Les Colons

The film is not bad, but the poverty and suffering of a people and natives are shown in a very gentle way and everything seems poetic, without any particular fervor. I gave 7, because of the other things, especially because of photography, but all together it is less than 7. Why? Mostly because of American-English cast. They are more for a TV show than for the big screen of the cinema. Given that this is Galvez's debut, it must be noted that he really committed to being as faithful as possible to the depiction of his country's history, not too aggressive, but still quite poetically mild. In any case, the cruel and murderous attitude of the colonists towards the natives was shown.

I did not know anything about this parrt of Chile history. This movie begins like a western, with a scheme rather close to TOM HORN, where it is impossible to say who is the good character and who is the villain. This amazing film is not destined to wide audiences, as you can guess, and it is quite painful, depressing, disturbing, but so close to actual facts. I really loved this picture, a so amazing, lesson of history. It definitely deserved to be told. It is rough, gritty, and divided in two parts actually. That's exactly the kind of film that I search for from Latin America or Us or European indie film industries.

First of all, there are some people here who have absolutely no idea about any Chilean history. This particular story is not real, but everything you see in the movie did happen, and more, muuuuch more. I am Chilean, or British and Native descent, and I have read on the topic extensively. What European settlers did in Patagonia will blow anyone's mind and this movie is a bit of refreshing justice on a world who chooses to forget. A must watch if you have the guts to face your ancestors history. Not a film for cowards.

I recommend anyone who wants to really know what Europeans did to google a little about it, and you'll find plenty about the Selknam, Alacalufe, Onas, Yaganes and many others who perished to feed and clothe the Europeans of the 19th and 20th century. PS: some wrote that is about the foundation of Chile, which is incorrect. The facts on this movie are hundreds of years after that.

This revisionist western from Chile is a bleak and alarming tale which is based on the very real racism of colonialism, which targeted the indigenous people of that area circa 1900. The story is pretty simple and has a land baron send three men to clear the way for him, an ex-Army Brit, an American mercenary and a Mestizo, who is roped in somewhat uneasily due to his shooting skills. There are a minimal number of set-pieces which are based around the over-riding scenario of a genocide of a people whose misfortune was to live in a place landmarked for sheep.

It's mostly an ugly and brutal film, with a particularly depressing encounter where a group of natives are murdered and a woman raped. But the point is to show the horrors of colonialism in this land and what crimes were committed in its name. The story latterly also looks at how the authorities, under the guise of good intentions, buried the grim truth and promoted an idealistic myth. All-in-all, a pretty interesting and disquieting film, which also benefits from some great cinematography of some stunning Patagonian vistas.

Tierra del Fuego early in the twentieth century. A rich Chilean landowner finds that the land can be exploited most profitably by turning it over to vast numbers of sheep. His problem is that the indigenous population aren't too keen on being elbowed aside. His solution is to hire armed guards.

Three of these - a former British soldier, an American hired gun and a. Mestizo chosen because he can shoot straight - are sent to find "A route to the Atlantic." Off they set, through awe-inspiring scenery wonderfully photographed ... and that's it.

They have three encounters. First with an Argentinian survey team, second with a group of indigenous people, third with a group headed by another former British soldier, whose motives are unclear. The first encounter is comedic, the second and third brutal.

The problem is that there's no resolution, no coherent story-arc. We cut from three riders on a beach to "Seven years later" when it's revealed that one of the original trio went on to commit other brutal acts on a larger scale, but is no longer living. These acts would've been powerful if shown on screen, but have much less impact when blandly recounted. Nor are the circumstances of the perpetrator's death disclosed. Then the film just ends.

There's much to like here, but the overwhelming feeling is that it could've been so much more.