Crispin Glover leads the ill fated Donner Party in this entertaining fictional, though based on fact, movie. The audience is immediately aware of the party's desperate situation, stranded and starving in the snow covered Sierra Nevada Mountains. The film, though relentlessly downbeat, does try to realistically portray how individuals might have reacted to the extreme conditions they were subjected to. Cannibalism is portrayed in a dignified manner, not sensationalized, and there is actually very little blood. The haunting soundtrack seems very appropriate, and the Donner Pass locations beautifully, though bleakly, photographed. Recommended, and especially recommended if you want to see Crispin Glover in a restrained and believable performance. - MERK
31 Reviews
...it's not a very good party, is it?
zBirdman20 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"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.
Should Be Rethought and Called 'The Forlorn Hope'.
samkan22 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The filming (colors..septia?), background music and sparse, terse script do a great job of setting up spooky suspense. Within minutes the viewer is drawn into this desperate setting! The characters are not overdrawn with background but are set up very well. Indeed, the movie doesn't try to explain the plight, story, etc., of the infamous Donner party but instead is a largely fictionalized account of its infamous group which set out to seek help, long referred to as "The Forlorn Hope".
Given the above correction (changing the point of view) the film then takes some missteps, primarily in its depiction of the ultimate vice practiced by the "The Forlorn Hope", which was much too compromised here. Also, the major conflict between the two male leads becomes too black and white; e.g., Glover's character becomes too much of a bogeyman and the protagonist too virtuous. In contrast, TFH's women are under drawn in the second half of the flick.
With some work this film could have been a great thriller.
Given the above correction (changing the point of view) the film then takes some missteps, primarily in its depiction of the ultimate vice practiced by the "The Forlorn Hope", which was much too compromised here. Also, the major conflict between the two male leads becomes too black and white; e.g., Glover's character becomes too much of a bogeyman and the protagonist too virtuous. In contrast, TFH's women are under drawn in the second half of the flick.
With some work this film could have been a great thriller.
MUTILATED.....the script, that is.
prizm426 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I would've liked to give this a genuine thumbs-up, but the writers took way too many liberties with the script that go against the accepted facts of the event.
*SPOILERS BELOW*
Some of the glaring issues are:
What a joke! I can understand some differences when you're trying to compress a story into 90 minutes and trying to make it all flow smoothly, but this was really botched.
The equivalent would be like making a movie about the Twin Towers and having only one of them collapse.
*SPOILERS BELOW*
Some of the glaring issues are:
- There were TWO Indian guides in the real story - They make Foster out to be some cannibalistic maniac who can't wait to kill his next victim. - They drew sticks to see who would be a sacrifice, but according to the evidence, the party was unable to go through with killing the person. - Graves (the father) did not kill himself. - And the worst inaccuracy is that they had Foster killed by Fosdick's wife, when Foster was one of the few men who SURVIVED.
What a joke! I can understand some differences when you're trying to compress a story into 90 minutes and trying to make it all flow smoothly, but this was really botched.
The equivalent would be like making a movie about the Twin Towers and having only one of them collapse.
Only for the Desperate...
Patinho11 May 2012
The only reason I finished this movie was that I was waiting for it to get better. At one point I paused it and saw there was only 15 minutes left and was so bored I fast-forwarded through the rest.
I expected one of two things, a movie out to entertain through shock value or an American Epic. I got neither. Therein lies the problem; the movie's scope simply isn't grand enough. With all the drama, betrayal, tragedy, desperation, and heartbreak that occurred during these events you'd think that you'd see some of it on screen. I'm no expert on the Donner Party, but as I understand the trip took months just to get to the point the film starts up. Where it proceeds to tell a small 2 week time frame about the hardships of the people who made an attempt at being rescued.
This could have been a sprawling epic of the American Pioneer days on par with 'Dances with Wolves', yet we only get to see the small group and how hungry they are. That's it. We see nothing of what happened to the 30+ people back at the camp. I heard they had to resort to eating leather clothes and bones boiled so many times over they became brittle and edible, none of that made it into the film. If you cut out all of the establishing shots of snow and trees the movie wouldn't have even been an hour long.
Bottom line, read the Wikipedia article, skip the movie.
I expected one of two things, a movie out to entertain through shock value or an American Epic. I got neither. Therein lies the problem; the movie's scope simply isn't grand enough. With all the drama, betrayal, tragedy, desperation, and heartbreak that occurred during these events you'd think that you'd see some of it on screen. I'm no expert on the Donner Party, but as I understand the trip took months just to get to the point the film starts up. Where it proceeds to tell a small 2 week time frame about the hardships of the people who made an attempt at being rescued.
This could have been a sprawling epic of the American Pioneer days on par with 'Dances with Wolves', yet we only get to see the small group and how hungry they are. That's it. We see nothing of what happened to the 30+ people back at the camp. I heard they had to resort to eating leather clothes and bones boiled so many times over they became brittle and edible, none of that made it into the film. If you cut out all of the establishing shots of snow and trees the movie wouldn't have even been an hour long.
Bottom line, read the Wikipedia article, skip the movie.
Maybe Dahmer would have enjoyed this
dgl119929 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
To call this film "The Donner Party" is misleading. The events portrayed are mostly fictional, loosely based on the actual tragedy, and do a great disservice to the historical truth behind what really happened. The scope of the film encompasses only a handful of the party who attempt to cross the Sierra Nevadas to California in hopes of bringing back a rescue team for the remaining survivors, which is based on an actual attempt. But there is little coverage of the events leading to their predicament in the mountains, only passing references and incomplete pieces of information. Although the direction does nicely capture the brutality of their circumstance it also portrays people numbingly boring and cartoonish. The dialogue is dull and awkwardly delivered with a multitude of intense, soap opera close ups. Long stretches of yawning wide shots and wordless scenes of boots plodding inch by inch through thick snow. But my real problem is the focus on cannibalism. Once the food runs out they decide someone needs to die so the others may live. Aside from the glaring historical inaccuracy, the film seemed to become about cannibalism. It's known that the Donner Party did eventually resort to cannibalism, but not to the extent outlined in this film. It was more like a cheap and overused plot tool to gross out the audience, albeit not graphically. But the lifeboat mentality over who was next became practically comical. The only bright spot in this was Crispin Glover as the transparently weak minded, pious, self preservationist. His character was the only one I found believable as a figure from the Donner Party. The remaining cast were two dimensional pretty people slathered in fake dirt and period costumes. I don't recommend this film but I particularly advise anyone who may be looking for anything to do with the real Donner Party to prepare for disappointment. YouTube has plenty of documentaries. This is fiction.
Desperate Circumstances Call For Desperate Measures
sddavis6328 September 2011
Not being by any means an expert on the story of the Donner Party, I've nevertheless done some reading on the subject. It's one of the truly tragic stories of American history that should probably be better known than it is. I stumbled upon this movie quite by chance and decided to give it a go. The criticisms that I've read of it are - strangely - both accurate and unfair. It's true that there were some liberties taken with the story. This is by no means a documentary about this incident. If that's what you want, there are books and documentaries to be consulted. This is Hollywood entertainment - and apparently low budget entertainment as well. The film-makers had to deal with some significant production issues. Given some of the challenges they faced, I thought this turned out to be a workable movie that will hopefully whet the appetite of viewers for more information about this rather famous incident in American history. Yes, I know that some will see this and assume that because they've seen it they know everything about the subject. That's unfortunate, but it doesn't take away the fact that in general terms this portrayal of the story worked fairly well.
Some criticize it for not being "interesting" enough. I'm not sure what those critics wanted. The liberties that were taken were done to inject a spark into the movie, and the movie is already criticized for doing that. This is a movie about desperate people facing desperate circumstances. It's not an action-thriller. It depicts the plight of the travellers. Some criticize it for a lack of character development. The funny thing is that's something I liked about this. I suppose an extra 30-60 minutes could have been added on to this to show the group gathering in Independence, Missouri and getting to know each other and travelling happily across the plains. Now that would have been dull. Instead, we pick up the party already in desperate circumstances. Perhaps the struggle of the trek through the Great Salt Desert would have been interesting. Aside from that (and it would have been difficult to jump from that to the point at which the movie actually started, and cumbersome to include the intervening time) I was happy enough with the story. It's true that perhaps the lack of character development meant we had little emotional connection to the characters, but the story was about the group and its plight and what it finally drove them to, not about the individuals.
The material about cannibalism was, I thought, handled sensitively. It's often over-emphasized and sensationalized in tales about the Donner Party, almost as if there was a cannibalistic feeding frenzy that went on among them. In fact, it was a desperate, last resort when there was literally no other source of food. In that sense, this is a bit reminiscent of the movie "Alive" which also dealt with the issue of cannibalism in desperate circumstances, although "Alive" had a much more spiritual sense to it.
Basically, I thought this was well done. (7/10)
Some criticize it for not being "interesting" enough. I'm not sure what those critics wanted. The liberties that were taken were done to inject a spark into the movie, and the movie is already criticized for doing that. This is a movie about desperate people facing desperate circumstances. It's not an action-thriller. It depicts the plight of the travellers. Some criticize it for a lack of character development. The funny thing is that's something I liked about this. I suppose an extra 30-60 minutes could have been added on to this to show the group gathering in Independence, Missouri and getting to know each other and travelling happily across the plains. Now that would have been dull. Instead, we pick up the party already in desperate circumstances. Perhaps the struggle of the trek through the Great Salt Desert would have been interesting. Aside from that (and it would have been difficult to jump from that to the point at which the movie actually started, and cumbersome to include the intervening time) I was happy enough with the story. It's true that perhaps the lack of character development meant we had little emotional connection to the characters, but the story was about the group and its plight and what it finally drove them to, not about the individuals.
The material about cannibalism was, I thought, handled sensitively. It's often over-emphasized and sensationalized in tales about the Donner Party, almost as if there was a cannibalistic feeding frenzy that went on among them. In fact, it was a desperate, last resort when there was literally no other source of food. In that sense, this is a bit reminiscent of the movie "Alive" which also dealt with the issue of cannibalism in desperate circumstances, although "Alive" had a much more spiritual sense to it.
Basically, I thought this was well done. (7/10)
Historically inaccurate
nickheathcote9 November 2010
The film is not based on any true historical fact as far as I could see. Even in the opening, the eventual place the Donner party hoped to get to was written as 'Sutter Fort.' Twice. Most Californians know the fort was Sutter's Fort. Glaring typo from the get go or laziness with regard to historical accuracy. You don't even have to be a Californian to know it is Sutter's Fort because the site is mentioned in grade school textbooks.
The rescue party consisted of much fewer members than were portrayed. The cannibalism occurred in the Donner camp and it was only as a very last resort and the 'victim' was already dead from exposure and starvation.
The film would have been much better if the director had focused on the powerful stories of the survivors instead of resorting to a sensationalistic cannibalism tale. There was so much more to this drama than starving humans compromising all they believed in by eating human flesh.
I could not even watch the entire film because it was so dreadful.
The rescue party consisted of much fewer members than were portrayed. The cannibalism occurred in the Donner camp and it was only as a very last resort and the 'victim' was already dead from exposure and starvation.
The film would have been much better if the director had focused on the powerful stories of the survivors instead of resorting to a sensationalistic cannibalism tale. There was so much more to this drama than starving humans compromising all they believed in by eating human flesh.
I could not even watch the entire film because it was so dreadful.
mood piece
ainaithilwen27 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I have been looking around a bit to see what people generally thought about this movie, and I have noticed several complaints about its historical inaccuracy. I was however under the impression that, as the genres indicated on the IMDb page (drama and western) seem to suggest, this was never intended to be a documentary. That implies a certain freedom to depart for the actual facts, doesn't it ?
Other reviewers have already praised the bleak, low-saturation images, the extremely appropriate music (used with the greatest effect for the execution scene, which is absolutely gripping) and the beautiful and desolate locations (endless snow and ominous skeleton-like branches silhouetted against somber grey skies). I'll add to this the great job done by the make-up people on this film (truthfully, at one point, I thought it was starting to look a bit like a period Night of the Living Dead around the campfire. Dying characters that actually look the part... That doesn't happen as often as one would believe...).
About the plot and the complaint that not much happens... I am going to be grossly pragmatic here, but starving people don't really have the energy to do much, do they ? They 'plod' along the lines of a film that works as a mood piece (dreary. avoid if you're easily depressed) and psychological drama - yes. another one of those, complete with hints of reflection on what humanity is and how desperate times can strip it away from man. a bit heavy-handed at times, but thankfully not a stark manichean treatment of the theme. For instance, generally whiny and annoying Foster - Glover's character. watch for that scene where he makes his long, choked up speech when the party sets out. and the "I am a Christian" bit. makes you want to throttle him, doesn't it ? - has a couple of touching moments, as when he endeavours to cheer up his (personality-deprived) wife.
On the subject of acting: here is another impressive Glover performance. Without the ever-enjoyable hysterics to be found in his more eccentric roles (cf Willard or Simon Says), the more subtle nuances are given centre-stage, establishing an interesting character difficult to pigeonhole. In the party under Foster's command, the widow with the haunted eyes (Santopietro) is especially heart-wrenching while W. Eddy (Crawford) is also suitably ambiguous in his steely determination.
On a completely random tangent, if I may make a remark in rather poor taste, but which I can't resist: I don't know whether people do taste like chicken as it has been suggested in more humorous takes on the matter, but in this film, one has to admit that the cooked result does look a lot like it ...
and by the way, what did they mean by "adding into the pot" ? A FAQ on the subject would be appreciated if someone understands that part...
Other reviewers have already praised the bleak, low-saturation images, the extremely appropriate music (used with the greatest effect for the execution scene, which is absolutely gripping) and the beautiful and desolate locations (endless snow and ominous skeleton-like branches silhouetted against somber grey skies). I'll add to this the great job done by the make-up people on this film (truthfully, at one point, I thought it was starting to look a bit like a period Night of the Living Dead around the campfire. Dying characters that actually look the part... That doesn't happen as often as one would believe...).
About the plot and the complaint that not much happens... I am going to be grossly pragmatic here, but starving people don't really have the energy to do much, do they ? They 'plod' along the lines of a film that works as a mood piece (dreary. avoid if you're easily depressed) and psychological drama - yes. another one of those, complete with hints of reflection on what humanity is and how desperate times can strip it away from man. a bit heavy-handed at times, but thankfully not a stark manichean treatment of the theme. For instance, generally whiny and annoying Foster - Glover's character. watch for that scene where he makes his long, choked up speech when the party sets out. and the "I am a Christian" bit. makes you want to throttle him, doesn't it ? - has a couple of touching moments, as when he endeavours to cheer up his (personality-deprived) wife.
On the subject of acting: here is another impressive Glover performance. Without the ever-enjoyable hysterics to be found in his more eccentric roles (cf Willard or Simon Says), the more subtle nuances are given centre-stage, establishing an interesting character difficult to pigeonhole. In the party under Foster's command, the widow with the haunted eyes (Santopietro) is especially heart-wrenching while W. Eddy (Crawford) is also suitably ambiguous in his steely determination.
On a completely random tangent, if I may make a remark in rather poor taste, but which I can't resist: I don't know whether people do taste like chicken as it has been suggested in more humorous takes on the matter, but in this film, one has to admit that the cooked result does look a lot like it ...
and by the way, what did they mean by "adding into the pot" ? A FAQ on the subject would be appreciated if someone understands that part...
Disappointing Version of the Legendary Event
Michael_Elliott25 September 2011
Donner Party, The (2009)
** (out of 4)
Disappointing telling of the now infamous Donner Party, a group of people traveling from Missouri to California but along their journey they decide to try a short-cut but this leads them into the Sierra Mountains where they become trapped by the snow. Our film starts off with them running out of food so a group of people try to walk away from the camp in hopes of finding safety but soon their chances of survival become even slimmer so they must resort to cannibalism. THE DONNER PARTY is a low-budget film that sadly never really gets anything right. This movie is far from being horrible but there's no denying that it's a major disappointment as the screenplay and direction just aren't what's needed for the material. The problem with the story itself is that there's never any real connection to any of the characters. There's no denying that what they're going through is quite depressing but this is only true because we know the real story. The "story" being told on the screen just never really grabs your attention and it certainly never pulls you into any sort of drama. There's not a single character in the film that you really care for and I can't believe the screenplay wouldn't develop them any more. Another problem with the story is that it's just not all that interesting. I think a better story would have been about the actual case involving them setting out, taking the wrong trail and then the winter stuff. Instead, we're given a story of a small party who set out to find help. Again, the screenplay just doesn't make it entertaining. I'd also say that the direction is at fault because there's not a bit of atmosphere throughout the film. This was another disappointment because there's not a single scene where you get to feel as if you're there with the people and that dramatic danger of what the characters are going through is something that never connects with the viewer. Clayne Crawford steals the film in his lead role and Crispin Glover is also pretty good in a very restrained performance. However, at the end of the day the performances aren't enough to make this movie. If you want to know about the Donner Party it's best to check out a book or some other documentary.
** (out of 4)
Disappointing telling of the now infamous Donner Party, a group of people traveling from Missouri to California but along their journey they decide to try a short-cut but this leads them into the Sierra Mountains where they become trapped by the snow. Our film starts off with them running out of food so a group of people try to walk away from the camp in hopes of finding safety but soon their chances of survival become even slimmer so they must resort to cannibalism. THE DONNER PARTY is a low-budget film that sadly never really gets anything right. This movie is far from being horrible but there's no denying that it's a major disappointment as the screenplay and direction just aren't what's needed for the material. The problem with the story itself is that there's never any real connection to any of the characters. There's no denying that what they're going through is quite depressing but this is only true because we know the real story. The "story" being told on the screen just never really grabs your attention and it certainly never pulls you into any sort of drama. There's not a single character in the film that you really care for and I can't believe the screenplay wouldn't develop them any more. Another problem with the story is that it's just not all that interesting. I think a better story would have been about the actual case involving them setting out, taking the wrong trail and then the winter stuff. Instead, we're given a story of a small party who set out to find help. Again, the screenplay just doesn't make it entertaining. I'd also say that the direction is at fault because there's not a bit of atmosphere throughout the film. This was another disappointment because there's not a single scene where you get to feel as if you're there with the people and that dramatic danger of what the characters are going through is something that never connects with the viewer. Clayne Crawford steals the film in his lead role and Crispin Glover is also pretty good in a very restrained performance. However, at the end of the day the performances aren't enough to make this movie. If you want to know about the Donner Party it's best to check out a book or some other documentary.
Movie plodded along as slowly as the Donner Party
inamind21 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I live in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas. As such, I am very familiar with the Donner Party and looked forward to viewing this movie. However, I was very disappointed. It is full of inaccuracies. While it is true some of the party resorted to eating human flesh to survive, no one was killed to do so. It left out the struggles of those left behind, waiting to be rescued and what they endured. I noted Foster's beard was neatly trimmed throughout the film, amazing to me, as they barely were able to stay alive, much less have access to a barber, nor would they have looked as healthy after days of near starvation. The acting, too, left much to be desired. For me, this movie was a major flop.
worth watching
mousenhowz14 February 2010
you'll eat it up :-). the cinematographer fit the right mood of this somber yet compelling event.the music fits the mood as well. the cast is very very good. Crispin Glover actually plays the straight role with a few twists here and there.this is the director's first, he succeeds and his future work will be worth watching. according to a review i read on the external reviews, the movie was shot at the Donner Pass. that ramps it up a bit for me and the historical aspect. a very very good attempt at storytelling. since this is the first review published for this movie, i will refrain why i changed my orig vote from 8 to 10.Overall a great attempt at storytelling. not as good as maybe Alive but well worth the viewing considering the grim subject matter.
Watchable......
jacplaydon15 July 2023
Without the showing of the journey before they got snowed in at the pass, this falls flat. There's no build up, no getting to know the characters and because of this, the story is only half told. In everything I've read about the Donner party, nowhere was it mentioned that William Foster was a leader or speaker for the others. Interesting in showing the snowed in part of the story but little else. Such a shame really as the story of the Donner party is so much more than this. I'm hoping there is a better retelling of this true story out there somewhere. Acting was OK, nothing to write home about.
Snow?? Sunshine and the great thaw of 2009
dmball061 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
OK, so "based" on a true story opens up a number of creative license avenues for writers/producers....but generally speaking, if you are going to do a semi-historical piece about folks getting stuck in a blizzard and having to eat themselves because there is nothing else to eat (hunting or forage), then it might be wise to include some snow scenes (I counted two) and when Crispin's character bashes "Luis" head in, if you look at the surrounding trees (from the angle of Luis looking up at Cripsin), there isn't one shred of snow on the trees in the background...and...it's SUNNY outside...notice too how few times the characters breath can be seen when they speak...a tell-tale sign that shooting (which took all of 12 days) had been during the late summer months...granted, hard to get production crews up into the Sierra Nevadas during January..but maybe a snow machine and a couple of fans at least...I was seriously laughing at the film (which I doubt was the intention of the film's director/producers)...aside from the hideous historical fabrications and omissions, it should at least shoot on days that weren't so bloody sunny outside (I still contend that Crispin Glover looked like he was out for a Sunday stroll)...and another thing...make them wear the snowshoes...not carry them as crutches, strapped over their backpacks...and looking like they just were purchased at an outfitters store...too funny...a horrendous film and the only reason I gave it a one, was because I at least got to laugh out loud for 84 minutes
First time writer/director T.J. Martin misses the mark badly. Most will NOT find this movie worth seeing.
TxMike18 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A few years ago Ken Burns made a superb documentary film about the Donner experience attempting to get to California. They were part of a rather large group traveling west but at a critical juncture they chose to attempt a more southerly route, one a promoter promised would be a faster route. As it turned out the promoter had never traveled the route and it in fact turned out to be a longer, more difficult route. Add to that an early and severe winter in the Sierra Nevada mountains and the Donner party and several other parties traveling with them were stranded, without enough food to survive the winter, even after their livestock were killed off and eaten.
In preparation for this fictional movie, I viewed that earlier Ken Burns film, which is an excellent historical account, which included still photos and some writings of the original parties.
This movie does not cover any of the early parts of the journey, nor does it cover any parts of the aftermath of the rescue of the survivors. It focuses on the brutal winter and how the men and women resorted to cannibalism to survive.
In line with the bleak subject, and the winter surroundings, the film is color but printed with a very low color saturation, which makes it look like a black and white film with a bit of color. That part works well. However most of the movie is very slow and difficult to endure, and part of that is because of the uninteresting dialog. We get the point that it was difficult for the survivors to force themselves to eat human flesh, and particularly humans they knew. So why did the audience need to watch that on several different occasions?
While the movie has some interesting elements, I found it to be mostly a waste of time. For anyone wanting to know more about the Donner tragedy, the Ken Burns films does that many times better than this movie does. Plus, in this movie we never see any of the Donners, only a short reference to them, encamped a short distance away.
I like Crispin Glover, especially for his early role in "Back to the Future", but here as William Foster I found him mostly annoying. However overall all the actors did well, but the script and direction were not particularly interesting. It was a chore watching the whole 85 minutes.
In preparation for this fictional movie, I viewed that earlier Ken Burns film, which is an excellent historical account, which included still photos and some writings of the original parties.
This movie does not cover any of the early parts of the journey, nor does it cover any parts of the aftermath of the rescue of the survivors. It focuses on the brutal winter and how the men and women resorted to cannibalism to survive.
In line with the bleak subject, and the winter surroundings, the film is color but printed with a very low color saturation, which makes it look like a black and white film with a bit of color. That part works well. However most of the movie is very slow and difficult to endure, and part of that is because of the uninteresting dialog. We get the point that it was difficult for the survivors to force themselves to eat human flesh, and particularly humans they knew. So why did the audience need to watch that on several different occasions?
While the movie has some interesting elements, I found it to be mostly a waste of time. For anyone wanting to know more about the Donner tragedy, the Ken Burns films does that many times better than this movie does. Plus, in this movie we never see any of the Donners, only a short reference to them, encamped a short distance away.
I like Crispin Glover, especially for his early role in "Back to the Future", but here as William Foster I found him mostly annoying. However overall all the actors did well, but the script and direction were not particularly interesting. It was a chore watching the whole 85 minutes.
Should have been called something else...
slorge-244-8641721 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
According to the actual historical events that took place in the Donner Party, this film only resembles it in name, names of characters, and setting (then, too, not entirely accurate). Not even close. If this movie was named something else, it might have made it more enjoyable (If you can call watching this "enjoyable"). Even naming the movie "The Forlorn Hope" wouldn't have been accurate, but more fitting. Nothing was even said about the parties left behind or the survivors, and with the exception of the text at the end of the movie.
This film is dismally plodding, which is about the only thing that resembled the Donner Party itself. Though beautifully shot and scored, and brilliantly acted, I can only give this a 3 star rating due to the script. If named something else to eliminate the historical inaccuracies, I might have only given it one more star.
Someone please make a more accurate portrayal of this story! It is an incredible story of survival and hope!
This film is dismally plodding, which is about the only thing that resembled the Donner Party itself. Though beautifully shot and scored, and brilliantly acted, I can only give this a 3 star rating due to the script. If named something else to eliminate the historical inaccuracies, I might have only given it one more star.
Someone please make a more accurate portrayal of this story! It is an incredible story of survival and hope!
As Usual "Based on" Means "We used one Real Thing and Went Overboard with It."
corymeyman28 March 2024
The issue I have with any recent movie in the last couple decades is they put "based on a true story" while not even trying to follow any of the actual events.
It's along the lines of the story writer reading about the Revolutionary War, and then involving jet skis and aliens in the timeline, and then claiming it was "based on a true story." Although I'm sure there are many earlier examples, "A Perfect Storm" is the first one I remember. Essentially, the only thing they knew about the boat was that it sank out at sea after losing radio contact. Somehow they turned that into an an over 2 hour movie. None of anything in that movie was verifiably true other than the names and possibly the characteristics of the people.
This movie is worse, because it had a somewhat rich source of information from the survivors in which to try and follow the true story. Basically none of that was even touched on. The entire movie was "hey, some people might have been cannibals," and then they made a villain.
If you are looking for something that will actually tell you what the Donner Party was like, do not watch this film. I'd suggest a documentary instead. Otherwise, this film is about as true to the source as "Cannibal: The Musical," and that film was more enjoyable.
It's along the lines of the story writer reading about the Revolutionary War, and then involving jet skis and aliens in the timeline, and then claiming it was "based on a true story." Although I'm sure there are many earlier examples, "A Perfect Storm" is the first one I remember. Essentially, the only thing they knew about the boat was that it sank out at sea after losing radio contact. Somehow they turned that into an an over 2 hour movie. None of anything in that movie was verifiably true other than the names and possibly the characteristics of the people.
This movie is worse, because it had a somewhat rich source of information from the survivors in which to try and follow the true story. Basically none of that was even touched on. The entire movie was "hey, some people might have been cannibals," and then they made a villain.
If you are looking for something that will actually tell you what the Donner Party was like, do not watch this film. I'd suggest a documentary instead. Otherwise, this film is about as true to the source as "Cannibal: The Musical," and that film was more enjoyable.
Survival does not come easy.
michaelRokeefe3 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is based on the true story of pioneers, who leave on a trip to the land of orange groves, milk and honey...the Promised Land. The party makes a split with a promise of a shorter trek through the Sierra Nevada Mountains leading to California. Following several snow storms they find themselves trapped, freezing with a dwindling supply of food. The group splits again as a small contingent try to forge ahead to California and form a rescue party. Even that is doomed. The fateful group of pioneer's camaraderie turns to cannibalism in the name of survival.
The movie is pretty gloomy as expected to be. Harsh and harrowing, depressing at the very least; but THE DONNOR PARTY is worth watching. Some impressive acting in the form of Clayne Crawford and Crispin Glover. Also in support are: Mark Boone Junior, Christian Kane, Michelle Santopietro, Jamie Anne Allman and Catherine Black.
The movie is pretty gloomy as expected to be. Harsh and harrowing, depressing at the very least; but THE DONNOR PARTY is worth watching. Some impressive acting in the form of Clayne Crawford and Crispin Glover. Also in support are: Mark Boone Junior, Christian Kane, Michelle Santopietro, Jamie Anne Allman and Catherine Black.
A Good Historical Film
loveablejohn-4662910 March 2019
This film was good overall despite some inaccuracies in the historical event depicted. The actors did an excellent job in their roles and the script was well written. The cinematography was just outstanding as it was mostly filmed in the area where the events depicted took place.
Truth is always better than fiction...
Boreal466 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed the film, but had to think of it as a FICTIONAL Donner party. Assuming most of the accepted chronicles of the doomed Donner party are true, I feel a better screenplay could have been written regarding the Forlorn Hope. What they endured was worse than what was depicted in the film - again assuming survivor accounts are true.
I would have preferred more of an epic-style narrative film - starting near Emmigrant Canyon in Utah - that would have allowed more time for character development and consequent erosion to their base instincts to survive. I could barely get my head around a character before they were insane or dead. I felt the film was edited in such a manner to make following the story difficult to follow. I had so many questions after watching it the first time that I had to watch it again to more carefully follow the story.
That being said, I do feel it was a superb endeavor about one aspect of the most interesting stories of the pioneers. Someday, I would like to see the accurate story adapted to an epic film that would do justice to the enormity of this grand American story.
I would have preferred more of an epic-style narrative film - starting near Emmigrant Canyon in Utah - that would have allowed more time for character development and consequent erosion to their base instincts to survive. I could barely get my head around a character before they were insane or dead. I felt the film was edited in such a manner to make following the story difficult to follow. I had so many questions after watching it the first time that I had to watch it again to more carefully follow the story.
That being said, I do feel it was a superb endeavor about one aspect of the most interesting stories of the pioneers. Someday, I would like to see the accurate story adapted to an epic film that would do justice to the enormity of this grand American story.
Mundane movie
lynnbarr-7212815 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This tragic story had so much potential for a really good and interesting movie but did not deliver. There was no depth to any of the characters you really didn't care if they lived or died. Crispin Glover was miscast as William Foster, I was expecting Marty Mcfly to rescue his dad in the Delorian , his acting was so wooden it was fine for comedy but not a serious role. The story-line was weak, I would have like a more accurate story this movie just skimmed over the top of what happened to these people, better acting and bigger budget it could have been a first rate movie but unfortunately it was more like a made for TV film, these emigrants became trapped in the Sierra Nevada Mountains during one of the most brutal winters on record yet the film made it look like they were out on a family hiking trip the weather was so mild not a snow flake in sight. I hope they do eventually make a more honest and realistic movie we don't have to focus on the cannibalistic side and make it a gore-fest, but more on the family unit, the story of survival and the aftermath of the survivors
Most tasteful cannibal movie ever
charlytully25 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
If you are some Fangoria-reading horror flick freak, no doubt you will rate this movie "1" or "2" on IMDb. Which is your own fault, because doing your homework in advance would have shown you this is NOT some brainless zombie smorgasbord offering such as DAWN OF THE DEAD, where the featured creatures literally rip out yards of intestines while gnawing on one bloody end (since apparently they have no sense of smell).
Instead, DONNER PARTY is presented more like a docudrama, with beautifully believable scenery and realistic sound effects (in fact, for insomniacs, this film might be as effectively sleep-inducing as those DVD's of logs burning in a fireplace). Its authenticity undoubtedly is enhanced by the movie being filmed in the actual Donner Pass near Truckee, CA, where these gruesome events took place during the winter of 1846-47.
That's right, DONNER PARTY is based on reality, unlike Hannibal Lecter forking out Ray Liotta's living brain at a nicely-set dinner table. Just as MOBY DICK incorporates a documented case of cannibalism (and sacrificing the sailor who draws the short straw for the sustenance of his shipmates), DONNER PARTY also reflects the willingness of most Americans to throw whoever they have to (e.g., Wisconsin school teachers) under the wheels of the bus to enhance their own survival.
To sum up, if you want the latest riff on THE TEXA$ CHAINSAW MASSACRE, do NOT rent DONNER PARTY. If, on the other hand, you wish to better understand the thinking of a Republican governor such as New Jersey's Chris Christie, there might not be a better model in film history than DONNER PARTY's leading proponent of expediency, expedition leader William Foster, played with just the right mixture of smug self-serving righteousness and smarmy disingenuous reptilian trickery by actor Crispin Glover.
Instead, DONNER PARTY is presented more like a docudrama, with beautifully believable scenery and realistic sound effects (in fact, for insomniacs, this film might be as effectively sleep-inducing as those DVD's of logs burning in a fireplace). Its authenticity undoubtedly is enhanced by the movie being filmed in the actual Donner Pass near Truckee, CA, where these gruesome events took place during the winter of 1846-47.
That's right, DONNER PARTY is based on reality, unlike Hannibal Lecter forking out Ray Liotta's living brain at a nicely-set dinner table. Just as MOBY DICK incorporates a documented case of cannibalism (and sacrificing the sailor who draws the short straw for the sustenance of his shipmates), DONNER PARTY also reflects the willingness of most Americans to throw whoever they have to (e.g., Wisconsin school teachers) under the wheels of the bus to enhance their own survival.
To sum up, if you want the latest riff on THE TEXA$ CHAINSAW MASSACRE, do NOT rent DONNER PARTY. If, on the other hand, you wish to better understand the thinking of a Republican governor such as New Jersey's Chris Christie, there might not be a better model in film history than DONNER PARTY's leading proponent of expediency, expedition leader William Foster, played with just the right mixture of smug self-serving righteousness and smarmy disingenuous reptilian trickery by actor Crispin Glover.
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
nogodnomasters12 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
As an historical movie I found it very interesting as I was not overly knowledgeable of the events that took place in the Donner Party. As a movie drama, it left much to be desired. The movie starts out with the group trapped in winter in the mountains. Unable to figure out how to eat tree bark, they hunt food and apparently have killed the very last bear hibernating in a cave. William Eddy, the hunter tracker takes half the meat for his family and leaves the other half for those under Foster's care. As the food disappears, they find out that there is no rescue party coming for them. A group sets out by foot to go to California, get a rescue party and return for the rest held up in a cabin. After four days of travel, the food runs out and everyone is hungry enough to each other. In fact they draw sticks and shoot the man with the shortest stick, then eat him. A dark comedy moment is inserted in the story as the cannibals struggle to say "grace" for their meal..."Dear God, we thank you, Amen." The camera shots are not as gruesome as one would think. The reference to eating people is watered down to sayings like, "We have to do what is necessary." I find the R rating a bit overboard. No sex or nudity. The acting was plain.
blah
john-ostrander27 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
One of the most memorable times in school was Nevada history and a six week section on the Donner Party, reading the book "Ordeal by Hunger". I'm 47 now and it is still almost fresh in my mind. If school was like this for more people, the world would be a better place I think. When schools can do this with students, it's a true success.
I am glad this was on the Roku channel, so it was free. But I will never get the time back I spent watching this. I realize it is based on "true events" but I mistakenly thought this was a true story. The focus is on the expedition away from the camps at Truckee lake by Mr. Graves, Eddy, and others. The dramatization of them killing each other and feasting on each others' corpses was in bad taste (no pun intended) and strays as far from the real story as possible. It would only be less realistic if a rescue party showed up in helicopters. I think its' a bit disrespectful to the memory of the people who actually had gone through this ordeal to protray them as murderers who killed and ate each other.
I quickly looked up some information online to refresh , and on the History channel website which ended their summary with "according to legend, 46 people survived". I guess this is how it's done now-days, we just say it's a legend. Actually 47 of the 87 survived, but as you hunt around the internet the numbers vary quite a lot. Legend.... of real people with some real records on file of what happened.
We learned in school that their guide who blazed the trail ahead of them (these were families, not explorers) whom they had hired was later arrested and charged in this mishap, and some of the survivors deposed as witnesses and it was only mentioned in class but I believe he was convicted.
While a grotesque dramatization, it strays about as far from the story as any fiction movie, sadly they have trashed the real story (which is actually much more interesting and exciting than this film) and re-written the history much like the rioters and hoodlums want to do in America right now. It's so sad that perfectly good stories are so distorted in the interest of making film with added shock value.
FUN Fact - there was no documentation or statements that anyone killed anyone else. The dead died of infection or other natural causes (starvation etc) and were then eaten. Murder is a sin, as is suicide, these were devoutly religous people, and I very much doubt they would commit a mortal sin in order to survive another few weeks.
I am glad this was on the Roku channel, so it was free. But I will never get the time back I spent watching this. I realize it is based on "true events" but I mistakenly thought this was a true story. The focus is on the expedition away from the camps at Truckee lake by Mr. Graves, Eddy, and others. The dramatization of them killing each other and feasting on each others' corpses was in bad taste (no pun intended) and strays as far from the real story as possible. It would only be less realistic if a rescue party showed up in helicopters. I think its' a bit disrespectful to the memory of the people who actually had gone through this ordeal to protray them as murderers who killed and ate each other.
I quickly looked up some information online to refresh , and on the History channel website which ended their summary with "according to legend, 46 people survived". I guess this is how it's done now-days, we just say it's a legend. Actually 47 of the 87 survived, but as you hunt around the internet the numbers vary quite a lot. Legend.... of real people with some real records on file of what happened.
We learned in school that their guide who blazed the trail ahead of them (these were families, not explorers) whom they had hired was later arrested and charged in this mishap, and some of the survivors deposed as witnesses and it was only mentioned in class but I believe he was convicted.
While a grotesque dramatization, it strays about as far from the story as any fiction movie, sadly they have trashed the real story (which is actually much more interesting and exciting than this film) and re-written the history much like the rioters and hoodlums want to do in America right now. It's so sad that perfectly good stories are so distorted in the interest of making film with added shock value.
FUN Fact - there was no documentation or statements that anyone killed anyone else. The dead died of infection or other natural causes (starvation etc) and were then eaten. Murder is a sin, as is suicide, these were devoutly religous people, and I very much doubt they would commit a mortal sin in order to survive another few weeks.
Disappointing
cabcomp9 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This story has fascinated historians for years. It would seem like a movie makers dream. It has it all intrigue, adventure, jealousy, etc, so where did they go wrong. Sure seems like accuracy is a big issue. The one thing I can say is I am glad they didn't Disneyfy it. Disney attempted to do the story as well focusing on the families that did not engage in cannibalism. It was pathetic, but enough about that bad movie. This version was disappointing as well. When the movie began it seemed as though it started a half hour before. The 2 main characters were well into a strained relationship, no explanation. You have no idea how long they have been traveling, how long without food, what happened to the entire party (there were 89 immigrants), and so many other unanswered questions. At the end I felt as if I left the movie before it ended. The movie moved pretty slow and then it was over, the end. This just wasn't good story telling.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
