Beautiful scenery/photography; arbitrary narrative

Rating: 4/10 (18 September 2011)

Many consider this one of the best films they've ever seen while a much smaller "many" consider it nearer the worst. Between those two, for my taste, that second, smaller group is more fitting. Although not a typical "chick flick," the demographics of IMDb voters show a typical 5% more positive rating by females (maybe a Brad Pitt effect?).
To me, the narrative seems too arbitrary and capricious, mainly a vehicle to display Brad Pitt's ("Tristan's") charms: here although he's handsome, he's also impulsive, overly inclined to physical confrontation with men and beasts, non-conformist, very loyal to some Cree Indian traditions, often indifferent to what's legal--but these traits, while very strong, unaccountably and rarely trip him up: they emerge only when called on by the proper cues in the script.
There are too many other incongruous details for me: suits, white shirts & ties worn by working ranchers at their evening dinners? A career military man ("Col. Ludlow"/Hopkins), after 30 years of promotions and service, rebels against his government because of its treatment (ca. 1880-1900) of American Indians, resigns, and adopts many of their values and customs? No helmets worn by Canadian troops in battle in the first World War? Tristan/Pitt on a 60-80 ft. sailing vessel about 1920 and, with no previous sailing experience and no visible financial support, skippering it with his crew while exploring the Pacific for many years? Warm emotional relations across the distance of a thousand miles and many decades between the Colonel and his sons with his wife (the sons' mother) after she deserted them? And other incongruities.
Plusses mainly for its beautiful Canadian (pseudo-Montana) scenery.