That was an excellent one.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Blistering performances.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Early in the movie when the Captain is pissed and walking out of the room, the Colonel orders him to stop. The Capt's military discipline overrides every angry bone in his body to follow orders, which puts the Capt in turmoil. I can 110% relate and Christian Baile performed it perfectly. Hazaah.

Westerns have been quite the resilient genre, but the same time Hostiles is not usual gunslinger/outlaw Western. It is about change, which includes grief and what adapting means to one's moral compass. Christian Bale - who masterfully captures the PTSD-like weariness of a soldier who's killed too many - stars as an Army captain who is given orders to take an imprisoned sickly Cheyenne chief home to his reservation to die as a free man. But, like the other films directed by Cooper, each of those films seem to be in no rush to get where they are going. Bookended by an intense intro and tense finale which are thrillingly brutal, Hostiles also takes the long way in reaching its destination. Actually film feels even longer than it is (133m) because it prioritizes mood over narrative depth and momentum. The story itself follows a fairly predictable path, but at the same time film boasts a cast of brilliant actors which performances are quite good and the location photography is breathtakingly at times.In short, Hostiles is a mixed-bag drama when it comes to story and execution and like so many westerns, still mostly adheres to the one-sided stereotypical story telling. Film fails to reach its full potential, wanders off course from time to time, but eventually manages to deliver its simple message and understanding right on time. The movie generally worked for me, and it's been a good few years now since I came away from a cinema with that feeling about a western.8/10

.....it slowly morphed into a meandering mess. The acting was decent all around but the seepage of 'pc' grew . A self-awareness is good for anyone esp. those who dealt in combat as a constant threat as these characters did but what didn't ring very true was the time period 1892 - New Mexico Territory. There were railroads that went straight up to Fort Collins-CO and the reference to Fort Pearce was across the Green River in Utah Territory close to St. George - no where near to a trek to MT esp. having to cross the Green River.The violence was warranted but it was constant but the most foolish stunt was the final violent scene with the father and his 3 sons - all four racists at least per the father's remarks. Reminded me of that colossal mess 'Dances With Wolves' although not as agenda driven as that sloppy film was.The west was settled by 1892. Had the setting been 1868 or 1876 yeah credible, it wasn't.

Many reviewing Hostiles have chosen to seize upon avenues to criticize the film. Most common is the unfortunate chronological error where the Presidential order directing the mission was signed by Benjamin Harrison. This places the story in the period of 1889 to 1893, years too late to make sense. Such a mistake is lamentable. The time period of the story would have ideally taken place from 1879 to 1880, when Rutherford Hayes was President, and the United States had largely defeated hostile tribes in the southwest and northern plains, but would be before the establishment of the railroad lines in New Mexico. This would have necessitated the pack mule excursion to Montana. It also would have allowed sufficient time to pass, given the references to Wounded Knee (1873) and Little Big Horn (1876), for the bitter memories to start to recede and allow the reflections shown in the movie to take place.However, a fair review of this movie must avoid getting bogged down in historical minutia and instead focus on the story, because it is very poignant.In many ways, this movie is to be congratulated for avoiding the modern day political traps that permeate so much of entertainment today. The opening scene is brutal and forms the core of the story. A band of renegades attack a settlement home and leave a gash of misery in their wake. But, that is the coda of what the protagonists deal with, past chapters of great violence in a collision of hostile cultures. The isolated acts of violence that happen later are as much a cleaning up of past deeds and a completion of the catharsis of reconciliation.This movie is an immersion into the psyche of those who carry out acts of wartime violence, in a fight for survival, and how they try to retain their sanity and civility. As the story shows, some handle it better than others. None escape without deep scars.There is a second theme that runs throughout the movie, ignorant people at the beginning and the end, attempting to lodge their persuasion onto the protagonists. None of these men suffered the wartime violence, but instead try to insert an empty moralizing, or attempt to enact their selfish will despite the clear Presidential mandate to allow the mission to proceed. The reporter at the start of the film is silenced through humiliation. The second group at the end of the film meets a more lasting end. And at the end, we are left with shared misery among the few survivors, who try to bravely go on with what is left good to cling to.Christian Bale is masterful in this movie. It is sad that his performance was not properly recognized. Ultimately, this is a story of redemption, and in that regard it mirrors what took place over generations in America. A clash of survival ending with one side defeated, while both sides had to reconcile the shared experience of brutality. It avoids political finger-pointing, and in that regard strikes the proper degree of respect for both sides in this American struggle. It is a welcome addition to Hollywood's collection of period movies.