Wind River

A story "inspired by true events" of a bunch of white guys gang-raping an AmerIndian girl. Except this true event as portrayed in the film never happened. It is merely based on the abstract notion that thousands of Indian women are raped on reservations. But to quote Donald Trump "who is doing the raping?" Mostly other AmerIndian guys. This is the kind of chutzpah that we have come to expect from The Weinstein Company.

I thought it was a pretty decent movie. Not great but decent. Why are you butthurt again?

Rape is an integral part of Indian culture.

It was a good rape scene though

Pretty good movie. As usual OP is a faggot

>white people have never raped indians
This is pretty weak bait

If you thought this movie was anything above mediocre you should go back to Sup Forums, irrespective of whatever perceived political reading you have of the movie

fuck off

You know what pissed me off? The fucking director talked all about the plight of indian women and shit and at the end i check for the girl coz she was hot. It turns out the girl is fucking chinese. The nerve of that fucker.

Wasn't one of the rapists Amerindian? And Pete looked mixed to me.

>DUDE LET'S RAPE THOT LMAO
>DUDE LET'S BEAT HER BOYFRIEND TO DEATH LMAO
>DUDE LET'S KILL SOME COPS AND AN FBI AGENT LMAO
>WHY? BECAUSE WE ARE BORED LMAO
capeshit villains have better motivations than this
garbage fucking flick

This movie was so disappointing in every way. I waited to watch it for over a year and dear God was it terrible.

SOme of the worst dialogue I've heard this year in a tryhard oscar bait film. Terrible framing. Terrible music. Horrible editing, both moment to moment and overall story pacing. Just so bad.

The characters were some of the worst too. It felt like some high schooler saw Sicario and wanted to make something just as le edgy and failed miserably.

There were shots where it was so painfully obvious that theyt couldnt get both actors in the scene to be there at the same time on the same day, so you'd hear an entire convo with literally only one person in a wide shot and the other presumably standing righgt off the edge of the frame. There were songs that literally spelled out the themes.

There's a flashbakc that butchers the suspense of literally the only good scene in the entire film and drags for 10-15 minutes to show the event that sets the film's action into motion, that I have no idea why it was left in the film. I think Sheridan overestimated his own skills grossly and thought that he could direct the fuck out of that sequence or something and that it would the whole film oh so much more impactful. Someone shouldve said less is more to that fucker cuz up until that point, despite the shittiness of the film and the sense that no one involved in its making seemed to give a shit, I still did. I cared about the central intrigue and even tho the character motivations for the few characters that actually did have any motivations were run of the mill to the point of making my head hurt, I still gave a shit because I kept imagining some really fucked up backstory to the case that sets off the film. But then you see some shit that Sheridan includes and you just don't give a fuck anymore. If he'd left it up to audience imagination it would've worked so much better and shaved off 10 minutes as well. Prolly woulda saved some money too.

I saw nothing but positive threads about this film until a week ago.
What changed?

This movie has the most forced dialogue in motion pictures ever and I'm not memeing

I can't fucking believe Cannes awarded this guy best director. Idk if it's historically been a shitty festival but goddamn this is oscar tier decisionmaking imo. P sure Weinstein mustve pulled some crazy fucking strings to get that award to kickstart oscar buzz for the film. Now that plan is bust for obvi reasonsand Taylor fucking Sherdian has a best director award from Cannes. David Mackenzie and Denis Villeneuve, the only people whose teams have managed to extract something good out of his shit work don't have any awards from Cannes, and that fucker has best director. I fucking hate cinema.

>It was a good rape scene though
>movie doesn't show the actual rape
Why do people here pretend to watch movies?

No you are not I can attest to that and I was hyped for this film for over a year. Taylor Sheridan is a fucking hack whose involvemenmht in projects is best kept to a minimum. Literally the best parts of Sicario and HOHW are the ones that dropped his ideas for new stuff written by the other people working on the films.

It does show the rape though, just not the genitals.
Why do people here pretend to watch movies?

No rape was shown. There was knock unconscious and then they flashed back to present day.

This was a good fucking movie. I'm fucking Sup Forums and I liked it.
First time for ages where there was an actual tough female character that was actually tough and didn't go fuck all men teehee and shit.

kek, you must have watched some cencored chink cut or something

There's no rape scene. If there were this board would've been spamming it from now until the end of time along with that Irreversible scene.

>Wasn't one of the rapists Amerindian? And Pete looked mixed to me.

well to be fair, all the indians are too drunk or uneducated to even act

Shot from the rape scene. Starts at 1:46:45.

There is a rape scene - and people have posted the webm in Wind River threads.
The camera focuses on the girl's upper half as she's bent over the bed, getting anally raped.

Living by a reservation up in northern Canada, I can confirm that its indians raping indians and just not talking to the police about anything. The number of "missing persons" that are just women who have been killed on the res and disposed of is shocking.

Wind River is great.

Don't know what OP is smoking. The rape scene made sense.

I think Wind River is a good film, but the thing with Cannes and the mentality of film ciritics is they think if a film is visually interesting, that is "shallow", so the more basic and average the direction, the higher they praise it.

Directors like Loach and Leigh have built entire careers out of directing in the most boring way imaginable.

Literally just saw it last week there;s a rape scene idk why anons like you do this shit

I've never met a white person who has. Have You?

Why do you think it's a good film when it obviously has so many shortcomings in the most basic of filmmaking elements? What worked well and why?

>when it obviously has so many shortcomings in the most basic of filmmaking elements
You've not given any shortcomings. Saying "Terrible [SOMETHING]" without elaboration is worthless criticism.

I think Renner, Olsen, Birmigham, Bernthal, and Greene all give very strong performances.

The direction is good in the mace scene, and in the stand-off, and in some of the landscapes. The film is at its best in the character interactions, and at its weakest in the plot-focused scenes.

Its vaginal rape

Yes i have

How can you tell? Would it not be easier to do it from the front if that was the case?

The medical examiner said she had vaginal tearing
>wouldn’t it be easier from the front
I forget how many virgins lurk here

Wait...Hawkeye and Scarlet Witch spinoff?!

I wrote all of this But Ive been in similar threads before. Usually they're about snyder films. It's never enough for fans of the films, no matter how specific I get. but yeah this is what I wrote and theres more but Ive been up all night so this is all Ive written. What did you like about the film?

Yeah, make sure to stay to the end of the credits for the post-credits scene.

It's very cool.

Goodness me I hope it was like the first Avengers movie where they were all eating Sharma silently!

What was wrong with the shawarma scene

>lurk here
I'll have you know I go out of my way to actively post regardless of my virginal ignorance.

>the stand-off
I thought that was the only good scene in the entire film.

I thought Renner's acting couldn't save a shittily written one-dimensional character. Sheridan has a knack fro writing the same "oh look at me Im a guy with a dark past and Im a literal perfect shot with no flaws and more awesome skills than the fucking Taken guy but its okay Im totally not a power fantasy self insert because look I have this dark past and Im very very hurt and sensitive too so its okay". Only differnce is Sicario and HOHW had directors that made it work.

Olsen's character was a meaningless retread of Emily Blunt from Sicario. Literally just keeps saying "she ran 6 miles" over and over and then crying everytime she sees another miserable Native person doing some miserable shit. Her "survival" didn't feel earned at all, and the speech taht Renner gives her at the end about how SHE was the one who survived ON HER OWN felt half like a participation trophy for the character and half like an attempt at allaying feminists and SJWs in the audience by adding some half heareted and poorly done female empowerment.

I think the Bernthal sequence shouldnt have been included at all. It totally killed my interest in the case because it no longer was this horrifying thing that happened and left these mutilated bodies stranded in the cold snow in its wake. But I'll concede that he was pretty solid even tho his dialogue was just as cringe as every other main character's, if not more.

It might sound like iIm hating on you for liking the film becaue of how much Im writing but feel free to let me know why you liked what you liked.

You wrote this
>SOme of the worst dialogue I've heard this year in a tryhard oscar bait film. Terrible framing. Terrible music. Horrible editing, both moment to moment and overall story pacing. Just so bad.
>The characters were some of the worst too. It felt like some high schooler saw Sicario and wanted to make something just as le edgy and failed miserably.
Which is what I based my post on. Saying something is bad and not elaborating is useless.
I liked the film because the direction and acting perfectly encapsulated the theme. I found Olsen completely believable as an agent with little experience in a place she doesn't belong. Renner and Birmingham both perfectly capture the characters isolation - not just from where they are (the shots of the vast emptiness with nothing but snow for miles already covered that, giving me a chilly feeling despite watching it just after summer) but from who they are. Both are from cultures (Indians and cowboys) that are dead, lost to the modern world - just as they are, being on the margins of society. The two opposing cultures living together and looking out for each other, because there's no one else to do it, was intriguing to me. The final scene where Birmingham confesses to Renner that he has no idea if he's put on the make up correctly, because there's no one to tell him otherwise, was a perfect ending. The message at the end seemed ham-fisted, even though it's an interesting fact

>Both are from cultures (Indians and cowboys) that are dead, lost to the modern world - just as they are, being on the margins of society. The two opposing cultures living together and looking out for each other, because there's no one else to do it, was intriguing to me.
That's an interesting takeaway. Still doesnt change the fact that Renner's character was a power fantasy self-insert with literally no actual flaws and just the typical "my dark past" baggage that Sherdians male characters tend to have.

You're right my post didnt mention specifics. I hated the score because there were songs that spelled out the themes that played over scenes where they werent needed. It wasnt like icing on the cake, like the songs in HOHW. That movie was practically part musical. And its original music was a very consciously included source of contrast to the more traditional songs included in the score. In Wind River, lyric music played once or twice and it was the most on the nose in your face shit ever. Even the tone of voice of the singers was this tryhard Tom Waits type of thing.

The biggest example of poorly thought out structural editing was the inclusion of the flashback whihc imo killed the suspense of not only the case and its backstory but also of the standout sequence. In terms of moment to moment editing, and framing, the camera was just amateurish and unmotivated in far too many scenes. One of the worst examples I can recall is a shot that dollies toward Olsen in one scene and then overshoots before awkwardly whipping back to her. It wasn't artistically motivated and I can't imagine why they couldnt just take the time to reshoot it. Again, anyone could come up with a reason for why that works (it's supposed to be amateurish cuz she's an amateur) but then you'd be propping the film as a whole up on a host of equally tenuous rationalizations instead of going for the more likely truth which is that Sheridan really doesnt know how to make a subtle film.

>Still doesnt change the fact that Renner's character was a power fantasy self-insert with literally no actual flaws and just the typical "my dark past" baggage that Sherdians male characters tend to have.
I don't see that as a big deal - it was what his character represented, and the interactions that he had with other characters that I liked.
>score/soundtrack
I don't remember it to be honest. I'm pretty sure I've got some kin of dementia because I just rarely remember stuff like that anymore. You might not be wrong about the soundtrack, but it didn't make me think 'damn, this is a bad movie'.
The movie isn't without flaws, the complete abandonment of Renner's family in the film is a rather glaring flaw. I didn't find those flaws to be anywhere close to severe enough to detract from what the movie did well.
>The biggest example of poorly thought out structural editing was the inclusion of the flashback which imo killed the suspense of not only the case and its backstory but also of the standout sequence.
I found that flashback quite startling to be honest. The transition was great and I really didn't expect it. I can't agree that it killed the suspense or gave unnecessary backstory or anything really, the movie never really tried to hide who the villains were. When the drillers draw their guns initially (before putting them away) I'm pretty sure you're meant to be certain they're responsible, that their explanation for it is bollocks.
I can see that some people would have rather just seen Olsen get shot rather than have the flashback, but I thought the transition was startlingly done, which made it really stand out.
I won't pretend I know anything about camera techniques to comment on those - if something stood out as being particularly bad (or even good) I don't remember it.

...

...

Bumkino

...

I watched the korean rip and this scene was not shown, damn chink censors

Cuddle bait.

Yeah, regarding the flashback - I think it's because it just lessened the horror of the whole situation to me. Like if they didn't show it I could just imagine it as being this incredibly evil thing that happened.

But thanks for the reasonable back and forth user. Always appreciate the rare instances when that happens on this site.

It was also not that good of a film.

It was decent.

Sheridan has a habit of retreading similar concepts, characters, and story beats. This film was very similar to Sicario in these aspects. He's also very obvious with his film's themes, as they're spelled out to the audience in ham fisted ways. There were some good moments, like the Native American dad, but they're few and far between.

Needed more Avengers.

It was okay
It was not nearly as good as Sicario or Hell or high water

did you know american indians would cut the feet off runaway slaves that they captured.

olsen is a great parallel to blunt in sicario and also a great example of how sicario handled it much better. They're both fish out of water characters but in sicario the majority of the movie is told through blunts perspective. The audience shares her confusion and the intrigue of exposing the larger plot, despite her general ineffectiveness. But in wind river, the movie is presented through renners perspective, theres also no hidden agenda of olsens allies. Her inexperience serves no narrative purpose, shes just annoying.

>Why do people here pretend to watch movies?

It was a great neo-western about the harsh life in reservations and how crushingly depressive it is, so people turn to alcoholism, drugs, rape, even murder. Stop forcing your ideological bullshit into it.

>because we are bored
No, they weren't bored, they were lonely, depressed and drunk, and seeing a damn fine Native American piece of ass made them do the atrocities they got killed for at the end.

godly

>DUDE WOLVES LMAO
The movie was good, but a bit too overwritten. Renner kept throwing nonstop "deep" one liners with literally everyone no matter the context.

Sheridan is a decent writer though and knows how to make the setting a character, but he should really give the directing to someone else.
Not much use of the visual medium, just like in Hell or High Water.

Wait you guys thought this movie was good?
Now I remember why I can't take any opinion posted here seriously

well it wasn't bad.

>It was a great neo-western about the harsh life in reservations
It was okay.

Much weaker then hell or high water

Stop repeating this every thread, it's pathetic. The movie was fine

>Her inexperience serves no narrative purpose
Her inexperience serves to highlight just how isolated Renner and the Indians are from the rest of civilisation.

Good movie but I was hoping it was something super natural in it instead

He's right though, Sheridan inserts all these one-liners into his movies that sound like a writer trying to be clever.

Not that guy, but its a true statement. Not sure if it was the direction or that the script needed a bit more cooking but this was just good, not great. It had a lot of issues.

And this comes from a guy who loves neo-westerns. its a solid 6.5-7/10. But it not No country for old men/Sicario/Hell or high water

I personally don't mind those. at least he's trying.

have you ever seen a Western from the 40s-60s? they're all "overwritten" or unnaturally quippy. those are the types of films that most influenced Sheridan.

I'm a fan of John Ford movies and those movies, while definitively "adventurous" with the dialogue, also do not try to be incredibly edgy.

you can see that she loved it

>MASK out of fucking nowhere

poor guy tho

he didn't win best director you retarded fucking nigger.

the best Westerns from that era are incredibly edgy.

have you seen Man Of The West? that deals with rape and has some really intense scenes that prefigures stuff like Straw Dogs and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. it's also one of the best from that era

>have you seen Man Of The West?
no but I doubt it actually shows the rape.

You two aren't familiar enough with men from older generations or haven't watched enough noir.

it doesn't, but it was the 50s. It's probably the closest you could get for a mainstream film during the Code era.

still a genius film though. definitely check it out.