Les premiers colons

If I saw this movie with almost anyone else cast in Chris Farley's part I probably, well, would have never seen it in the first place, but if I did I would have given it a lousy review. OK, the movie itself was completely predictable and dumb (not like it was supposed to be intellectual). I think Matthew Perry had't made it to rehab yet because during certain scenes he looks too thin and pale. During others (did they toss both of the leads in rehab halfway through shooting, then continue when they were out?) he looks pretty good. In fact, if you have the hots for Perry, you should definitely see it because he was looking pretty good to me by the end of the movie, and I never thought he was all that hot before. I have a feeling the part of "Edwards" was originally meant for David Spade, but he pulled out.

We saw it opening weekend, Saturday night, and the theater had already split up the movie (and even cut the poster in half! Jerks) with another in the same part of the theater because no-one was showing up. The audience was us and maybe a dozen other Farley fans who sat silently when he wasn't onscreen, then you'd hear us all laugh at the top of our lungs scattered from various parts of the mostly empty auditorium (the laughs were scattered, not our lungs, sorry for the bad grammar) when he did or said something funny. This is not his best movie (he was obviously and sadly on his last legs, but doing his best to give his fans their money's worth)but not his worst. If you're a Farley fan, don't be scared away by the bad reviews, rent it or buy it! The scene where he has to go find an eagle's egg in the wilderness to cure his sick friend is priceless, and so is his comment when he finally brings it back and finds out which part of the egg they needed. Every single review in the media I read said something along the lines of "this is a sad legacy to be Farley's last movie, with this weak performance, blah blah" but I think he could have done a lot worse.

RIP big guy, your fans miss you.

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.

Almost Heroes is a deliberately idiotic movie, and much of its

humor relies on the audience being aware of this. If you don't buy

that the movie is SUPPOSED to be ridiculous and nonsensical,

then you're not going to like it. Otherwise, it is a great Chris

Farley/Christopher Guest vehicle with abundant laughs, often at

the absurd crudity of its humor. There are scenes and dialogue

that come off as cheap attempts at lowbrow humor, when in fact

the real punchline is that you, the viewer, even acknowleged the

humor when it is so utterly tasteless. I, for one, laughed my @$$

off and got overdue fees at my video store because I couldn't stop

watching it.

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.