OK, so "based" on a true story opens up a number of creative license avenues for writers/producers....but generally speaking, if you are going to do a semi-historical piece about folks getting stuck in a blizzard and having to eat themselves because there is nothing else to eat (hunting or forage), then it might be wise to include some snow scenes (I counted two) and when Crispin's character bashes "Luis" head in, if you look at the surrounding trees (from the angle of Luis looking up at Cripsin), there isn't one shred of snow on the trees in the background...and...it's SUNNY outside...notice too how few times the characters breath can be seen when they speak...a tell-tale sign that shooting (which took all of 12 days) had been during the late summer months...granted, hard to get production crews up into the Sierra Nevadas during January..but maybe a snow machine and a couple of fans at least...I was seriously laughing at the film (which I doubt was the intention of the film's director/producers)...aside from the hideous historical fabrications and omissions, it should at least shoot on days that weren't so bloody sunny outside (I still contend that Crispin Glover looked like he was out for a Sunday stroll)...and another thing...make them wear the snowshoes...not carry them as crutches, strapped over their backpacks...and looking like they just were purchased at an outfitters store...too funny...a horrendous film and the only reason I gave it a one, was because I at least got to laugh out loud for 84 minutes

This story has fascinated historians for years. It would seem like a movie makers dream. It has it all intrigue, adventure, jealousy, etc, so where did they go wrong. Sure seems like accuracy is a big issue. The one thing I can say is I am glad they didn't Disneyfy it. Disney attempted to do the story as well focusing on the families that did not engage in cannibalism. It was pathetic, but enough about that bad movie. This version was disappointing as well. When the movie began it seemed as though it started a half hour before. The 2 main characters were well into a strained relationship, no explanation. You have no idea how long they have been traveling, how long without food, what happened to the entire party (there were 89 immigrants), and so many other unanswered questions. At the end I felt as if I left the movie before it ended. The movie moved pretty slow and then it was over, the end. This just wasn't good story telling.

I enjoyed the film, but had to think of it as a FICTIONAL Donner party. Assuming most of the accepted chronicles of the doomed Donner party are true, I feel a better screenplay could have been written regarding the Forlorn Hope. What they endured was worse than what was depicted in the film - again assuming survivor accounts are true.I would have preferred more of an epic-style narrative film - starting near Emmigrant Canyon in Utah - that would have allowed more time for character development and consequent erosion to their base instincts to survive. I could barely get my head around a character before they were insane or dead. I felt the film was edited in such a manner to make following the story difficult to follow. I had so many questions after watching it the first time that I had to watch it again to more carefully follow the story.That being said, I do feel it was a superb endeavor about one aspect of the most interesting stories of the pioneers. Someday, I would like to see the accurate story adapted to an epic film that would do justice to the enormity of this grand American story.

If you are some Fangoria-reading horror flick freak, no doubt you will rate this movie "1" or "2" on IMDb. Which is your own fault, because doing your homework in advance would have shown you this is NOT some brainless zombie smorgasbord offering such as DAWN OF THE DEAD, where the featured creatures literally rip out yards of intestines while gnawing on one bloody end (since apparently they have no sense of smell).Instead, DONNER PARTY is presented more like a docudrama, with beautifully believable scenery and realistic sound effects (in fact, for insomniacs, this film might be as effectively sleep-inducing as those DVD's of logs burning in a fireplace). Its authenticity undoubtedly is enhanced by the movie being filmed in the actual Donner Pass near Truckee, CA, where these gruesome events took place during the winter of 1846-47.That's right, DONNER PARTY is based on reality, unlike Hannibal Lecter forking out Ray Liotta's living brain at a nicely-set dinner table. Just as MOBY DICK incorporates a documented case of cannibalism (and sacrificing the sailor who draws the short straw for the sustenance of his shipmates), DONNER PARTY also reflects the willingness of most Americans to throw whoever they have to (e.g., Wisconsin school teachers) under the wheels of the bus to enhance their own survival.To sum up, if you want the latest riff on THE TEXA$ CHAINSAW MASSACRE, do NOT rent DONNER PARTY. If, on the other hand, you wish to better understand the thinking of a Republican governor such as New Jersey's Chris Christie, there might not be a better model in film history than DONNER PARTY's leading proponent of expediency, expedition leader William Foster, played with just the right mixture of smug self-serving righteousness and smarmy disingenuous reptilian trickery by actor Crispin Glover.