Gold

Gold is a beautiful, intricate, sound movie. A movie that just depicts us humans, in our epic quest, without any concessions. Driven by some ungraspable idea, we need groups, leadership, moral standards, intimacy and love. Not all of us will stay, at least, not to the end of the movie, but though, the movie will go on somewhere else. A great canvas of WE as WE ARE. And then still willing to strive and look forward, still in the need to move ahead. Thus the depiction is better than the feeling you will get at the end of the movie.

This might be because, we, as a species, are made to believe and hope.

8/10

Is this any good? Maybe. It illustrates the difficulty of being among the first in an area, and having to cope when there is no one else around for miles to help. Sometimes there is merely tension, sometimes danger, and sometimes the mood is just plain dismal.

Much of the acting is the same quality as what might be expected when a group sits around the table reading the script for the first time. Some acting is better than that. Even if the acting isn't all that good, the story is good, if you like this sort of thing. I wasn't all that entertained but this just isn't my type of movie.

Though this is supposedly set in 1896, a lot of the "music" sounds more like 1996. It might actually be appropriate but so much of it seems like just noise. Several scenes do benefit from an eerie new age sound that could actually have been performed during the time period, enhancing a very dismal atmosphere. Rossmann does play the banjo, but not nearly enough. He's pretty good, meaning real.

The scenery is beautiful. Some areas don't have trees and don't look quite as good, but that doesn't mean it's not still impressive. Personally I like the trees better than what looks like desert.

I forgot to look for the statement that no animals were harmed. Assuming there was one, a couple of horses do some good stunt work. Or at least someone does a good job of making it look like a horse had an impressive fall.

The movie doesn't quite live up to its title, but it's not too bad, I guess.

This movie (which I saw during the 2013 film-festival in Copenhagen), is a very atypical western, not only because of the (mostly) German-speaking cast, but also because of it's dark moods, and almost complete lack of conventional "western"-themes, which makes it more appealing to people that are normally not too keen on westerns, but still has enough western-elements in it to not disappoint genre-fans either.

The beautiful Nina Hoss - known for her portrayal of "Barbara" (in the 2012 movie of the same name), as well as the vampire-movie "We Are the Night" - here plays Emily Meyer, a single woman who is determined to travel alone to Klondyke in the late 1890s, along with a motley crew of settlers and gold-diggers, who all have their own reasons for making the long and dangerous journey.

However, they do not know what will await them during the trip, as both the harsh nature of the land comes as a surprise to them, as well as a couple of ruthless killers are on their trail, which takes its toll on the travelers.

It is a slow-moving, but very gripping and dark tale about (among other things) trying to conquer both new territory, but also about finding yourself (and others), when placed in a bad situation. It also has quite a lot of stunning cinematography, which really captures the landscapes beautifully, and places the audience in the right mood.

The director, Thomas Arslan, is still relatively unknown, although I have seen two of his films now (this one and "Dealer", which was also quite good), and he should definitely be a name to look for in the near future.

"Gold" does have a lot of similarities to Kelly Reichardt's western-drama, "Meek's Cutoff", but with somewhat more action and excitement, all things considered. So even though both films are very similar, I have a huge preference to this movie, as the characters are also much more likable and well-developed.

So go see this film, if you want a realistic story about people trying to make their way through rough territory, both physically and mentally. See it if you love westerns, and/or if you just like good movies, that might leave a lasting impact on you forever.

Having traveled from british columbia to dawson anyone could see that the initial terrain traveled in the film was inaccurate ... it looked more like the prairies of eastern alberta or eastern montana ... struggles today traveling from vancouver north aren't much different then 120 years ago ... its still about 2300 miles of rugged territory but possible with good planning and a lot of luck ... if you do it, be sure you get to the laird river crossing before late summer rains or you may find yourself mired down with mud ... get past that and dawson is easy ... you can pan for gold anywhere with recreation license ... if you don't have one be prepared to pay a steep fine

This film is outstanding in its portrayal of pioneer travel. The trials and tribulations, from the petty to the disastrous are endured as they really were endured. There always will be characters like Emily and Carl who will keep it together for the whole team, despite being just as worn out as everybody else. And the cruel blow at the end, bitter and crunching does not deter the survivor from going on.