Very interesting true story that I feel needed to be told. This was film editor Brett Hedlund's directorial debut, and although his inexperience showed, especially in directing his cast, it was still decent for his first visit to the rodeo. Newb writers Carl Morris and David Michael O'Neill put the story together quite well and smoothly, but the pacing certainly needed a pick-up, as the 102 min runtime felt long and dragged out. I'm glad though that this film wasn't Hollywood glorified. It felt more like a Lifetime TV show, and that's not a bad thing. Cinematography was good, and the score and sound very fitting. An enjoyable film, but you'll need patience before anything really interesting starts to happen. It's a 7/10 from me.
Add a Review
-
jamalking155 May 2020Good story presenting the abuse of power by activist groups taking advantage of ranchers. The movie presents a real problem with overreach perpetrated by special interest groups who created loopholes in laws, passed in the name of helping needy animals. Acting is decent and story is good, but gets a little "conspiracy " focused. But the story needs to be told. Extremists who don't want animals used at all in ranching push bad laws into law, then harass ranchers to go out of business.
-
jeff-205123 June 2020It's not best picture material, but it doesn't deserve the negative reviews. It's "flyover country" problems, but those too are real problems. It shows how corrupt well-intentioned laws can become. Very good.
-
Netflix has a little drama, The Stand at Paxton County, that can be neglected for its hackneyed plot but not ignored for the real-life application of a new law opening ranches in the NW to exploitation and old-fashioned rustling.
The new Title allows a neighboring rancher or farmer to claim neglect and, with a vet's nod, send the sheriff to confiscate the animals. This thriller depicts the consequences for an accused rancher. As mystery, the film is pretty pedestrian; as a wakeup call for ranchers, farmers, and those sympathetic to their struggles, it succeeds getting attention, if only to point out how property rights can be endangered, and, of course, basic freedom.
Army medic Janna Connelly (Jacqueline Toboni), on leave to visit her ailing N Dakota dad, Dell (Michael O'Neill), finds some local authorities are harassing ranchers with the new legislation, to the point of one rancher committing suicide. Because she is a trained medic, she researches the problem and pursues a solution. The problem involves bad hombres trying legally to benefit from seizing livestock, and good people hamstrung by the new law.
While the plot is boilerplate thriller, the insight into the downside of such a statute is eye-opening if not sensational. The plot takes sinister turns including poisoning and murder. In N Dakota? Yep, just ask the Fargo folks. This place can't get a break, and as isolated remote as the state is, we have an abiding interest in its extracurricular mayhem.
Although nothing in the plot can be considered remotely new, except for the legal boondoggle that propels it, a little bell of awareness rings about our fellow Americans' ability to encroach on our freedoms by pursuing our property by legal means. That's the rub of this thriller: seemingly good people turn bad when money and property rule.
See The Stand at Paxton County: you'll learn something about N. Dakota, the wild West, and the vulnerability livestock owners face every day. -
classicsoncall18 July 2020What you have here is pretty much a 1940's B Western updated with modern day trappings, replacing your standard gang of conniving horse rustlers with a corrupt sheriff and a county veterinarian using subtleties in the law to 'legally' steal horses from local ranchers. Under the animal abuse provisions of Title 23, the animals are confiscated for minor ranch violations, and sold at a premium in other jurisdictions as the human victims find themselves defenseless and reduced to poverty. Unlike the old time Westerns, the villains of the piece don't necessarily look the part, they're dressed up as your average law abiding citizen, but with larceny in their heart and a lack of human compassion. It's not until the film ends that you're shocked into recognition that this was actually based on a true life case, at which time there comes an appreciation that the characters in the story were heroes in taking on corrupt law enforcement. A defining moment occurs at the end of the picture when the bully sheriff gets taken down by one of his intended equine victims. I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say that it was a real kick in the head.
-
Erik_Stone11 January 2021It's a 6 quality movie, but a 9 quality message, so it gets a 7.
The end is way to much 80's - 90's style, contrived, but the first 3/4 of it is really good.
The message is that no matter how nice and froofy Humane Society NAZIs pretend to be, they are out to kill you, the animals, anything alive that they can get their bloody hands on, while smiling and praising themselves and making money from it. There are a lot of people that care for animals and people out there, but they don't work for humane organizations or government. -
paul-rose7-246-6182328 August 2020Based on true events illustrating what can happen when misguided fanatical animal rights people create opportunity for corrupt law enforcers to steal peoples property.
-
dti81226 May 2020This movie was slow, plodding and telegraphed many of its suprises. I liked the actors and I was puling for them, particularly Michael ONiell as the patriarch and Jacqueline Toboni as his daughter. The Sheriff was creepy but I have a hard time seeing him as anything but Shooter McGavin. This movie was like a poor made for tv flick. Numb and mindless.
-
jim-327761 January 2021This film is a surprise, predictable plot - but for some reason I found it very compelling and interesting, it has a slow first half as it sets up the characters and main story line. It also identifies some serious issues with the way that laws are made, applied and abused.
-
mcjensen-0592420 June 2021While this movie had some huge, glaring plot holes it still managed to be a very enjoyable movie. I was drawn in by the captivating charm projected by the lead. Her every word and action rang sincere and motivated by a will to do positive. The supporting cast also was very competent and real in their roles. The premise of good/innocent folks pitted against corrupt/greedy government officials is always interesting but only successful if dealth with deftly and competently. Sure, things happen that would never happen and unfold in ways that stretch credibility to the breaking point. But while I'm usually quick to quit on a movie and condemn everyone associated with it, I throroughly enjoyed this movie with it's honest sincerity. The tender moments were not overdone to Hallmark proportions, and the actors/actresses reigned in their performances even though I'm sure the temptation to give more was present. Here, less is more and I give full credit to the director for not only realizing it but getting the cast to respect it. Beautiful scenery as well, although a forgettable soundtrack. Soundtracks these days tend to be rather mild and gutless anyway, but at least here it didn't detract from the theme and feel of the overall experience. I thought it was excellent even with it's flaws. It possessed a rare power I rarely experience in movies of this sort. Superb casting and editing, and the humor never felf forced. Watch it, keeping in mind that it's not an imperfect vessel. 7.5.
-
David-Starkey5 May 2020If you like predictable, uninspired, Hallmark movies, this may be the film for you.
Since when did North Dakota have palm trees and and busy freeways? -
missydass24 May 2020My family lived this nightmare. The following is just my opinion based on what I know about the true story and the movie.
There were some liberties taken, but the people involved in the production took a lot of time and effort to keep to the majority of the true story; yes it is "based on," but the corruption of a sheriff who had lost his way, the fact that a vet wielded her power to try and take all the animals that were worth money (they left the dog and cats, but the vet was going to get all the mares that were expecting babies), the law was voted down by the voters but passed in back door legislation and was sponsored by The Humane Society of the United States are part of the true story.
Early on when I was told how it was going to have originated (an anonymous complaint from out of state) it all sounded a little too conspiracy theory to me too.
Until it happened. Exactly like I had been told it would. The Humane Society of the United States also provides training to our law enforcement and they train that minor every day things are "criminal negligence."
I do not think it was a coincidence that The Humane Society of the US had provided training to the sheriffs department before this ordeal started.
By the grace of God we prevailed; but what would you do if they showed up at your door?
Is your Sheriff an honest person with integrity who will stand up for citizens rights? Or will they fold to special interests that make donations of equipment in addition to political donations?
Feel free to take a look at the page TheStandAtPaxtonCounty true story on Facebook. I outline what is Hollywood and what was the true story.
If the movie is about 80% true to the real story still propaganda? Not if you ask me; I was there and these type of cases are happening across America everyday and I know that now because it happened to my family. -
The movie caught my attention from the beginning and drew me into a nicely unfolding story about an Army captain called back home to help her father with problems on his ranch.
Jacqueline Toboni carries the movie with an understated but strong performance, the film makers portrayed her as tough but sympathetic and I was relieved they didn't go for some kind of female Rambo angle. The characters have depth and develop throughout the movie in a way that is compelling.
The movie is well paced and develops somewhat unexpectedly into a spy thriller kind of movie and a conspiracy of increasing complexity. Without giving too much away, unfortunately I eventually found the story to be so wildly implausible that it was a little hard to watch the ending, and it just seemed like pro-rancher and anti-activist propaganda. The film makers obviously have an axe to grind and hate those damn libtards, I get it but it detracts from what was otherwise a pretty good movie. -
eumetazoan5 May 2020The producer Forrest Lucas has contributed large amounts to anti-animal rights causes and made other non-true-story movies with the same political message. To keep the politics heavy, some of the other usual bad guys are thrown in - government and the press. I'm no fan of PETA, but I really hate to see politics masquerading as art. This just shows how eager certain special interests are to manipulate us.
-
jeff-85-12656120 February 2021Worth a look. Tight writing keeps this one interesting and entertaining.
-
fmwongmd11 July 2020Based on a true story of chapter 23 shenanigans, this is a taut, well put together film with solid acting.
-
From a awful and completely inaccurate portrait of a soldier. To the lackadaisical use of uniform standards. To a Captain doing an enlisted soldiers job as a medic. It was quite a difficult movie to get into.
Casting definitely didn't get things right with Her, Deputy, and Sheriff. But once you get past the terrible hey producers pay a freaking soldier for some advice. As well as the wrongly cast other characters. The main character really does end up filling the role. Overall a wormhole watch. Just make sure you keep an open mind going into it and it will be a pleasurable experience. -
joylhurt15 November 2020Artistic liberties definitely taken with this story, and good people turned into antagonistic characters for no reason.
-
mjdk225 December 2020This movie is based on a true story and illustrates the what happens when you have corrupt people in positions of authority. It is well worth watching as a lesson in history of what can happen when bad people get into positions of power.
-
kimbpaul13 April 2022Every single review he/she leaves, same complaint, "overuse" of something. And the exclamation marks on every sentence are icing on the cake. Truly an idiot. Should be banned from Imdb. Just my opinion.
Anyway, about the film...It's scary. Everyday living for a rancher is hard enough without dirty politicians breathing down their necks. While it dragged a little, it wasn't distracting enough to ruin the film. I like it. -
jimbob25525 July 2020Yes you have seen it all before. A standard made for tv bore fest. Corruption, revenge etc.......
-
recrem-14 December 2020Contrary to the initial claim of the first reviewer, just a cursory research on the web verifies that the basics of this story are true. And in real life the judge threw out the charges of animal abuse and ordered the animals be returned to their rightful owner. And nowhere in the movie is the mistreatment of animals glorified. It is a story about a conspiracy to claim falsely that animal abuse HAD occurred in order to seize the ranch. But enough of correcting obvious misstatements in reviews.
In reality, this movie is actually a well crafted suspense piece that you can relate to even if you have never been on a ranch. For those looking for extended gun fights and other lengthily episodes of gratuitous violence, look elsewhere. The emphasis here is on suspense, not violence. And there's that other subtle message from this story, viz. should business owners of all pursuits be a bit apprehensive about their government's growing penchant to shut them down and seize their property, whether based on animal abuse or health concerns.
I recommend you give the movie and Netflix a chance. It will be well worth you time. -
ksf-215 October 2022According to the opening card, this is based on a actual events. Although it's a similar story to what we saw in so many old westerns. In paxton county, a daughter comes home to find there's a sherrif harassing her dad, and using animal care protection laws to take his livestock away. Possibly for profit. They talk about shipping the stock to mexico, where the paperwork doesn't matter. In the old black and white westerns, it was just the bad guys trying to take someone's cattle, either by force or some paperwork shenanigans. In the paxton county story, now there are more, bigger, complications... don't want to say too much. No spoilers! It's a story of corruption. Some flaws, but it's a story. It's okay. A bit slow. And a lot of mumbling of lines. Sometimes hard to hear what they are saying. Directed by brett hedlund. His one directing gig so far.
-
dmullarkey87 January 2021I read missydas review (I'm assuming it's the actual person involved, the one who shows up at the end) and I believe her when she says 80% is true. But that still doesn't make it a good movie.
As other users have posted, the second half of the movie devolves into a very stale over the top conspiracy with the sherif as an almost cartoonic villain complete with a confession he assumes won't go anywhere because he's about to kill the girl who has discovered the illegal enterprise. It's laughable but it also pissed me off - couldn't they tell the actual story and make it better? The answer: yes, in the hands of a capable team of writer, director and producer.
I don't fault the actors too much because they don't have much to work with here. And it's a shame, because I'm sure most Americans are unaware of this issue. I guess at least I'm now aware. One thing to come out of this very pedestrian film. -
romonet5 December 2020The story has a strong emotional core and point of view, but the objective events shown can tell a different story than the "pinko-elites vs we the people" presented here.
The creepy ending sequence, where a fat cat in a suit expounds to a darkened meeting room that, despite minor setbacks, their ultimate success is inevitable, made me wonder. Who are these guys in that meeting? They're not lefty animal lovers, nor are they corrupt local officials. The fat cat looks and sounds like a cartoon banker or CEO.
Then I noticed that the story is based on events in Stark County, ND (Paxton County is fictitious), which is located on the Bakken oil shale formation! This scene doesn't change the corrupt predator storyline, but it bumps the level of corruption up to a higher, richer plane.
I wondered how a law like this Title 23 could get passed in a state like North Dakota? Not your leftwing stronghold. The usual answer - big money, with powerful local and national interests - works here. Who would those interests rather have to deal with: Ranching families with generationally successful operations, or failed spreads, desperate for money? Title 23, ruining rancher families, driving them to sell out to the oilmen, while providing a handy left-wing paper villain, is a win-win for powerful petro.
Business in America is done legally, but who writes the laws?