User reviews

The type of Western that you could see the Coen Brothers putting their name behind, Damsel is further proof that there's life in the age-old genre yet as filmmaking duo David and Nathan Zellner take us on a darkly comedic trip to the wild west.

It's not to say Damsel is a roaring success, as its slowly paced and rather emotion-free experience is often far too ponderous and cold for its own good, but the twisting, turning and non-conforming tale the Zellner's have created is an odd beast that is sure to find its fair share of fans amongst the many likely detractors.

Filmed in the eye-capturing surrounds of the American wilds, Damsel is a pretty sight indeed that's anchored by creative actors Mia Wasikowska and Robert Pattinson, as the two young lovers reunite after years apart, as the Zellner's take us on a zany journey through a time and place that was filled with more than its fair portion of colourful and cuckoo characters, all on a quest to find meaning and purpose in a harsh unforgiving land, filled with much promise and even more dreaming.

We never really get much of a backstory or foundation of where Wasikowska's competent Penelope or where Pattinson's more dim-witted but well-meaning Samuel Alabaster come from or what shaped them into the people they are as we meet them but it's quite clear we can gather Samuel has been on some type of journey (with a miniature pony in tow), it's just a shame we couldn't get to partake in any of it, as the Zellner's choose not to relay any of this in Damsel's near two hour run-time.

It's a runtime that at times draws to a near halt as the story at the heart of it flows rather slowly and despite the good work of Wasikowska and Pattinson, Damsel struggles to maintain an energy and vibe to keep it going and you do wish that someone like the aforementioned Coen Brothers could've lead the charge here as Damsel feels as though it had the potential to be quite special.

There's brief moments where darkly attuned humour and hilarious encounters (Adams apple comparisons and town hangings) happen throughout Damsel, while David Zellner's side character Parson Henry and other oddball creations add spark to proceedings at certain times but it's not enough to enlighten the film as a whole as you feel as though Damsel missed the opportunity to maximize its unique tale.

Final Say -

Damsel is a curious entry into the western genre with some nice moments of black humor and well-staged strange happenings but overall the Zellner's film ends up being a rather forgettable feature.

2 ½ miniature ponies out of 5

It was all right but nothing to write home about. Surprisingly funny at times tho. Robert Pattinson gives a solid enough performance, I did not expect that he can do comedy but in that film he did it better than the dramatic scenes that he dramatically overacted. The concept itself was good on paper but the Zellner bros failed with the execution at times. David Zellner gives a very solid performance in the film, possibly the best of the film. Mia Wasikowska was also fine but there were scenes she overacted as well. The soundtrack was pretty good and I liked the general look of the film, not only the cinematography but also the production design was good, although the film apparently had a limited budget. Its still nothing I would desire to watch again any time soon as it did not do anything inspiring (except maybe the narrative, which was at times a bit unexpected) . It had also some cute moments.

It was very slow and boring at first, especially I found the speech scenes at the beginning of the movie meaningless but I must say it has an interesting topic. When I got a little bored at the beginning of the movie, it got more interesting and fluent as it progressed, it was aroused curiosity, the acting was also very good. Generally speaking, a strange movie is already a western comedy but an absurd comedy movie.

My wife and I watched this at home on DVD from our public library. I wanted to see it mainly for the actors, knowing little about the actual story.

It was written and directed by the Zellner brothers, and each has a featured role in the movie. The basic story is a man, Robert Pattinson as Samuel, heads west to find his damsel who he thinks has been kidnapped. He plans to rescue her and ask her to marry him. The damsel is Mia Wasikowska as Penelope.

The opening scene sets the tone, David Zellner plays a man new to the west, fascinated by the prospect of meeting real Indians, and waits for the stagecoach with an old pioneer (Robert Forster) who is tired and headed east. The stagecoach doesn't show up but the old man gives away his belongings including a tattered bible, so the new man takes on the name Parson Henry.

There is no advantage in describing the story in greater detail, suffice to say Samuel has a total misunderstanding of the situation and it doesn't turn out well for him. When the movie was over we were both a bit puzzled as to why this particular story was put to film and what the filmmakers were really trying to accomplish.

I cannot recommend it to anyone I know.

Much funnier than I imagined it would be. All actors play amazing, well-rounded characters. There is loads of cursing and quite a bit of blood, but overall this film is a cross between the outrageous humor of My Name Is Nobody and the dead seriousness of The Long Riders. This is not one of those "Westerns" where everything is re-imagined into a porno flick (taking us back to the 70s with The Great Scout and Cathouse Thursday) or an unbelievable bloodbath (Django Unchained). This is how the West really was--filled with mumbling, bumbling, stumbling real people--most of them nefarious--trying to conquer a vast space of land without community, love for nature or God, and the law of the heart.

This is "subversionist western" at its least emotional. There's a very good movie somewhere in this script, but the Zellners arent wise enough to execute to their full potential here. The cinematography, score, and acting (especially from David Zellner who channels the best of Woody Harrelson to combine it with a wimpier persona) all shoot well above par, making watching Damsel rather enjoyable. There are isolated moments that approach near perfection, but unlike better Westerns there is not the tonal confidence to glue the rest together. The Zellners set up rather intriguing backstories for the characters only to never explain them and squander the runtime on a three-quarters-baked attempt at cranking up a Coen brothers blend of comedy. It's usually very funny and well meaning, but I can't quite shake the feeling that this movie would have done better without repeated depictions of how strong the lone female character is against a slew of weak-minded males. The message is fine, but the time spent on it and the hammer over the head tone is apalling at times. It feels like they ran out of things to write about in the middle of the second act. In the end this movie gives you a lot to chew on but not much to really sink your teeth into.

I work at a small independent theater and almost want to actively discourage people from seeing this. I understand that time and energy went into this but it was just such a waste of time.

Could have stood some better writing, words routinely used that were not of that time. But I liked this film. The characters engaging, flawed. I liked the randomness, and the way the characters played off each other. Worth a watch for sure 👍

Such a strange movie. Much like watching two separate movies. At least there were a few laughs to be had in the first half.

"The Old West is not a certain place in a certain time; it's a state of mind. It's whatever you want it to be. -" Tom Mix

I should have liked the Zellner brothers' Western comedy, Damsel, much better than I did. It has elements of Mel Brooks and the Coen brothers when they mine the satire of a genre very long in the tooth. The difference: writing.

Brooks with his inspired goofiness (Blazing Saddles) and the Coens with their light-hearted larceny (Raising Arizona), have characters using language much smarter than they are, whereas The Zellners' lines are deadpan but dull even though they use elevated diction as the Coens so often do. Using contemporary lingo like "win win" and "real deal" doesn't titillate as it should. In addition, Zellners' language lacks strong affinity with bigger issues.

Samuel (Robert Pattinson), a rich pioneer, engages a sham preacher, Henry (David Zellner), to officiate at Samuel's wedding to Penelope (Mia Wasikowska). In their journey with a miniature horse, gift to Penelope (not the waiting Penelope of the Odyssey), the two must deal with their naiveté and the vagaries of raw Western staples like rot-gut whiskey, duplicitous Indians, and bad campfire ballads (Samuel's ballad to Penelope, called My Honeybun, is a weak companion to Brooks' notorious campfire scene)

While this set-up is rich fodder for satire, most of the jokes fall as flat as Penelope's affect and as dry as the joke about a fool in a barrel being strung up for no obvious reasons. Westerns are ripe for satire, but the flat line here comes not from the fine performances but the tepid minimalist script and uninspired cinematography.

Wasikowska is marvelous as the independent and bitter love interest, Pattinson showing once again that he is much more than a teen heart-throb. The Zellners have the right motif about loneliness; they just need to beef up the languid language and droll action.

Praise be for independent films. This probably isn't something that will be on many people's radars because its not exactly popular. I saw this a few weeks back and actually forgot to write a review so here goes. I haven't seen anything from David Zellner although I have wanted to watch Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter since forever. After watching Damsel I've got to say this is actually a really sharply funny and interesting take on a western.

The film starts off being about a man who brings a present (a miniature horse) for his lover. He also hires a drunk pastor to officiate their wedding. When he does travel the land to visit her he realizes that things may not be so straight forward. Now we get a film that covers death, love, and random occurrences that happen on the characters' journey in the West. The film stars Robert Pattinson, Mia Wasikowska, and David Zellner (the director of the film).

Went in not really knowing what to expect, which is actually a great thing because you don't have any expectations. I found points of this film to be extremely entertaining. Its a funny western. The characters, their actions, and consequences are humorous. The film also pulls no punches as there are plenty of surprises in plot along the way. You can't really judge Pattinson on Twilight fame because he was fantastic in Good Time and shows that he has a knack to be a funny dope in Damsel. Mia Wasikowska is one of my favorite actresses today and I think she's absolutely excellent in everything and she is quality here as a foul mouthed, independent, gun wielding damsel in this film.

I do like most western's but its not often I can see a uniquely entertaining and funny one. That is the case here and I love how the film wasn't afraid to take risks with its characters and the events in the film. Its fresh and pretty fantastic. I'm close to giving this film an 8/10, but I think I need to give it a re-watch before giving it that seal of approval. I really need to get on watching Kumiko now.

7.5/10

... there is no good reason to spend time with this movie, yes great scenery, great acting, the two leads are great, but the story is slow, boring and empty. I felt that a group of friend made a movie for themselves and all i was there for is to give them my money and get nothing in return!

Back in the day, this was called "camp." Essentially a film that breaks all the narrative rules, lulls you to sleep, and then changes gears faster than a Fast&Furious sequel. The first half of the film should come with a free pillow. The transition from child bride into Xena Warrior Princess is nuttier than a fruitcake, but MBB pulls it off. If ever there was an actress that thrived fighting monsters in the dark, it is MBB. Kinda fun, flaws and all. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

With very deliberate pacing and dark humor that seldom works effectively, this movie just added up to a difficult watch for me. Robert Pattinson and Mia Wasikowska are fine actors but they can only do so much with this flat script. Save yourself the trek.

'Damsel' is bold and rather peculiar offering from the Zellner brothers that threads together the notion of a western, comedy, and drama.

Robert Pattinson and Mia Wasikowska are entertaining as hell to watch and the film is unequivocally beautifully shot--equal credit needs to be given to both the location scout and the cinematographer.

However, it becomes clearer and clearer as the film unfolds that the story isn't quite fully fleshed out. While there are a handful of meaningful themes and existential musings that the Zellners work into the plot, they never leap off the screen and burrow as thoughts that further germinate inside one's mind after leaving the theater.

What a piece of crap. I've seen movies that were worse, but few that I deeply wanted to leave early more or that pissed me off as much. It has *some* merit (beautifully shot, a couple amusing moments). But ultimately: millennial garbage par excellence. These two brothers wrote and directed it, and they clearly think they are the Coen brothers with a hint of Wes Anderson for whimsy. What's more, they stole their take on male hope-projection onto a beautiful women from a much better film: There's Something About Mary.

In attempting to subvert masculine cowboy tropes, they made a hack film of a different sort: one that is accepted because it panders to popular opinion among people who go to the renovated art house movie theater in the part of town they gentrified with their trust fund bucks. It isn't that the opinion is wrong or uninteresting in and of itself, it's just relayed in this film in such a hack, lazy, glib, boring way by people certain they're more clever than they are.

It would have taken an amazing female lead to overcome the middle-school quality writing and all-too woke directing; their naturalistic take on zany Wes Anderson-movie dialogue was excruciating in certain scenes and I could have easily believed a teenager wrote it. But what was committed to film was one of the worst performances I've ever seen by an actor. To believe this woman was capable of starring in this or any picture is a strong indication you're as irrationally obsessed with her as the film's characters.

The result of all of this is a movie only certain people could enjoy: privileged white young women who can't get enough of having their shallow politics pandered to and the men who subconsciously know they must share the same opinions if they want a social life, so they self-righteously and vociferously do: in other words, woke drama queens who will their victimhood while boasting their empowerment and their male allies (tm)/hangers on.

Great movies don't pander. They make people find unlikely surrogates. True subversion requires excellence and subtlety this film doesn't come close to touching as it bashes its hack message into the faces of too many grateful to be bludgeoned with their own ideas. It doesn't even require pretentious art house claptrap to attempt to subvert. Blockbusters like The Hunger Games--a film where the damsel is literally a cute, cake-baking boy who is saved by the ass-kicking heroine--do much more to change expectations and advance gender relations. That's in no small part because that movie is well crafted. It's a good movie to a broad audience (no pun intended). Damsel preaches sloppily to its own choir of loathsome millennial hipsters. I'd be just as pissed off watching a Kurt Cameron loves Jesus movie that pandered to evangelicals, and I'd be pissed for for the same exact reason. However, what's really troubling is the thought that this is the future of media post #MeToo. Indeed, that's scarier than Hereditary.

Saw this at the Berlinale 2018, where it was part of the Competition for the Golden/Silver Bear. For starters, all three genre labels that IMDB shows, Comedy, Drama and Western, are fully applicable to this movie. The only minus point that I can come up with, is that its running time may be deemed too long for its contents. On the other hand, in Westerns prairie time counts differently, and maybe the slow pacing is intended and appropriate after all. Take for instance the two men waiting for a passing coach to pick them up, obviously not running on a time table and the two men just are about to wait patiently. Apart from setting the mood for things to come, this scene also happens to connect a few props from the beginning with the ending, making the circle round so to say. It was something that I did not expect, and I still am not sure I understood it correctly.

I'm glad that the usual westerns clichés are avoided: no horse chases, no posse going after a suspect, no bar fights, and only one single Indian. I could not spot any good or bad characters in this story, in the tradi¬tional black&white sense, maybe only the Indian can be considered as bad, despite his coming to the rescue out of an impasse in an earlier scene. Of course, nice landscapes, plenty of it even, enough to call it a road movie, albeit that being a misnomer due to the absence of real roads in the wilderness.

One can argue whether the humor is really humorous, or that it is just making fun of some people not really fit to operate in the Wild West. The only capable survivalist is Penelope, so it seems, contrary to the men we see most of the running time as being helpless, despite everything they do is done with the best of intentions. They are portrayed rather demeaningly, which some people find hilarious (but I'm not). In other words, the "comedy" aspects are insufficient to come to a recommendable product. The two treated in the most condes-cending manner are Samual and the vicar, but the laugh is too easy, impossible to not feel a bit embarrassed, so cannot be considered humorous overall.

The "drama" elements of the movie can be amply found in the fact that everyone follows his own logic, all of them really full of good intentions, but what they do goes terribly wrong. They mostly fail due to being not up to the task of surviving in the prairie with many potential hostilities lurking around the corner. There are some unexpected turns of events, all of those very different from that we would have assumced given the situation. No raid by Indians, no shoot-out a la High Noon, no wolves threatening some campers, and so on. In fact, most turns of events are not due to humans being incapable to survive in this part of the world, but because of "normal" incompetence as also frequently observed outside the prairie.

Finally, a few positive words about some random aspects. Firstly, the opening scene with two people waiting for a stagecouch, one wanting to leave the West, and the other one wanting to go there, but both wanting a fresh start for compelling reasons. The Bible carried by one of them, appears lateron a few times in the story and takes care of some mild humor, nothing blasphemic however. Secondly, the wedding ring that Samual brought with him to offer Penelope, returns later in the final scene in totally different circumstances. Are both to be regarded as examples of clever script writing, or merely far fetched, or sought to add some extra to an otherwise shallow story??

All in all, mixed feelings about Damsel, although I applaud several nice finds as described above. A few weeks earlier, as part of IFFR 2018 in Rotterdam, I saw another Western without cliché western elements, Sweet Country (Thornton, 2017). When on the lookout for a recent (anti)western example, is was much better than this one in all respects.

It's been 15 mins in this movie and only one question pops up in my mind: Why did they shoot this movie? Why?