Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

weezeralfalfa There have been any number of films familiar to me featuring one or more white females captured by Native Americans and attempts to rescue them, whether or not they wanted to be rescued. But this story is unique, in that it's planned from the beginning to release the captive unharmed after the infirm chief takes a look at her, he being said to be her father, unbeknown to her until he greets her in his native village. According to one reviewer, about 40 min of this film was hacked off, presumably to reduce its run time. That may explain some of the confusing events. However, it's not so bad that some viewers might find it a worthwhile experience. Lana Wood: Natalie's younger sister, makes a beautiful-looking '70s urbane woman, who looks and acts quite out of place as an 1840's pioneer woman. Unfortunately, she couldn't act the part, serving mainly to add sex appeal. Putting several bits of information together, I gather that Beth's(Lana)father was actually Chief Running Wolf. I wonder how this came about, since trapper John Colter seems to have been her acting father all along, apparently unaware that he was not her biological father. Her mother most likely was a Native American, which would make her a full N.A.! She hardly looks the part.The lunatic called The Bugler is quite a character, played by the director Charles Pierce, who was also the producer and one of the writers. Apparently, he was a white, whose madness was considered by the Shoshone a sign of having special spiritual powers. In consequence, he usually led a bunch of Shoshone. I can't recall another character in a western quite as consistently demented.Ben Johnson's character, John Colter, is the namesake, of a famous trapper in this area, who was included in the Lewis and Clark expedition, and given credit for discovering the Yellowstone and Teton region. However, he died elsewhere in 1812, and this story takes place in 1848. I don't believe he had any children.After the Shoshone captured trappers Colter and Willis, they played with them, challenging them to beat a brave, while tethered to a pole in the ground. Willis eventually was shot in the back with a couple of arrows. In contrast, Colter killed his opponent and was released from captivity. This episode much reminds me of a famous incident involving the real John Colter, in which he was captured by Blackfeet, stripped naked, and made to run a race for his life, given a head start. He killed the front runner behind him, then continued to run for his life. Meanwhile, his trapper partner was killed, as in the film.Some Cheyenne braves are depicted playing a stylized game of "counting coup", in which they are supposed to spear a series of rings on hooks, each on a pole in a line. I wonder if this game was actually a feature of Cheyenne culture? None of the principle actors playing Native Americans was actually a N.A.. Iron Eyes Cody, often assumed to be a N.A., was actually born a Sicilian. Jack Elam, barely recognizable, played trapper Willis. Paul Fix played Running Wolf, while Alex Cord played Grayeagle. All of the "good" N.A. were Cheyenne, whereas the Shoshone, along with the Bugler, were cast as "bad".

classicsoncall What - that's it? I'm trying to take away something meaningful from this picture, but it's not working. Let's see - Beth Colter (Lana Wood) is kidnapped by the title character (Alex Cord), and it's ultimately revealed that he did so in order to introduce her to her biological father, a dying chief of the Cheyenne tribe. So how is it that John Colter (Ben Johnson) might not have figured this out and been a little more realistic about Grayeagle's intentions? Without a back story about the origin of Colter and his daughter, how is the viewer supposed to react when her paternity is revealed? I mean, we see Colter going to pray at the grave of his wife, who Beth acknowledges as her mother. Colter's friend Standing Bear (Iron Eyes Cody) knows all about Beth's Cheyenne background, but all this time he's kept that secret? I mean, she didn't just fall from the sky at birth, but the whole time Colter played it like his wife was Beth's mother. Am I missing something here?Without trying to figure it all out, probably the best one can expect from this picture are the characterizations. Alex Cord as Greyeagle is sufficiently regal in his bearing and demeanor, and he adequately filled the role (for a white man playing an Indian that is). Charles Pierce as the demented bugler was something of an anomaly for a Western character, and I always enjoy seeing Jack Elam in any kind of role. As well as Iron Eyes Cody, but gee, couldn't Colter have treated him with a little more respect as a purported friend instead of bossing him around the way he did? The Lone Ranger considered Tonto an equal partner even when he asked him to go into town to scout out the bad guys. You'd think that Colter could say please once in a while. Then you have Paul Fix in the opening credits as Running Wolf, so when it comes time for Running Wolf to appear on screen, I'm asking myself, where's Paul Fix? That didn't look like any kind of make up job, and I had to wonder if the real Paul Fix sent a stand in that no one noticed. Just another question mark that pops up along with all the others.What it comes down to is that this is one baffling movie that could have really made it if a little more thought went into the story to clean up some of major sticking points. What I might have to do is watch it again the next time it hits Encore Westerns to see if I missed something. But I'm betting I didn't.

David Foy I can understand the actors, all skilled second-tier people working to make a living, participating in this nonsense, but the writer/director/producer has really, truly stunk the place up. I recommend he find a decent textbook and re-read the part about high concept. Watch this as an archaeological expedition, a research exercise into truly dreadful scriptwriting. But not for serious entertainment. Lana Wood -- I'm sure God will forgive you. Charles Pierce, you managed some stunning cinematography, you hired good costume and props people, and your method of faking dead animals to keep the SPCA off your tail was remarkable, but the rest is Hollywood crap at its crappiest. There is absolutely no reason to believe in, or care about, or ...when it comes right down to it...watch any of these people. Not one of them. There's a lot more to verisimilitude than costumes and props. Apparently you were on some kind of mission to revive the noble savage myth, but all you managed to do was mock and trivialize it.

randy_lejeune One of the "newer" versions of the old western genres, the Indians are the good guys in this poor excuse for a movie. A chief named "Grayeagle" kidnaps a white lady who turns out to be of Indian descent so that she can rejoin her tribe, and naturally, she ends up defending her kidnapper and being grateful to him for bringing her "home", while another guy tries to hunt Grayeagle down. Long, boring, stupid and poorly acted. Don't waste your time.