"The Donner Party" (tagline: Based on the true events of The Forlorn Hope) is a pseudo-historical depiction of the ONLY portion of the Donner Party tragedy that has any hopefulness to it; the splinter group (AKA: The Forlorn Hope) that attempts to find rescue for the rest of the party.
Notable for Crispen Glover's remarkably subdued performance (remarkable in that I didn't know he knew how to do anything "subdued"), the film does an amazing job of capturing the feel and tension of the situation.
As with another film that involved subsistence cannibalism (the movie about the Soccer team that crashed in the Andes called "Alive"), the cannibalism, while somewhat central to the story, is very understated. You know what is going on, but it is hardly obvious; I doubt most kids would understand what was going on. That's not to say that this is a film for kids, but just as an example of how delicately the subject matter is handled.
Some fairly severe liberties were taken with the screenplay. Yes, they drew straws, but they were unable to follow through with that plan. Glover's character does come across as a little too eager to slaughter others. It's one thing to consume another person's body in order to survive, but it's entirely a different matter to TAKE a person's life for the same purpose. Plus, it hardly seemed necessary (in the context of the film) given how many others were dropping dead from hunger or exposure already... why execute someone who is still mobile? Regarding the demand that Glover repeatedly makes to the other party member about everyone needing to "contribute to the pot"... The character he was talking to had been hoarding food for himself. Glover knew about it, and was willing to put up with it until he found out the provisions they were looking for were non-existent. Glover was asking (demanding) that he share whatever food he had left with the rest of the party... and to do so without raising the ire of the others in the party who were apparently unaware that he had been eating while all were starving to death around him.
Shooting the film in the actual area where the events occurred, and with a believable amount of snow, really adds to the feel of the film.
Having Glover's character killed at the end is the most pointless change in the whole film. Why kill off one of the real survivors? Could it be just to shock and surprise all those Donner Party experts? Doubtful. Seems more like a sloppy screen writing attempt to wrap things up with "a bang"... disappointing.
I give it 5 out of 10... the 5 are for the mood, cinematography, location, music and Glover's performance. I can't give it more than that, as the changes they made to the actual events for the most part were somewhat pointless. They could easily have made the same film while maintaining historical accuracy without losing any of the story that they ended up with.
Worth watching it, but I can't see owning it.
Notable for Crispen Glover's remarkably subdued performance (remarkable in that I didn't know he knew how to do anything "subdued"), the film does an amazing job of capturing the feel and tension of the situation.
As with another film that involved subsistence cannibalism (the movie about the Soccer team that crashed in the Andes called "Alive"), the cannibalism, while somewhat central to the story, is very understated. You know what is going on, but it is hardly obvious; I doubt most kids would understand what was going on. That's not to say that this is a film for kids, but just as an example of how delicately the subject matter is handled.
Some fairly severe liberties were taken with the screenplay. Yes, they drew straws, but they were unable to follow through with that plan. Glover's character does come across as a little too eager to slaughter others. It's one thing to consume another person's body in order to survive, but it's entirely a different matter to TAKE a person's life for the same purpose. Plus, it hardly seemed necessary (in the context of the film) given how many others were dropping dead from hunger or exposure already... why execute someone who is still mobile? Regarding the demand that Glover repeatedly makes to the other party member about everyone needing to "contribute to the pot"... The character he was talking to had been hoarding food for himself. Glover knew about it, and was willing to put up with it until he found out the provisions they were looking for were non-existent. Glover was asking (demanding) that he share whatever food he had left with the rest of the party... and to do so without raising the ire of the others in the party who were apparently unaware that he had been eating while all were starving to death around him.
Shooting the film in the actual area where the events occurred, and with a believable amount of snow, really adds to the feel of the film.
Having Glover's character killed at the end is the most pointless change in the whole film. Why kill off one of the real survivors? Could it be just to shock and surprise all those Donner Party experts? Doubtful. Seems more like a sloppy screen writing attempt to wrap things up with "a bang"... disappointing.
I give it 5 out of 10... the 5 are for the mood, cinematography, location, music and Glover's performance. I can't give it more than that, as the changes they made to the actual events for the most part were somewhat pointless. They could easily have made the same film while maintaining historical accuracy without losing any of the story that they ended up with.
Worth watching it, but I can't see owning it.