x

SVT Play: All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Online Woman Walks Ahead

Watch
4K Watch Movie
Start your 30-day free trial

Download
Magnet

Download
Torrent

(5032) 6.6 101 min 2017

Woman Walks Ahead is a movie starring Jessica Chastain, Louisa Krause, and Boots Southerland. Catherine Weldon, a portrait painter from 1890s Brooklyn, travels to Dakota to paint a portrait of Sitting Bull and becomes embroiled in...

Starring: Jessica Chastain, Chaske Spencer, Louisa Krause, Boots Southerland

Genres: History, Western, Biography, Drama

Director: Susanna White

x

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Product details

Audio
Subtitles
Quality	480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres	History, Western, Biography, Drama
Director	Susanna White
Writer	Steven Knight
Stars	Jessica Chastain, Chaske Spencer, Louisa Krause, Boots Southerland
Country	USA
Also Known As	Mulher Que Segue à Frente, Uma Mulher Exemplar, A nő, aki előttünk jár, Isha tzoedet kadima, Kadın Önde Yürür, Die Frau, die vorausgeht, Kobieta idzie przodem
Runtime	1H 41M
Description	Catherine Weldon, a portrait painter from 1890s Brooklyn, travels to Dakota to paint a portrait of Sitting Bull and becomes embroiled in the Lakota peoples' struggle over the rights to their land.

Download history «Woman Walks Ahead»

Blu-ray
13.54 GB

Windows
5.24 GB

Customers who watched biography «Woman Walks Ahead» also watched

24 customer reviews about western «Woman Walks Ahead»

3.5 out of 5 stars

Top reviews

Monday, 01 Feb 2021 19:38

This movie is almost certainly a work of fiction, but given the subject matter, it is hard to imagine anyone else in the position of several of the people in it. Let's start with the acting: I saw Robert Redford in "Mystic River," and thought him a good actor. But I think this is the first time I've seen him in a role that required much more than the same old Redford we've seen a thousand times before. In this film, he gave one of his most engaging and honest performances. I have never before seen a movie in which one actor became more engaging than another. But what really makes this movie a good film is the great respect the director has for the history of the Civil War and for the true heroes of the war, even though it was a mistake to include or even imply any of the men in this film were Confederate soldiers. The scenes of dialogue between the various characters are rich in history, and have real meaning. The real heroes of the Civil War are the men who defended the Union and lost, and the men who defended the Confederacy, but these people are not remembered in the film. The real heroes are the people who fought for the Union and lost, and the men who fought for the Confederacy. This is one of the finest films I've ever seen, and I highly recommend it to anyone who likes historical films.

Wednesday, 20 Jan 2021 06:10

Some of the other comments on this film in a recent IMDb user review section are so negative that it seems to be an effort to "attack" a film, a film which by nature is just going to be an opinion based on the viewer. Not so! All I can say is that a few times during the film I felt that there was a disconnect between the story and the narrative, and the audience seems to be walking around in circles while the story is happening. Other times it felt like we were too close to the screen and that there was something out of focus. In my opinion I do believe that the dialog is very realistic and authentic, and that the cast was very well chosen. If you go see it, I think you'll agree that it is a worthwhile experience and you'll be in awe at the artistry and craftsmanship of it all. Some may find the story of this film too slow, and that is true, but you have to make the decision of how much you want to immerse yourself in the story, and if you're not able to do that, then you're not going to enjoy it as much as you think you will.

Wednesday, 13 Jan 2021 23:26

I was watching this movie with a lot of anticipation after reading the back cover of the book. As I waited for it to begin, I was reminded of the wonderful books I had read about it. I was impressed by the movie, but it was far from what I had hoped it would be. While I was watching it I was saying to myself, "this isn't good enough." I realized, however, that it is a very good film. I was not disappointed by the story, and it is a very well done film. I felt that the acting was not so good, but I still gave the movie a 7 because it is a very good film, and I do not want to give a 10 rating for it. Overall, the film is very good and I hope that it does well at the box office. This movie is definitely worth seeing, but not worth paying full price.

Thursday, 07 Jan 2021 07:11

I just love this movie! I watched it on a summer afternoon with my nephew, and he absolutely loved it! I think it's because the movie isn't about a bunch of crazy Indians who get shot by Indians. Rather, it's about a boy who is raised by Indians. In fact, he is raised by the Cherokee Indian chief (a Cherokee Indian boy). His uncle, John Muir (the Indian boy), does not want to have anything to do with him. So, he takes his son away. And all of the other Indian families and culture take it all a bit harder. That's the message. I'm a western guy, so I don't like seeing people be killed. But, the Indians do a lot of fighting. It's very visceral, and a lot of the Native Americans look very dangerous. They are very strong. The movie has some awesome cinematography, and the acting is good. It's not the greatest movie, but it's a good movie. I recommend it to anyone who likes westerns. One of the things I think is a bit off about this movie is that Muir's attitude and beliefs are not a typical western. There is a lot of emphasis on hospitality, which is really cool. That is not present in the movie. It's definitely a must see.

Saturday, 02 Jan 2021 17:16

It is a beautiful story of perseverance. I would like to think that it would be a great movie to watch. But I did not love it. I do not know why. The movie is okay. But I have a question. Why would the actress like the movie? Because she was like this girl in the movie. And she says that "I am the story". Did she say that? I do not know. She must have liked the movie. Because she did not like it. I am not sure what to say. I think that the movie is okay. It is just not great. I think that it would be great to watch the movie. But it is not great.

Friday, 01 Jan 2021 00:27

After viewing this movie I had the feeling I had seen the book before. But then I read the book again and read through it. I am so happy to say that this movie is a masterpiece! I loved the storyline and the fact that the world could not stop to laugh at people. I read the book years ago, and was thrilled to finally see it on screen. The cast is flawless! Joaquin Phoenix is a wonderful actor, and his role as Stonewall Jackson was just as I pictured him, great humor. You couldn't hate on this movie, it was full of brilliance! So I urge you to watch this movie, and enjoy it!

Monday, 23 Nov 2020 13:15

This movie has a very simple plot. It tells a story about a mysterious woman who is the leader of a slave rebellion in 1847. The slave rebellion begins because of her mysterious disease. The movie is beautifully shot. The characters are so interesting and realistic. Also, it has a nice musical score and great photography. The acting is really good. Scarlett Johansson is a very good actress. The only bad thing is the story. But the story is so interesting, and it is good to watch the movie for that reason. In conclusion, this movie is not the best movie, but it is not the worst.

Tuesday, 10 Nov 2020 14:16

I've only just seen this film (maybe two) and I've decided to write a review. So, I want to keep this brief and concise. This is not a film I would normally consider watching, but I saw it on TV one night and I thought I'd give it a go. I'm glad I did. The acting is great, I especially liked the portrayal of Sir William Smollett, the Earl of Dunmore, who was responsible for the English conquest of Ireland. The scenery is stunning and the score (Barry Harris) is also well chosen. I enjoyed the film, but didn't find it a masterpiece. The fact that this film is set in the 1840s and then again in 1878 made me wonder if the time frame was somewhat arbitrary. Also, I didn't like the use of the term "Irish", and the fact that the three main characters lived in Ireland, despite the fact that they were English, made me wonder if they were pretending to be Irish or what. But, despite all these flaws, I found the story and the acting to be very entertaining, with good character development and humour. My wife and I found it very entertaining, and we actually laughed quite a bit, even though I was thinking "this is going to suck". And, if you're wondering what it's like to travel to Ireland (like I was), you'll enjoy this film. I do hope that William and his family, and those who gave it a try, will be happy with the film.

Wednesday, 28 Oct 2020 15:17

When talking about this film, I was reminded of a few films I had seen some years ago that were told very much like this. Out of all the period pieces, this is one of my favorites. I remember seeing this when I was in elementary school and found it very moving. I also recall that this was the first film that was shot in rural Colorado. This film shows the hardship of the country as well as the beauty of the region. This film is certainly a must see for anyone who enjoys films and especially for anyone who likes independent films. This is a film I highly recommend!

Wednesday, 16 Sep 2020 08:18

I was looking for something other than the usual fare and this film surprised me. I have been an avid reader of Campbell and Palmer's books for decades and am familiar with their strengths and weaknesses, as well as their minor critics. This movie did a good job of presenting the writing of the book (with dialogue) as well as the content of the film. While I would not say this movie is a perfect translation of the book, it was better than I expected and certainly more entertaining than a typical Hollywood movie. I would recommend this film to anyone interested in the works of Campbell and Palmer.

Monday, 14 Sep 2020 21:47

Since I'm not too big on cowboy movies, I may have missed the good points in this film. Well, there's the decent performances. John Ritter, Laurence Fishburne, James Coburn, Michael Welch and Sam Elliott all play good cowboy-men. And in the background of all of this is a wonderful depiction of the 19th century. The story is about a white man and a black man, a former blacksmith and a man who went crazy and killed people and a horse. They become more and more like each other, but also find out what the other has been through. All in all, this is an entertaining western film with a good performance by John Ritter, a good performance by Laurence Fishburne, a great performance by Sam Elliott and a great performance by Michael Welch. Even more, is the sound track. It's excellent. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Vandaos da Luz" ("The Lone Wolf and the Dove")

Sunday, 13 Sep 2020 11:11

Another movie which has been talked about many times but is still fresh in my mind is 'I Don't Want to Live Forever'. I watched this movie last year and was still thinking about it on how great it is. This movie is a slow-burner. It isn't any graphic violence, it's an old-fashioned revenge story. The first hour of this movie is an emotional roller-coaster that grips you to the end. I think it is worth seeing. This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It really brings the human condition into focus. The characters are so well casted. You feel for them. The last 20 minutes of this movie are brilliant, you feel that there is some kind of end-game coming. And it does. I recommend it highly.

Monday, 07 Sep 2020 13:58

I have always been a big fan of Spanish cinema, particularly films that are almost documentary in nature. This movie does a nice job at showing the general story of the American west and the experiences of its pioneers. The actors were all good in their roles and the film itself was great. I liked the special effects, which were mostly primitive and were quite impressive. The only thing I didn't like about the movie was the way the actors were not really spoken to, in Spanish in English. This made the character development all the more difficult to watch. This movie was not bad, but I wouldn't really recommend it to anyone.

Monday, 10 Aug 2020 23:11

James Coburn (David Warner) is an American lawyer who, over the course of the Second World War, acquires his second wife (Neneh Cherry), gets her pregnant, and then, over the course of the ensuing conflict, returns to Europe and becomes the personal bodyguard of Joseph (Anthony Quinn). Young Prince Alexander (Nicolas Cage) is a German shepherd who accompanies his master everywhere, even to the theater where he is promptly put on display. For those of you who haven't heard of the term "The Fuhrer" (literally translated, "The Great"), it refers to a figure, commonly depicted as a large, bearded man, who is recognized by everyone but his closest followers. In this case, the figure is Hitler himself, and even some of Hitler's most loyal followers, such as Joseph, who still harbor their distaste for his "Mussolini-lite" policies and want to see Hitler step down before the threat of a communist takeover becomes a reality. The movie does an excellent job at depicting Hitler's birth and his early years, as well as the brutal attacks on Jews and other people, and of course his rise to power in 1933, as well as his succession to power in the party. I also liked the fact that, despite the comparisons to the "murderer," we do get to see the actual behavior of the man. This is something that the film seldom does. The film also gives an idea of the back-stabbing nature of the party. In some ways, the movie is almost apolitical, as the plot begins in the party headquarters, and then progresses from there. My only real complaint about the movie is that it is slightly long. The pacing is a bit slow at times, and the film does get kind of boring at times. But, overall, I would recommend the movie. 7/10

Monday, 10 Aug 2020 13:41

I think "Walking Blind" is a very interesting film with great subject matter. It's very different from the typical western film in many ways. It's a historical film, about the era of the cowboy and the period of the "golden age" of the United States. The themes are pretty prevalent. One of the things I think most people might not appreciate is the difficulty and/or expense of shooting in the harsh conditions of the Western U.S. I think it's a pretty accurate representation of what it was like to be a man living on the frontier. Many of the subjects have been studied, but I think most people would like to know about the times. The film isn't a historical document on any level, so if you don't like that style, I wouldn't suggest you watch it. However, I think that the style is more suited for a documentary or even a biography. The film doesn't really dwell on the problems of the time. It's more about the struggles, character and interactions that occur when people don't know what's happening and how people deal with it. In that sense, it's a very interesting film to watch. The film's more of a drama, or more of a personal drama about the actors and the characters and their struggle to find each other and work. The script is pretty well written, it's not overly stylized, so it's easy to follow and understand. It's one of those films that is very easy to follow, but still gives a great view into the time period and situations. I think the most interesting part of the film is the characters. The performances are pretty good, especially the lead actors. I think the supporting cast is also pretty good, I think they have good chemistry and show great depth. The writing is really good, it's really believable. The story is good and the tone is very interesting, so I think it's a pretty good film. The film is based on a real person, so I think the people involved are very accurate in their portrayal of the time period. The film is very well made, has good production values, good production design and the film is very well edited. The direction is good, although the filming of the landscape was probably a bit shaky, it's still good. I think the overall quality of the film is very good. The actors are very good and I really like them. I think the overall movie is very well written. It's not predictable, there's a lot of variety and there's plenty of tension. There's also some really good performances. The characters are well developed and their development is interesting and engaging. I think the people who made the film also did a good job, I'm a fan of Ben Foster and he's a great actor. He's very interesting and he shows depth in his role. I like the way he played his character, he really isn't a stereotypical western hero. He really was an interesting character. I think the other characters were also very interesting. The roles were interesting, but the actors were very good in them. I think the production values were good, the sets were good. I think the actors all gave great performances. The sound and cinematography were very good. Overall, I think "Walking Blind" is a really good film and I recommend it to everyone.

Gloria Richardson

Sunday, 26 Jul 2020 22:07

Richard III was a great movie, this one is not. It's a good movie but nothing more. There is nothing here you haven't seen before, and a lot of things that don't work. I was expecting an epic and instead got a boring and stereotypical story about a bunch of people doing a bunch of stupid things. Even if you are not a Tolkien fan, the film is good, but I don't think it is anything close to the greatness that it claims to be. It is as good as it can be for a beginner, but it is not the masterpiece it says it is.

Monday, 20 Jul 2020 05:52

It's a day in the life of an upper-class Kentucky family in the late 1800s. They are a happy family of four children, who have four wonderful daughters: two women and one man. The young women are very independent, eager to take a look at all the good things in life that they believe others will miss. But the men are either impatient or unable to think about the world around them as much as they'd like to. At one point, the two men are in the kitchen of the family home. The men are eating breakfast. As the men are eating, the young woman walks out of the kitchen and starts on her way down the steps of the house. When she walks down the steps, a small child runs up to her and touches her. She takes her daughter to her mother, and the father, knowing that this is the first child he has raised, ignores this interaction. She ends up giving this child to the mother, as if he were the oldest child of the family. This man becomes a railroad tycoon. This man is married to the daughter's mother, who is the daughter's great aunt, and who is married to the son's father. This man is a very wealthy man, who is a local duke. He doesn't think twice about all the women that he picks up and takes home with him, or about all the men who come and stay at his house. It's fascinating to watch the dynamic of this man and the women and the men. It's like watching all the different families in one family, or all the different kinds of families in one town, but the dominant people are the men. I have seen this movie before. In 1989, I saw it again, and now I am watching it again, because it's so good, and it's so real. It's a real American story, and I love it. This movie is also about Kentucky, but it's also about American culture. The men of this family are smart, independent, but not the men of the country. They're not the people who go around doing stupid things to show off. They're the people who go to work, or to church, or to church groups, or to get to school. These are the men, and the women, who are the actual producers and consumers of their culture. This movie is really, really good, and you should really see it.

Sunday, 19 Jul 2020 20:21

A good movie, this was certainly one of those for me. A solid 7 out of 10, I just can't help it. Just want to put this in perspective, it was my first choice for a rental, I was on a roll, and I could only find one movie that appealed to me and that was 'The Wild, Wild West' starring Anthony Hopkins, and that was probably because the characters were so well acted, the actors were definitely believable in the roles they were portraying. I didn't see much wrong with 'Man Walks Ahead', it wasn't as good as Hopkins' role, but still a very good film. It was funny and it did well at making me forget about the fact that I didn't like it. It was more of a western with an Asian twist than a movie that was all about real-life characters. Some of the supporting actors were great, I loved playing the villain's sidekick. I thought the villains were convincing, and all of them did well with their roles. I liked the music, as well as the atmosphere and direction, it was very well done. It was very well made, and did a good job at making me forget that I wasn't impressed by the other movies that I had seen. If you are a western fan, this is a great choice, it doesn't try to be anything else than what it is, a western, with an Asian twist. I would say that if you haven't seen the other movies, this might be a good rental.

Christian Butler

Monday, 13 Jul 2020 23:08

In this superbly made, top-notch American History with a Western, it's clear why this has had so many excellent reviews. It's beautifully told and beautifully performed, even if there are several scenes that are downright laughable. The story is historically correct, as it is right up to the early 1900's, and the performances are superb. The special effects are superb, and the soundtrack is great. Noteworthy is that it's the first major Hollywood movie to use a score composed by a Native American, and it's great. The same goes for the cinematography. The film is a lot of fun, and I recommend it. 7/10

Monday, 13 Jul 2020 13:37

As a survivalist of Native American descent and a photographer, I find this movie incredibly important in its plot and its message. However, the story itself is just an outline of a true story. The depiction of the film is inaccurate and shows the film makers not a single Native American face. I am a white man from an Ivy League educated family, which I am proud to have. Even though the Native American man portrayed in the film is not the real story, the message of the film is a powerful one. It's not so much that Native Americans aren't alive anymore, but that we have forgotten our history and need to get to the bottom of this. It is essential to not only preserve our history but to keep it alive.

Thursday, 02 Jul 2020 16:58

One of the great aspects of this film is that we see the wonderful (though surely wrong) concept of sovereign states and how they relate to each other, the way in which the "pillars" of different states relate to each other and the way in which there is a tendency to balk at going through the motions. While this could be an excellent film on its own it is so well-told and nuanced that there is no real need for a sequel. So we go into the sequel. Unfortunately, there are a number of things that are far from convincing. This would have been a much better film if the title had been "Battle for Vietnam", but "Battle for Wartime" is simply a misnomer as well. Again, the film doesn't attempt to give a clear picture of what the Vietnamese actually wanted, and it is very hard to tell what exactly is going on with the Vietnamese themselves when they go to the US to present their demands. It just doesn't happen as well as it could. One thing that is pretty interesting is that while they have been so busy and successful in turning this into a "star vehicle" for everyone involved in it, the script is very dull and just shows a lack of imagination on the part of the writer. While I thought the acting was okay overall, there are only a few memorable scenes. The Vietnamese are portrayed as being mostly immoral and corrupt, and the US is portrayed as being mostly altruistic and kind. Both of these characters could have done a lot better, but I suppose this is what was needed for the American audience. Overall, the story is told very well, but not much else. As it is, it is hard to get excited about what is happening. All that said, this is one of the best war films out there, and while it has been made for American audiences in this case, it should be for anyone interested in how conflicts should be resolved.

Sunday, 07 Jun 2020 14:01

First of all, I'm not a big fan of remakes, but this is an exception. A simple movie with good performances, a well-written screenplay, is able to have a huge impact on your emotions. This movie gives the feeling of "life after death" and shows a side of the world not seen in many movies. The history, the traditions, the emotions and the art of the cinema is a must-see!

Susan Henderson

Monday, 01 Jun 2020 07:17

Tom Hanks and Samuel L. Jackson really gave an outstanding performance in this movie. I think it's very good to see them together again. The movie is a good story and good actors but the ending left me a bit confused. It's the same way like the movie. But this is more like a movie which I want to see again. It's a good story. A good story with a good actor and a good actor and good director. A good movie.

Monday, 27 Apr 2020 03:04

The book is well written, as far as I can tell. But what this movie leaves out is most of the character development, the moments where you could see the human story and how the historical events changed their lives. I know that you could see it if you were into history. It's not just about Indian/European history. It's a movie about the coming of the "Red Menace", especially the Indians, as they had to fend for themselves. The movie tries to keep you enthralled in the world in which the Indians lived. The Native Americans look like European history figures. You get the feeling that you're part of a European-Indian cultural encounter and a unique group of people. The best way to view this movie is to take it as a stand-alone film. That's fine. But I feel that the way the book is told would have made the movie far better. I also wanted to know more about the Spanish and French conquistadors and their motives. I felt that the movie could have done that, too. I think that if you just see the movie and the book as separate stories, you'll have a much better experience. It's not one of those movies where you need to see the book first. This movie is good, but it's not a great movie. It's a good movie, but it's not great.

See all 24 reviews

Write a review