"The Last of the Mohicans" is an American (mostly) English-language film from 1992, so this one has its 25th anniversary this year. It is most likely the most famous of many adaptations of the original novel by James Fenimore Cooper and this movie was directed by Michael Mann, who is also one of quite a few writers working on this project. The biggest reason why so many people still know and watch it is that the central character (though not the one in the title) is played by Daniel Day-Lewis briefly after his first of so far three Oscar wins and looking at him here and especially the romance story, nobody can say he wasn't a heart-throb in his younger years. He was in his early/mid-30s when this was made. And he sure does look the part as do most of the other actors here portraying Native Americans. The film won an Oscar for its sound, was nominated for a Golden Globe for its score and was really very much appreciated by the BAFTAs, won for cinematography and make-up there, so really a very colourful potpourri of awards recognition. One of the bigger awards players that year! You will find somewhat known actors in this one in smaller roles like Postlethwaite (he has a much more famous supporting performance next to DDL), but a great deal of the cast members really were entirely unknown to me, also those who played bigger supporting characters. And while the females in the audience (and in the movie) may like the Indian characters' looks, I must say that the females in here (Stowe and especially May) were really gorgeous. But that's just a side note.
If we talk about the subject at hand, I would not call the film a western, but a historic war drama and even if these three genres are not exactly my very top favorites (especially war), I still mildly liked it. Fairly expected. There is not much wrong with it technically, even if I am a bit surprised by the awards attention. Costumes, make-up and sets are fine as well. The romance part was a bit meh, sometimes slightly cheesy, also with the exact way how early on we have her reject her suitor showing us what a modern independent woman she is. That was actually a bit close to Rosamunde Pilcher level there. So from the perspective of romance I think the film is not working too well and I would have liked a slightly better execution, even if the "looking at her" (with lust) scene is alright. Maybe if you have a bigger interest in war and history films, then you will genuinely enjoy this one taking place centuries back in the past, in the middle of the 18th century in fact. I know I am a great Daniel Day-Lewis fan, but this movie here is not on a level where he really shines in it. I don't know if it is his approach or if it is the way the character was written. Tough to say, maybe a mix of both. Not too surprised he did not get an Oscar nomination that time. The only memorable thing is really his hair. He is a far more gifted actor than he can show us here. And that he is nonetheless among the better aspects doesn't really say anything great about the film.
The supporting cast was not bad, not superb either. Or they had the problem that there were just too many minor characters in here and almost all of them did not get the proper attention and character writing that justified their existence and could have made them memorable somehow. I struggled with May's character in particular. She was just there in the film doing almost nothing (did she have any lines?) and then there is her big emotional suicide that also felt a bit exaggerated for my liking. I must say at almost two hours the film had a tolerable amount of lengths. Could have been way worse. There were good moments as well without a doubt, but also those could have been more frequent. One I hated and liked at the same time was basically Waddington sacrificing himself. It came a bit too sudden as he was more of an antagonist before that. But especially with DDL's character's mercy shot it still became one of the most memorable scenes there. Of course, also for me as a translator because the "me" offered all kinds of ways to interpret this specific moment. Maybe he did not even plan on getting killed himself.
Completely away from the story: The landscapes, especially mountain sides, were beautiful and the score was also a joy to listen to, even if it was not subtle at all. It worked very well though. One major problem I had was that the title character (not Day-Lewis slightly surprisingly, although only not by blood and one day he sort of will be it) just never got the significance he needed to make us care for him. Chingachgook is somewhat of a known name, so they definitely could have done a lot more with him, but maybe they were also scared he could take attention away from the man you see on the poster here on imdb. I mean he gets his big moment near the end, in which he kinda out of nowhere kills the bad guy (Studi did a good job playing Magua, also physically), who to me seemed much stronger, but that's it pretty much. This final shot also gives us a pretty memorable quote that justifies the title, but I still wondered why this character (sadly the actor is no longer with us) was not featured more prominently before. Let me finally say that I am writing this review as somebody who has not read the book. Maybe you need to in order to appreciate this film even more, to understand certain scenes better, but I don't think this should be the case ever. For any movie. So no idea if the writers here did not live up fully to the potential or if the base material already had occasional weaknesses. I can only say that story is king and that the film with regard to the plot was overall just good enough and that strengths in other fields that received awards attention slightly make up for the sometimes mediocre quality when it comes to writing. A cautious thumbs-up overall. Also thanks to the spectacular ending (a bit more on the happy than realistic side seeing how the good guys prevail, despite their numeric disadvantage, even if not without sacrifice) which maybe is just a bit too much with the bad guy killing one first, then the young sister dying, then the bad guy dying etc. But there are memorable moments before that too, like the lengthy fight sequence in which the female protagonist's father is killed. Also it is a violent movie here and there. On one occasion, a character gets scalped and on many occasions characters are killed, once even with the heart being cut out of a character's torso. As for the male lead, finally I want to say that DDL is just always one who makes the material better and more watchable. However, even if I am a huge fan of his, there is still no denying for me that here we have one of his weaker films. Maybe other than my fellow DDL fans, this is best to be seen by people with a great interest in history because the conflict between Britain and France may be interesting to follow here, even if it must be said that the French are almost non-existent here, definitely more talked-about than actually seen (and when they are seen once, they are actually pretty merciful with their leader's offer in contrast to the Brits who want to hang DDL's character although he helped them earlier), while the real battles happen between British forces and natives. The natives here are not the victims though (the way they are in many other films), frequently the violent aggressors instead, and Day-Lewis' character and his folks are the interface between the two sort-of. Okay, that would be all then. My suggestion is that you give the film a chance unless the genre really does not interest you. You will probably not be overwhelmed by the outcome, but i think it is good enough, especially if you get the chance to see it on the big screen at your local theater.
11 out of 22 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink