Les premiers colons

Chris Farley had his last leading role here, in a feature released five months after his death. A great epitaph it is not, but it does showcase him in the kind of role he was obviously born to play. Bartholomew Hunt is a rowdy tracker hired by effete adventurer Leslie Edwards (Matthew Perry) in 1804 America. Edwards hopes to make a name for himself beating Lewis & Clark to the Pacific Ocean. Hunt & Edwards set out for the coast, in the company of various other kooks and half-wits. They must deal with Indian tribes, a bear, an eagle protecting its nest, and an arrogant Conquistador named Hidalgo (Kevin Dunn).

Both Farley and Perry are well-cast in what amounts to a fairly enjoyable comedy. Like a lot of comedies, it has its share of gags that work and those that don't. One might consider this an off-day for veteran writer / performer / director Christopher Guest, who'd started his string of "mockumentaries" with "Waiting for Guffman" the previous year. But it's all put across by an enthusiastic bunch of actors, with supporting players like Dunn, a hilarious Eugene Levy as a French "language expert" named Fontenot, Hamilton Camp, and Patrick Cranshaw tending to steal the show. A tantalizing Lisa Barbuscia is the love interest for Perry, playing Fontenots' Indian wife. Bokeem Woodbine, as Edwards' slave, is unfortunately under-utilized.

Various familiar faces - Don Lake, Lewis Arquette, Christian Clemenson, and Brent Hinkley - turn up, and Guests' longtime colleague Harry Shearer does the opening narration. Michael McKean is credited as "project consultant".

A decent attempt at creating the period, lovely photography, and use of various wilderness locales all help in making this pleasant enough to watch, if also rather easy to forget. At the least, it may make a viewer interested enough to read up on Lewis & Clark, as it pokes fun at details of their own historic journey.

Six out of 10.

This is the kind of movie you need to watch more than once to appreciate. I'd never go so far as to say this is a "good" movie, on the contrary, its a very bad movie, and thats what makes it funny. No one seems to be able to appreciate the humor in the poor writing and acting that make this movie hilarious. Watch Farley's battle with the eagle a few times and you'll see the humor. Watch the gauntlet with creamed corn and tell me thats not funny because of its sheer ridiculousness. I say people need to lighten up and respect this movie for what it is, a harmless farce that allows for some cheap laughs at physical humor and absurd dialog.

In 1804, President Thomas Jefferson commissioned Lewis and Clark to explore the newly acquired Louisiana Territory and find a route to the Pacific. Other explorers followed Lewis and Clark but didn't become famous--if you believe this movie.

Among these less well-known explorers was Leslie Edwards, who seemed too much of a spoiled rich kid to spend time in the untamed wilderness--which is why he tried at first to take all the comforts of home with him, including a slave. He needed an expert tracker, but for some reason he had to settle for a man who was in the process of being hanged for drunk and disorderly conduct that included forcing a military officer to waltz. Supposedly, President Jefferson had commuted that sentence, but the signature could have been forged.

The rest of the crew was nothing to brag about. In fact, a number of them, after hearing they would have to travel upstream, wanted to take the easy way out and go to New Orleans instead. One old geezer simply wanted to see the Pacific but got out of doing any work because he was ... well, old. Guy Fontenot claimed to know all the languages of the Indian tribes the group would encounter. But the first time he was called on to translate, he explained that the language was one he didn't know. He brought along the Indian maiden Shaquinna and was insanely jealous whenever anyone would even look at her.

Along the way to the Pacific, our heroes encountered a number of strange Indians and even stranger villains such as Hidalgo. They also visited a full-fledged community established by whites--highly unlikely, but then, this wasn't supposed to be historically accurate.

This was a very funny movie, but whether it was quality depends on one's interpretation. For me, this was quite entertaining. Some examples: Bidwell loses an ear, and Pratt picks it up and speaks into it--for the rest of the movie--believing Bidwell will be able to hear him. And Hunt climbed a tree to get an eagle's egg--three times. I won't say why it had to be three times, or why he really regretted the second and third trips. But it was the highlight of the whole movie. There was also a scene where an Indian kept slapping the white men because they did not respect his customs. Or was that the real reason? And the entire movie was filled with physical comedy such as falling off cliffs.

One criticism--if Matthew Perry was supposed to have a British accent, or at least the accent of New England aristocracy, he seemed to forget in the more strenuous scenes.

The objective was to get to the Pacific before Lewis and Clark. Did they? Of course I can't say. I can say that from a distance in several scenes, we could see what appeared to be two men and an Indian woman, and a dog. Whether they made it or not, the effort was certainly one to be enjoyed.

As an amateur historian who has read extensively about the settlement of North America and The Corp of Discovery, I really liked this movie. While decidedly a comedy and parody of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, I found it to be surprisingly accurate. My reasons for this opinion are: 1) The costumes and accoutrements were right on. How many times since Davy Crockett have you seen a flintlock actually fire in a movie? The lodges were from Panther Primitives and Farley's pistol is an early 1800's Harper's Ferry. 2) The crew members all had distinct personalities. The members of the Corp of Discovery varied from well educated to nearly illiterate though all were accomplished at their respective skills. 3) Anyone who has ever been on a long term encampment will remember humorous events. 4) There were other explorers and adventurers on the Missouri in 1803-1806. 5) The dialog, while humorous, is accurate to the time and circumstances. If you read between the lines, you'll actually come away with a picture of 1804 North America that is surprisingly accurate rather than politically correct.

I know that a lot of people hated this movie, but I'm commenting in defense of it. This movie may not have been Chris Farley's nor Matthew Perry's best work, but it is funny. I laughed a few times when I watched it the first time, in fact overall I like the darn movie, even though it's not as good as Farley's other funny works like "Tommy Boy", and "Black Sheep".

Please give this movie a chance. You might like it.