BEFORE: From North Carolina I head out to Californ-eye-ay tonight, I means to do me a bit of prospectin'. In spirit, of course. Let's not get crazy. Tonight's film clocks in at two hours even, which greatly increases my chances of staying awake. Linking from "Cold Mountain", Donald Sutherland was also in the 1979 film "Revolution" with Nastassja Kinski.
THE PLOT: A prospector sells his wife and daughter to another gold miner for the rights to a gold mine. Twenty years later, the prospector is a wealthy man who owns much of the old west town named Kingdom Come. But changes are brewing and his past is coming back to haunt him.
AFTER: Like last night's film, this one is also based on classic literature - but something a bit more obscure, namely "The Mayor of Casterbridge", by Thomas Hardy. I'll look up that plot separately, but it sounds like something I was supposed to read in 11th grade and bought the Cliffs Notes instead.
This film also carries forward the theme of "desertion" - as a man (in flashbacks) trades his wife and infant daughter to a man in exchange for a gold mine. Men everywhere saw this film and said, "Wait, you can DO that?" JK. But that's what the guy does, trades his wife for a mine. Because there's just no way that can have any repercussions in the future.
But seriously, you should never even consider making a deal like this because as soon as you propose it, you've lost the game. For one thing, if you change your mind, your relationship with your wife is forever tarnished - some things just cannot be forgiven. And if you don't strike gold, you'll always be kicking yourself over what might have been.
Why, for example, can't this guy just get the gold mine next door? Jeez, it's probably just as nice and just as likely to pay off. Or do I not understand how mining for gold works?
Another thing that was very confusing to me - the railroad is coming to town, which is something often seen in these Westerns. And at first it's going to be the best thing that ever happened to the town of Kingdom Come - which makes sense, it will bring more people, supplies, etc. But then the railroad executives talk about the town like it's in the way. Does this make sense? Isn't the whole purpose of building the railroad to link to the existing towns? Wouldn't the town make an ideal station stop? Why else would people travel out to California, if not to get to a specific town?
Then the railroad planners say "The town can be moved." Again, why? Is the town in the wrong place, or is it right where the tracks need to be? They never really specified. But then they run the tracks through the valley, which is not near the town - further confusing the issue. Then on top of THAT, they build a new town where the tracks are going to be, and everyone moves over. Seems like a lot of work - wouldn't it have been easier to just put the tracks near the town, instead of the other way around? I'm all for saving people a lot of unnecessary gruntwork.
The film has some other problems as well - mostly that nearly all of the characters aren't given much to do. Most of them seem like blanks, the railroad surveyor most of all, and he's one of the key characters. I know almost nothing about him, at the end of the day. As for pacing, the whole affair just never seems to get out of first gear.
Also starring Wes Bentley (last seen in "Jonah Hex"), Milla Jovovich (last seen in "Stone"), Peter Mullan (last seen in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1"), Sarah Polley.
RATING: 3 out of 10 frontier prostitutes
No comments:
Post a Comment