The Settlers

I've watched it at the Film Festival in Warsaw, Poland. In my opinion it's a masterpiece. Though it makes for a bleak and depressing viewing, as it demontrates the cynicism, barbaric cruelty and racism of the white colonizers towards the indigenous inhabitants of Patagonia at the end of the 19th century, it certainly is worth your time and the price of a cinema admission. I recommend watching it in a cinema, because it looks and sounds superbly. In fact every aspect of the filmmaking craft is excellent here: the direction, the script, acting, music and cinematography. Worth mentioning is the participation of the British ex-soldiers and a Texan in those events, it allows the film to indicate that the barbarity and greed demonstrated in Chile weren't something exceptional and peculiar but rather commonplace, similar atrocities were committed against the indigenous people in North America and by the British throughout their colonial empire.

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.

Well, difficult to decide. We have been to Chile, a magnificent country, so beautiful and savage at the same time.

This film purports to tell the story of the foundation, or attempted foundation of Chile, at the start of the 20th century. I say "purports" because certain elements don't quite fit.

If you see it, can you divine how or why the half cast character decides to eliminate the indigenous peoples? He pretends to shoot them, he refuses to do what he is told by his supposed boss, a British ex soldier, and other oddities.

It can certainly be interpreted as a sideways view of the abuses of the colonisers, presuming on the well known terrible history of their invasion, but perhaps little else.

The presentation is unusual, but may be an interpretation of the horrors. Filmed mostly in the dark of winter, it is certainly not a tourist advertisement.

Interesting? Yes, but only as a viewpoint.

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.

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.