The Settlers (2023) User Reviews

Magnificent cinematography looking for a plot.

[Lomax343 · 6/10 · 19 February 2024]

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.

A very hard watch

[stephenmsaunders · 8/10 · 18 February 2024]

Watching The Settlers is a grueling, almost physical challenge. Some of the scenes are so disturbing, and presented with such unflinching realism, that it is impossible not to look away at times.

The presentation of the horror of the genocide in Chile, and the appalling treatment of the indigenous people, at the turn of the last century is depicted in a way that is moving in a all of the ways that Killing of the Flower Amon wanted to be (and simply wasn't).

All of the performances are fantastic, especially the Indian natives, whose traumatized and quiet demeanors seems to drive home the atrocities being inflicted on them.

The Horror!

The Settlers Does Not Settle for Safe Mediocrity and Melodrama

[christian94 · 8/10 · 28 January 2024]

"Los colonos" (aka "The Settlers") is an international production with a solid screenplay and measured directing by Felipe Gálvez Haberle. It may not be the best film of 2023, yet it deservedly won several international awards and is a haunting social commentary on colonialism to raise consciousness with an artistic flair. You would be hard pressed to find a more impactful movie in the last few years about indigenous atrocities. Even Martin Scorsese's superior "Killers of the Flower Moon" fails to express so viscerally and intellectually the lingering injustice and the inherent flaws of the system that prevails to this day.

The recent trend to, only when confronted, publicly acknowledge aspects of the world's most horrific genocide and culturicide in recorded history still lacks real solutions, salvation and changes necessary to avoid these types of atrocities in this new century. We are still faced with largely sanitised native history with selected omissions or distortions making there way to the classrooms and overall culture. Many think natives died of disease because of weaker or unprepared immune system and long time ago. This film shows 20th century history way after massacres like the Bloody River in St. Kitts, where roughly 2000 Kalinago natives were massacred by British and French forces in an unlikely alliance in the 17th century. We also now know that tens of thousands of native children were taken from their parents for "reducation" in Canada and hundreds massacred in a system that was active as late as 1996!

"Los colonos" forces us to look at our collective colonial past and present. The editing is poignant and the sudden switch in the narrative to a future with a more benevolent and supposedly peace-seeking politician, after the fact, to salvage the reputation of the government, inquire, blame and benefit is sublime. Doctrines of violence or pacification with docile "allies have always had the same aim: to solve the troublesome "problem of the savages on their ancestral land" that the colonisers claimed and simply took. This film's depiction (and deception) is marked with nuances and relates to current climate of "truth, reconciliation and inclusion" which has to date failed to produce tangible or real results.

Felipe Gálvez Haberle said in an interview that the history of cinema is also stained with blood in terms of what has been shown and how. Here, he examines this systemic colonial mindset that seeps into every aspect of our lives without much afterthought or questioning. He uses a 4:3 aspect ratio that is much less gimmicky than Bradley Cooper's "Maestro" and more aimed at providing a claustrophobic and time-capsule atmosphere, like perhaps the beautiful "The Lighthouse" from Robert Eggers in another genre of movie-making. Haberle and cinematographer Simone D'Arcangelo still manage to capture breathtaking Patagonia scenery along with some intimate interior shots and more graphic gut-wrenching scenes. It is not however overly graphic and let's the dialogue and unsaid or unseen events creep into the viewers mind as the story unfolds and is expertly exposed with a few satisfying and surprising twists.

A must-see for cinephiles, teachers and school children!

(8/10)

Bleak revisionist western from Chile based around true events

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 20 February 2024]

This revisionist western from Chile is a bleak and alarming tale which is based on the very real racism of colonialism, which targeted the indigenous people of that area circa 1900. The story is pretty simple and has a land baron send three men to clear the way for him, an ex-Army Brit, an American mercenary and a Mestizo, who is roped in somewhat uneasily due to his shooting skills. There are a minimal number of set-pieces which are based around the over-riding scenario of a genocide of a people whose misfortune was to live in a place landmarked for sheep.

It's mostly an ugly and brutal film, with a particularly depressing encounter where a group of natives are murdered and a woman raped. But the point is to show the horrors of colonialism in this land and what crimes were committed in its name. The story latterly also looks at how the authorities, under the guise of good intentions, buried the grim truth and promoted an idealistic myth. All-in-all, a pretty interesting and disquieting film, which also benefits from some great cinematography of some stunning Patagonian vistas.

A boring and pointless movie

[MovieIQTest · 29 March 2024]

This movie actually got nothing to say, just used the camera to shoot a lot of close up macro images on the screen, every close up frame would have prolonged for a long period of time; another kind of filler trick to extend the length of a movie. The only thing that might worth your time to see is the middle-of-nowhere wildness that claimed to be Chilean territory or Argentina or somewhere else. The camera team of this actually nothing to tell early 20th Century south America did a great job to show you lot of beautiful sceneries, but what missing is the meager storyline and boring plot.

In one of the early beginning scene, there was an accident about a labor lost his right hand, but what could cause that accident if they were just did a wire fence job? There's no explosive involved.

Three guys travelled on their horses in the wildness for days but without a packing horse to carry food, tents and those must-have items for a long journey is just not possible and unrealistically to look real enough. There's only one scene that the third member of this mission, an aborigine Indian young man, caught trout of some kind of large fish in the creek and that's it.

In addition to those mindless and cruel killings, there was also an awful, totally unnecessary scene, showing a British guy assaulted one of the three party member, a Scotsman. (spoiler?)

But in general, this movie actually told nothing interesting at all. If there was one, I didn't find it and simply could not care less.

The suffering and humiliation of the indigenous people of Chile

[Irena_Spa · 7/10 · 7 February 2024]

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.

Is it real? Or is it a "conception for the film maker?

[barrymahonb · 7/10 · 8 January 2024]

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.

A masterpiece.

[krzysiektom · 10/10 · 11 October 2023]

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.

A masterpiece.

[futuberg · 10/10 · 27 February 2024]

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.

Gripping drama on a dark chapter of Chilean history

[mujanova · 8/10 · 20 April 2024]

The Settlers (Los Colonos) marks the directorial debut of Felipe Gálvez Haberle, delving into a dark chapter of Chilean history during the early 20th century. The film portrays the harrowing tale of the exploitation and colonization of Tierra del Fuego by the Chilean government's allies, who employed mercenaries to hunt and massacre the indigenous Patagonian tribes.

This gripping western-drama-thriller follows three horsemen hired by a wealthy landowner to map out his expansive estate for sheep farming in Patagonia. What begins as a seemingly innocent cartographic assignment soon transforms into a brutal campaign to eradicate the indigenous tribes residing on the land. The film tactfully avoids explicit violence, choosing instead to focus on the actions of the perpetrators.

In the poignant epilogue, a surviving native couple is depicted posing for a documentary commissioned by the state government. They are portrayed sipping tea and dressed in European attire, symbolizing a vision of coexistence between settlers and natives. However, the main female character, Rosa, rejects this staged portrayal of harmony, recognizing it as a veiled attempt to erase cultural heritage and identity.

Visual spectacle but with a script that falls flat

[chenp-54708 · 5/10 · 27 February 2024]

The Settlers is an aesthetically gorgeous looking movie with beautiful camerawork, colorful production, and interesting themes about colonialism and the brutality between people. Unfortunately, despite the good intentions of what the filmmaker is seeking, the movie doesn't offer anything new with it's themes and struggles with a lacking narrative.

The production and colorful aspects help set the tone and environment and the soundtrack and sound designs are good. The narrative tries to bring some interesting territories but the underdeveloped characters and cartoonish violence and style causes the movie to feel quite off. The performances are a mix of some pretty good and some pretty bad. The performances from the Chilean actors were pretty good but the performances from the English characters are pretty poor with some being a bit laughable.

The direction is solid. There have been movies that have explored the issues of colonialism but unfortunately The Settlers didn't really offer anything special or new to the table. I was quite disappointing to say.

Some merit, but an intensely horrible experience undermined by fictitious elements

[alirthom · 4/10 · 24 February 2024]

I saw this with my brother in Edinburgh. We both have a keen interest in the real history, so I really wanted to like it, but I was, I suppose, inevitably disappointed with the artistic liberties taken in a film that is obviously not intended to document the real history. I could forgive them if they added something meaningful, but I'm not sure they did. The two of us endured rather than enjoyed an intensely brutal film. To me, the important core message was slightly spoilt by some fictitious & pointless violence, which slightly diverts attention from the small part of the very real genocide in the Tierra del Fuego depicted earlier & the whitewashing of events that came later. The truth is horrific enough. Why add the weird, apparently insane & even more psychopathic Colonel Martin character?

The real violence in the Tierra del Fuego wasn't random & insane like the Colonel's, it was calculated & cynical. Much like happened in every European settler colony, a landowner (really a wealthy squatter on native people's land), sends his henchmen to deal with the marginalised indigenous people who have resorted to living as "brigands" by stealing his sheep. It soon becomes clear that in this case, the mission is not to make a treaty or even take the Indians to the nearest courthouse, but simply to get rid of the problem ie kill all of the Indians, men, women & children. I personally feel there was too much focus on the goriness of the killings, which detracted from the humanity of the victims. Their deaths would have been more emotive, instead of being merely physically shocking, if we knew them a little as individuals. The massacre is followed in short order with a fictitious scene of random & pornographic violence between European settlers that as far I can tell, added nothing truthful or meaningful to the story. The weird, apparently pointless violence of the mysterious Colonel Martin diverted attention from the real history depicted before & after it, but to what end? Alexander MacLennan was a real person. By contrast, the fictitious Colonel Martin character seems to be like a Kurtz-like character, maybe more in the vein of 'Apocalypse Now' than 'Heart of Darkness'. I'm not sure I see the necessity for him in the story at all.

I can forgive the inclusion of an American mercenary. I suppose the cowboy was there to add some extra international interest in the film. European colonisation was often an international affair. I've not heard of any American mercenaries that far south, but it's not inconceivable. There were certainly settlers of varied nationality on either side of the border in Patagonia - as well as Spaniards & internal migrants, there were Italians, Welsh, Germans & Croats, for example.

I also would've preferred a more rounded & realistic, less over the top cynical depiction of life on the huge estancias at the start of the film. Many of the real shepherds in the Tierra del Fuego were Gaelic-speaking Scots who made reasonable incomes in the midst of the Highland Clearances. Some of those same settlers clearly didn't find life as a shepherd in the South Atlantic unbearable. Many either stayed put or when their contracts were up for renewal, if they didn't return to the Highlands & Islands of Scotland, a notable few were encouraged by the local British diplomatic representative to take part in the comparatively peaceful (ie genocide-free), early British colonisation of the relatively nearby Falkland Islands, where they continued to herd the same breed of Merino sheep with its high quality, expensive wool.

The depiction of the state propaganda of an independent settler society at the end - the making of the local version of the comforting national myth all New World countries like to tell themselves - rescued the film a bit, but overall, the film seemed to enjoy violence just a bit too much for me. Sometimes less is more. Even 'Schindler's List' was less horrific than this. We don't get to know the victims of genocide as people before meeting their doom in this film. I think this is another fatal flaw. There is merely a shocking gore-fest with a disturbing obsession with sexual violence for good measure instead.

Massively underwhelming

[thomayre · 5/10 · 9 April 2024]

Maybe because I live and breath Spaghetti Westerns and Revisionist Westerns that I was expecting more action.

No doubt this is stunning film, but it's like going up to visit relatives in NW Scotland - cinematography was great because the scenery was great.

I understand the point of the film - the genocide of the native Indian Chileans but provides a massive deservice by going precisely nowhere.

I really wished I enjoyed the film but there's no storylines hence no punch. No amount of great scenery save this film.

I have seen many poor Westerns go precisely nowhere because there was no storyline and here is another underwhelming film.

Mmmm...not so great as it seems

[jaimman · 4/10 · 14 April 2024]

A film that stands out for its excellent photography and the way in which the immensity of Patagonia is captured, so that the viewer who does not know the extensive areas where only the wind can be heard, can be part of this story. Beyond that, the film is flat in its construction of characters, with a poor script full of stereotypes, which, although based on real people, seem to recite a history manual given in schools. The first half of the film is slow, then it picks up a little more pace and then declines again in its final stretch. Some people may find the film a good product, but those of us who are more demanding will be bored at times. Watch it at your own risk.

Absolutely pointless

[mohsengolchehre · 2/10 · 3 April 2024]

This movie is disappointingly bad. So bad that after the end of the movie you ask yourself what exactly was this movie about? Why does the end of the movie deal with the life of an Indian who doesn't have much of a role in the movie? Why are these characters so quiet and behave like philosophers? But they are really wild people. This movie is a bad experience for director and he should first learn how to tell a story and then make a movie. Cinematography is good. He choose nice locations but it's really not enough fir a movie. There is a lot of documentary about the nature in South America and we don't need to watch a movie just fir beautiful places.

I can't recommend it.