This review is going to be a little different from my others.  While I saw and enjoyed this quiet, contemplative western drama, I have one specific complaint about it, and, as it happens, the writer-director-star has directly addressed this particular issue in a recent interview.  I am going to post his comments and then explain why his thoughtful decision just doesn’t work in the movie’s favor.

Viggo Mortensen’s Civil War-era western pioneer story follows an immigrant, Vivienne Le Coudy (Vicki Krieps), from trying to earn her keep in San Francisco selling flowers to her bold decision to follow fellow Dane Holger Olsen (Viggo Mortensen) to his remote cabin to set up housekeeping.  It is an experience unlike any she has ever known, and it becomes fateful when Holger leaves her alone to fight in the Civil War.  She endures, but isn’t the same person when he returns.

This is by no means a traditional western.  Hardly any stereotypical western action occurs and when it does, it is often ambiguous because Mortensen tells the story with jump cuts in time both forward and backward with no transitions.  It is a character study from an immigrant perspective with multiple languages being spoken and a cultural emphasis that is certainly different than what I had expected.  Like some of Clint Eastwood’s westerns, dialogue is sparse and the story unfolds with a limited number of supporting characters.  For all that, The Dead Don’t Hurt is a lyrical, expressive, evocative drama of resilience and humanity.  It is certainly worth watching.

But it has what I think is a deadly flaw, and that involves its maddening jump cuts.  The story begins almost at its end and the characters move from the remote cabin to San Francisco, back and forth with abandon.  This technique is not ineffective, but it renders important plot points completely moot, robbing them of impact.  Writer, director and star Viggo Mortensen considered telling the story in a more linear fashion but rejected that approach.  Here’s what he said in an interview in the AU Review in 2024: “Your last chance to write is the final edit.  I didn’t want to leave any stone unturned.  I said, ‘Well, let’s take a few days.  We have the time.  We can do it.  We can re-order everything and make it linear to see how it works.’  And it actually worked.  I liked it.  It was still a good movie.  But in the end, I just personally decided no.  I liked it the way I had originally conceived it, because, for example, the way we get to know Vivienne.  From her childhood right through her life and her encounters and her relationships.  It has a different weight.  What fate has in store for her makes you look at her differently.  It makes you pay more attention.  Or it did, at least, for me.  You have to make the movie you want to see and hope that others agree with you.  So far, audiences have seemed to like it.  I think, in terms of non-linear storytelling, it’s more common in novels and recent TV series have done it a lot, so audiences aren’t averse or inexperienced with watching that storytelling.”

Now that is a very thoughtful explanation of his thinking and decision-making.  I still think he is wrong.  Telling a story in non-linear fashion creates its own style of drama because the audience doesn’t understand what is happening.  Things coalesce as the story unfolds and eventually make sense, but early impressions and assumptions are often wrong.  This can certainly be effective, but in this particular case, Vivienne’s fate is revealed far too early and the rest of the story has no chance to build to any type of an emotional climax.  That is the story’s biggest flaw because it robs the story of any chance of a payoff.  Perhaps if a transitional device had been employed the time jumps wouldn’t have bothered me so much.  If there had been fewer such jumps, and especially if Vivienne’s fate had been postponed until its proper moment, I would be happily recommending this movie.  As it is, I think it is a solid effort that just doesn’t quite work.  ☆ ☆ 1/2.  30 May 2025.