User reviews

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!

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.

"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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

In "The Settlers," Felipe Gálvez's debut film crafts a poignant historical drama that delves deep into the heart of Chile's colonial legacy, presenting a visceral and unflinching examination of violence, identity, and the clash of cultures. The film's meticulous cinematography, nuanced performances, and evocative direction create a rich, immersive experience that lingers long after the credits roll.

The film opens in the desolate yet breathtaking landscapes of Patagonia, captured with a stark, almost eerie beauty by cinematographer Inti Briones. The wide, unbroken shots of the expansive terrain convey both the isolation of the setting and the monumental scale of the settlers' mission. The visual style emphasizes the harshness and indifference of the natural world, creating a powerful backdrop against which the human drama unfolds. The barren landscapes are not just settings but active participants in the narrative, reflecting the inner desolation and moral void of the characters.

"The Settlers" is anchored by the character of Segundo (Camilo Arancibia), a young mixed-race Chilean who joins an expedition led by the domineering José Menéndez (Alfredo Castro). This journey, cloaked in the guise of progress and civilization, quickly reveals itself as a genocidal campaign against the indigenous Selk'nam people. The narrative deftly explores the complexities of identity and complicity through Segundo's perspective, portraying his inner conflict and gradual realization of the true nature of their mission.

Gálvez's direction is both bold and intimate, capturing the brutality of colonial violence without sensationalism. The scenes of conflict are stark and harrowing, reflecting the relentless cruelty of the settlers' actions. The film's approach to violence is unflinching, yet it also provides moments of quiet reflection, allowing the audience to process the gravity of the events. This balance between explicit brutality and contemplative silence creates a profound impact, making the horror of colonialism palpable and inescapable.

The performances are uniformly exceptional, with Alfredo Castro delivering a chilling portrayal of Menéndez. His character embodies the ruthless ambition and moral blindness of the colonial enterprise, commanding the screen with a quiet, menacing presence. Camilo Arancibia's portrayal of Segundo is equally compelling, marked by a subtle, restrained intensity that captures his character's internal turmoil. The supporting cast, including Bernardo Coria and other expedition members, add depth and authenticity to the film, their performances reflecting the varied facets of complicity and resistance.

Symbolism plays a crucial role in "The Settlers," particularly in its ending. The final scenes are laden with metaphorical weight, encapsulating the film's themes of identity, survival, and the inexorable march of history. Without giving too much away, the ending serves as a poignant commentary on the enduring legacies of colonialism and the cyclical nature of violence and oppression.

The historical context of "The Settlers" is meticulously rendered, grounding the narrative in a specific time and place while also resonating with universal themes of power, exploitation, and cultural erasure. Gálvez's script, co-written with Antonia Girardi, is sharp and incisive, weaving historical detail with philosophical inquiry. The dialogue is sparse yet potent, each line carrying significant weight and contributing to the film's overarching commentary.

In conclusion, "The Settlers" is a masterful exploration of colonial violence and its enduring impact on identity and culture. Felipe Gálvez's debut feature is both a cinematic tour de force and a profound historical meditation, marked by stunning cinematography, powerful performances, and a deeply human story. It is a film that challenges and haunts, compelling its audience to confront the brutal truths of history and their lingering echoes in the present. "The Settlers" stands as a significant achievement in contemporary cinema, a testament to the power of film as a medium for truth-telling and reflection.

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.

The film explores an interesting theme; however, it disappointed me. Both its structure and the message it seeks to convey are basic and monotonous, making its 100-minute runtime a superficial experience, as it builds on a sense of injustice that is evident from the start. Among its notable aspects are the cinematography and shot composition, which are very similar to classic Westerns and beautifully showcase the Chilean landscape. With minimal dialogue, the film effectively conveys its main message. One last point to mention is Camilo Arancibia's performance, which, as a Chilean, I found very accurate and realistic.

A beautiful film about the ugliness of humanity and its inherent exploratory instinct.

This, for me, is one of the most beautiful films of the decade, Simone D'Arcangelo's photography is sublime and captures in a mesmerizing way the poetry and melancholy of such a sad story of such a beautiful place.

Camilo Arancibia is fantastic, although some people didn't like the poetic tone that Felipe Galvez used to capture the story and those people, for me, it works and largely thanks to Camilo, with a touching performance from someone in constant conflict between hate, suffering, sadness and anguish, but with hope in a place where it no longer seems to exist.

A remarkable example of how you can make a film about a war, without actually seeing it in full, but feeling the emotional and violent impact of the events in every second.

As a Brazilian, stories like this from our beautiful, but usurped America, need to exist, so we don't forget the hell of our origins in a tropical paradise.

I really enjoyed the cinematography from beginning to end, the landscapes, framing and colours are amazing.

I found the setting interesting, there aren't many South American westerns out there, and being from Argentina I'm always curious about these stories. The pace is very slow but tense, and it builds throughout, with the help of a good sound and music score.

I felt that the ending was a bit underwhelming though, hence the somehow lower score, I'd actually give it a 6.5 to show it's almost a solid film for me.. The performances are decent, but not great. Specially (and unfortunately, as I couldn't ignore how I felt about them..) the two main characters, MacLennan (don't know really if it wasn't a great performance or I just disliked the character so much, I guess it's a mix of both) and Segundo. Specially Segundo, in the last scene, as he narrates a terrible story, he didn't feel convincing at all and pretty much ruined the scene for me. That scene could have been approached way better to give it more intensity, in my humble opinion.

Still, I'd ultimately say it's an interesting film and it definitely worth the watch. I'm sure some will appreciate the story more than others, but the cinematography alone will please everyone.

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.

I did not know anything about this parrt of Chile history. This movie begins like a western, with a scheme rather close to TOM HORN, where it is impossible to say who is the good character and who is the villain. This amazing film is not destined to wide audiences, as you can guess, and it is quite painful, depressing, disturbing, but so close to actual facts. I really loved this picture, a so amazing, lesson of history. It definitely deserved to be told. It is rough, gritty, and divided in two parts actually. That's exactly the kind of film that I search for from Latin America or Us or European indie film industries.

'The Settlers (2023)' is about as bleak as it gets. This sparse anti-Western focuses on a Scottish lieutenant, an American Cowboy and a young Chilean worker who's good with a rifle as they set out across the vast planes of Chile to 'secure a safe route' for their employer's livestock. What that task actually boils down to, however, is a systematic elimination of the indigenous population that inhabit the employer's so-called property. The picture concerns itself with colonisation and the way in which all nations are built upon horrific violence founded in the dangerous cross-section between racism and capitalism. Borders are just imaginary lines drawn by people with the means to enforce their intended restrictions. When somebody tells you they own your land and you have to assimilate into their culture or die, what do you do? To even be offered that chance to bend to their will is unusual, but a choice between losing your freedom and losing your life isn't really a choice at all. Defiance is the only form of protest, the only way to fight against the changing landscape of a world increasingly defined by the greed of men who may as well be monsters.

The fact that pretty much all society is based on murder, rape and outright genocide is a difficult thing to reckon with. It's an interesting thing to explore cinematically, the kind of theme that can get under your skin and keep you awake at night. However, this particular picture takes a very slow and plot-light approach to the material, while also indulging in some strange structural decisions that further us from the central dynamic in favour of communicating the underlying context. The theme is elusive enough that no beat-by-beat narrative can really contain it, and so a sweeping approach is perhaps the only apt one. The minimalistic version of the old-school epic this presents isn't always as engaging as it could have been, though, and the affair definitely sacrifices some of its in-the-moment success in order to craft its longer-lasting and quietly profound aftertaste. That isn't a bad thing, but it does make the movie even harder to recommend than its utter ruinous tone. It is, by design, not a nice experience. The most likable character is the one who reluctantly allows barbarity to occur around him, rather than indulging in the barbarity directly, which says a lot about the story's lack of anything even approaching a hero. It's certainly not fun, as is expected, but it's often not particularly... engaging, I suppose. Still, it has a certain effect to it that's only enhanced by its willingness to break tradition and connect with its audience on a very particular level. It's clumsy on occasion, sure, but it's trying to convey a point and it's doing it in an often striking way. The horror of its narrative is juxtaposed with the beauty of its immense environment, captured with crisp yet painterly cinematography that conveys the vastness of the landscape both as a means of isolating the central trio within a so-called inhospitable land and also as a way of showing the untarnished elegance - or, depending on your point of view, untapped potential - of a region soon to be covered in towns and highways and shopping malls. While there are stretches of the film that feel too drawn out and others that feel far too rushed, it's ultimately doing exactly what it feels it needs to. In a way, it's almost like some of its characters, using its own brutal methods to stamp its mark on your television while demanding you conform to its ways. It's uncompromising.

The overall affair is a difficult one to judge. It keeps you at arm's length on purpose, never really giving you an inch of goodness to hold on to, and portrays a world in which the good and the bad are preyed upon in turn. It's a hopeless condemnation of the very thing that created the society which enabled it to be made. It isn't the most compelling affair, some of its acting is a little amateurish, its pacing and structure often feel inefficient, and it's an uncompromisingly unpleasant experience (that last one isn't inherently a bad thing). Yet, it does have a certain power to it, and it makes its point relatively well. After all, would I have spent this long writing about it if it didn't connect with me in some way? Although it borders on boring on occasion, it's these very moments that cement it as what it ultimately is. How do you assign a star rating to something like that? If you're looking for something more conventional from a western, maybe avoid this feature. If you're interested in seeing what I've described, though, then give it a go. Just be warned: it's be a challenging watch.

The film is very frustrating but an important movie to watch because of many Natives of the Onas, Natives of the Tierra Del Fuego Arhipelao who were butchered over the land of Chile is a fierce and intense film let's break it down.

Throughout the film I took notice that there was a lot of symbolism.

Blood seems to be a big one in the opening credits the screen is red and in the end critics also red which symbolizes in my opinion the bloodshed that was spelled during the burcher of the natives. When Alexander Mclennan wipes the blood off his hands in water as if he washes off the sins of his evil deeds. He wears a red coat which in some cases shows passion, love, power, and conflict in the film I see it as power Alexander shows to be a very strong man, and is a brutal fighter who takes advantage of a young woman who the American also uses as well, he comes off as the tough character and harden.

Black Horse is seen a lot which can show strength, sexuality, virility, and even death in the case of The Settlers, wherever our main characters go death is always with them because of the horrific killings they are doing to the innocent natives.

Cinematography The camera work is beautiful every frame is a painting with so much great color with natural lighting shining through. A lot of steady cam and handheld camera work and wonderful close-ups, but also stunning wide shots to show mountains and landscapes, the whole sequence of the three men hunting the natives is an inetnse scene but shot so will with fog, and forest trees as they walk through just such a well shot scene, even the simplest scenes of them in front of a fire having a conversion is superbly lit.

The film is based on facts of the Selk'Nam Geneciode in the late 19th century to the early 20th century which spanned over ten to twenty years. The ranchers tried their best to drive out Selk'Nam then they started a campaign to extend the Selk'Nam with help from the Argentine and Chilean governments. Will know companies paid sheep farmers and militia a bounty for the death of Selk'Nam. This was confirmed by a presentation of hands or ears later a complete skull. They were given more money for the death of women than the man. Missionaries disrupted their livelihood and forced them to relocate and this brought deadly epidemics. Later the conflict was sought through inquiry (1895-1904) Waldo Sguel was the judge at the trial, this confirmed that the indigenous people of Tierra Del Fuego were indeed hunted. They were captured and removed en masse and then were transported to Punta Arenas throughout the colony. No confirmation but all we know is that the tribe declined from 4,000 around 1850 to 100 in 1930.

Overall The Settlers while it's a very viseral and brutal film to watch one that you will only see once it's a great film with wonderful acting, such eye candy cinematography, to a western film feel and look to it having the aspect radio being boxed at 1.50:1 gives an old film look to it and how the film is colorful and at times grey giving the film an old timey look, for a film again I will only watch once this is a great piece of film,and one that is essential to watch for anyone who loves film I give it four stars.

A unique South American western film, with a very delicate and raw storytelling style. Peculiar, little-explored historical events are recreated in a geography (Tierra del Fuego, Chile) as inhospitable as it is beautiful. Well-developed characters leave you curious (and maybe a little bit upset) about the encounter between the ancestral peoples of southern Chile (like all America's extinctions) and European supremacy by the time. Beautiful cinematography. Interesting historical facts makes you question wether we as society, have learned something from the past and ourselves. Highly recomended! Thanks!

As chilean, we are not far from the country complexities. At the time, natives in the southernmost part of the country were less prone to conflicts due to harsh weather conditions; thus developing a rich, peaceful and isolated culture. That until these lands were deemed perfect for farming, and the worlds collided violently. Chile was a newly created nation, with all the vices from the west and huge influence of the colonizer powers. The story carries some details that are hard to prove, but all in all, it is true to events; especially when you dive into the intricate path of the mestizos, who dwell between collaborators and victims. The movie sheds light on concealing mass rapes, traffic, and murders of southern indigenous people, followed by their coercion into "reconciliation" and assimilation into the Nation-State. That said, it is not an easy watch, but the beauty of the photography and the slow pace of the direction provides a calming narrative that helps to cope with the worst. Isolation is key, leaving much space to the unknown.

Personally, I loved how the role of the women provides a meaningful stand in the struggle of white supremacy and patriarchal violence. Growing up in the dictatorship of the 80's, we never truly understood our heritage, and stories were badly told back then. Being chilean was shameful, and all the hints of resistance were labeled badly, in line with the extreme government views. Today, I believe these movies are more necessary than ever, because we keep on failing to our own shared humanity consistently, erasing a legacy imposible to retrieve. Now Selk'nam, Yaganes and Kawésqar people are no longer here to tell their stories, so we can only imagine how they might have felt. Still, the narrative remains incomplete.

Chilean Felipe Gálvez Haberle' feature film debut.

It is a beautiful, profound, unflinching depiction of genocide serving the purposes of a land-grabbing Spaniard in late 19th cent. Patagonia.

Cinematography, acting, cast, script all great.

I consider this an artistic cinematic slice of basically what happened during the brutal colonization of The Americas.

Aside from all that, it is a lesson in filmmaking. The transition sequence into the parlor, the woman and girls singing "All the Pretty Horses (Hush-a-bye)" was masterful, and moving.

This film isn't for everyone. But anyone who has enjoyed so-called "Art House" fare should give this a watch.

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.

I'm from Argentina and i write this because i was reading others reviews that said this is a plotless film. I don't know if maybe is a local film that only south americans can get it. It has to do with the fact that those all beatiful landscapes that you get to see during the film are in hands of few people ("three days of lands belongs to him" says one character.

The way of filming resembles Tarantino's style, chapters with flashy titles and very violent farwest scenes.

The language is a mix like one of the main characters, it reflects the colonialism both english and hispanic and its presence in the origins of Chile and Argentina and how this cultures leads with the natives.

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.

In 1901, Segundo, a Chilean mestizo; MacLennan, an English army captain; and Bill, an American mercenary; embark on an expedition on horseback to delimit and reclaim the lands that the State has granted to José Menéndez.

There are 4 things worth to highlight in this movie

1. This is a violent and brutal movie on colonisation of the Terra del Fuego where the tone is clear from the first take, where an old man is shot dead after a work accident because he lost his arm: a man without an arm is one man less, says MacLennan before shooting him.

2. The role of Segundo, who is a mestizo, not daring to rebel to the violence of the settlers, becoming complicit of their violence. His eyes express his internal struggle, but this is not preventing him to join the most horrible slaughters, the last one told to the government representative come to promote a reconciliation with Indios.

3. The Patagonia landscape, which is beautiful, but deprived of any hint of prettiness by the camera of Simone D'arcangelo, as if even the landscape were defaced by the human violence.

4. The last part of the movie, after 7 years, is showing the will of the government to reconcile with Indios by hiding the violence of the past and perpetuating the colonisation of the land at the "end of the world". And of course this didn't happen only in Chile.