers. Fact...and it's ruined ratings. Your place is slowly slipping and I laugh.

I'm writing this given the limited number of reviews, obviously skewed by those likely associated with the film writing gross exaggerations (worthy of awards etc.) and 1 viewer whose written essentially the same review with a 1 rating three times.

Cinematography is very good, plot has a few good twists that keep up the suspense. For me there were 3 glaring times that essentially "speeches" were awkwardly worked into the dialogue on race, feminism, etc. That really disrupted the continuity and credibility.

On the credibility front the slight female lead proceeds to kill about a dozen men, claims to have been the best soldier in the Union army during the civil war (a war in which physical strength mattered) and at the end chooses to violate the very values she refused to compromise for the entire movie despite great risk and pressure.

It's a mixed bag from my perspective but an interesting watch for a number of reasons.