SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

curtis martin I like "The Dark Wind." Though it didn't follow the novel to the last detail, it did follow it much more than the subsequent "Mystery" TV movies did. And this one definitely has the flavor of the Hillerman novels. It's not a blockbuster. In fact THIS probably should have been a TV movie as well. While they cherry-picked some details from other novels, the details of Navajo life and behavior that Hillerman describes in his novels are there. Some people didn't like that Leaphorn was inserted in the story though he wasn't in the original novel. I didn't mind that at all--they were intending to make more of these and the most popular stories have both characters. And the handling of Leaphorn is SO MUCH better here than in those Mystery TV-movies (in which they made Leaphorn Chee's "City Guy" foil.)There is one thing I want to clear up though--the "boom mic mistakes: so many folks mention. The boom mic that intrudes in to several shots in the home video version (which is the only version we have, unfortunately)is NOT A MISTAKE BY THE DIRECTOR OR THE CINEMATOGRAPHER. It is an error in the transfer of the film to the home video format. Many 1.85:1 widescreen films shot in the 80s and 90s were really shot at 1.33:1, non-anamorphic. The "widescreen" effect was then achieved by masking off the top and bottom of the image. Sometimes the studios did this on the print itself, but sometimes they would leave it to the projectionist in the theater--if he/she projected it so that each side reached the edge of the screen and centered the imaged vertically, the "masking" was achieved simply because the top and bottom of the image was bleeding off the screen. I know that was done because back in the day I saw several films where the projectionist did not center the image vertically and all kinds of stuff the audience was never meant to see would be visible--boom mics, lights, rigging, and etc. I have specific memories of seeing this in "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie" and Richard Pryor's "Busting Loose." So, if the folks who released "The Dark Wind" to home video back in the day had given a crap, they'd have either 1) masked the film to 1.85:1 or cropped it in on ALL sides for a proper old-type TV 1.33:1 ratio. Anyway, if you have a widescreen TV (and wide is the norm now) all you have to do is blow up the image so that the right and left sides of the image go all the way to the edge and the tops and bottoms get cut off(on my Samsung it's the "Zoom 1" setting). THEN you'll see the image as it was meant to be framed, with no boom mics in sight. AND, I might add, the landscapes and other scenes will look much more impressive as well, as it emphasizes the wide horizons.

thefreakyboutiki While I've not seen the subsequent Redford produced adaptations of Hillerman's Skinwalkers, Coyote Waits (w/Adam Beach as Chee), or A Thief of Time (w/Gary Farmer returning to the Hillerverse as Captain Largo), I think any of those would have been a more universally digestible initial film. The Dark Wind is one of his most complex and perhaps a more seasoned dramatic director rather than a documentarian would have been a wiser choice. I really wished LDP, still enjoying young lion status from his roles in La Bamba and Young Guns, had optioned the rights to a couple more Hillerman stories. I truly enjoyed his subtle, soft spoken Jim Chee and his chemistry with the always excellent Gary Farmer's Dashee.

outrider01 This is the most awful movie ever made. It was great to laugh at however. The boom mic falls about a foot in to picture during two scenes, including the climax. Also characters seem to give out evil and over exaggerated laughs for no apparent reason. And what is with the little random white kid sitting on the bed of the water shamen, handing out cigarettes. Also the plot seems to just drift around aimlessly. Characters are thrown in for no apparent reason, then forgotten about. Stupid meaningless references are thrown in like the very first bootleggers coming back at the end. What is the point? Also a great scene to laugh at was when Lou Diamond was solving this brain buster of a mystery and kept writing "why?" on his paper.Watch this movie and try not to laugh at it, I dare you.

Matt Wall I've seen this movie four times now, and I remain perplexed as to why it didn't (a) get theatrically released in the first place or (b) better received by IMDB voters.Well, I'm going to take some guesses, anyway. First off, Hillerman fans. I'm a big Tony Hillerman fan, and it's true, this movie is not completely true to the text of the book nor to the in-depth development of the characters of Chee and Leaphorn.Guess what? IT"S A MOVIE, NOT A BOOK. You can't get the complexity ofcharacters built up over a 20-book series into two hours. If you want the book, go read the book for heaven's sake.What Director Morris did was combine the essence of the Chee character -- the tension between the science and modernity of being an investigating lawenforcement in the late 20th century with the earnest desire in Chee to maintain the traditions of the Dinei -- with a Whodunit that worked well on film. (Mystery novel plots and movie mystery plots do not work on the same level, usually.)There's a nice quietness to the whole movie, and we're half in Chee's head much of the time. Morris uses the same kind of brilliant palette he used in 'Thin Blue Line' to such good effect, and essentially creates a hybrid film -- half noir, half western.So why did this movie get sat upon by the studio? My guess is they just couldn't figure out what to do with it. It's not loud, noisy, the explosions and gun battles are minimal, the character has no love interest, and even though the Navajo traditional religion is not as deeply portrayed here as it is in the Hillerman books (by a long shot) even that was probably just confusing to the Hollywood types. The director known for documentaries may be a hard sell as a fiction auteur to critics. The deliberate pacing may appear to be "slow" if you're comparing it to 'Lethal Weapon II'. Who knows?So, in conclusion:(1) I think Hillerman fans were disappointed it wasn't more slavishly faithful to the original text of the specific book.(2) Errol Morris acolytes probably didn't really understand the transition to fiction of his peculiar style.(3) The Usual Hollywood suspects just didn't get a film so quiet, visual, and without the usual formulaic plot elements.The movie's not perfect, mind you. I liked Lou Diamond Phillips' quite presence in the role, but there was a problem believing him as a Navajo (why not use a Native American actor?) Some of the dialogue is a little forced (although the same could be said about the Hillerman novels, too, at times). And Leaphorn's character is a bit thrown away (although, again, in the early Chee novels he plays almost no role at all, so why quibble on this point?)I'd REALLY like to see this uncut and on the big screen sometime with a nice color print. I bet it plays very well that way. The sound and sound editing in the movie are really excellent (on top of the cinematographic highlights noted elsewhere.)In any event, I think this is a good movie, and if taken just on face value, it's a better than average cop-whodunit flick.