Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

pitcairn89 I would have to agree with most of the other posters, who give this film mixed reviews. The scenery is fantastic, the action is compelling, and there are a number of good actors on hand. But the historical inaccuracies, concerning things like the Mounties' costumes, and the actions of the post-Custer (Last Stand) Sioux, do detract from the film. Raoul Walsh is one of my favorite old-time directors, but he made his share of films which deviate from the truth. After all, he did direct the Errol Flynn version of Custer, "They Died With Their Boots On," which must be one of the most fanciful historical films ever. Walsh wasn't (and isn't) alone in this casual disregard for the truth, by any means. Everyone knows that there is history, and there is movie history. And plenty of other directors took as many liberties with the truth. The great John Ford, for instance. For example, the shoot-out at the OK Corral was nothing like that portrayed in "My Darling Clementine" (great film though it is). And the fact that Monument Valley creeps into so many of his westerns, some of which are taking place far from that photogenic area, isn't accuracy at work. Artistic license, and making a good movie, have often taken precedence in this regard. One Walsh movie which does seem more true-to-life is "The Big Trail," his ground-breaking 1930 film with John Wayne. Historians could no doubt find some mistakes in the film, but it seems fairly realistic as regards a covered wagon trek. Maybe the lesson is that historical fiction is often best, as inconvenient facts can't get in your way. And classic Hollywood directors had no monopoly on putting myth before truth. Look at contemporary directors like Oliver Stone and Michael Bay, who put the older Hollywood folks to shame. Stone, in particular, takes almost psychedelic flights of fancy in his films, and any relation to true events seems very tenuous. As many have pointed out, John Ford addressed this issue of myth-making versus truth-telling, in his film "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance." It should come as no surprise that the myth often wins out. And even when true stories are told fairly accurately, as in "Glory," small liberties are taken with things like contemporary language, and events are often compressed or moved around. A classic movie like "The Great Escape," while basically telling a true story, fictionalized large aspects of it (not many, or any, Americans involved; it's the wrong season, etc.), something that no doubt irritated the men who were really there. Another great prison camp movie, "The Bridge on the River Kwai," was guilty of the same things.Anyway, Raoul wasn't immune to any of that, as this film clearly shows. If one looks at it as pure fiction, and if one buys the scenes of Mounties trying to be inconspicuous, in the woods, while wearing bright red uniforms, it's a pretty entertaining movie. Those more knowledgeable than I can point out the geographical and historical errors in this film. I'm sure that anyone with proximity to Saskatchewan can find many things to chuckle over.In 1945, Alan Ladd played the title role in a film called "Salty O'Rourke," directed by Raoul Walsh. Ladd's character's name in this film is O'Rourke, too. An in-joke, perhaps? It does seem like more than coincidence, considering that the two men didn't work together often. Also, does the plot remind anyone of other Walsh "chase" films, like "Objective Burma," and "Distant Drums," where army units are being pursued through hostile terrain, often by an unseen enemy (in this film, the pursuers are shown very clearly)? A nail-biting plot, but one which does get repetitive. Also, what's with the jungle bird sounds that the Sioux make? Not your usual Canadian bird calls.

weezeralfalfa This is one of the spin off films inspired by the 'Custer's Last Stand' saga, that so traumatized the American psyche of the times.The saga of the actual Battle of the Little Bighorn has, of course, been played out on film as a drama or documentary a number of times.In fact, Raoul Walsh, who directed the present film, also directed the classic Errol Flynn-Olivia de Haviland-starring 'They Died with their Boots On' version of this battle. In fact, we might think of the present film as a long-delayed fictionalized sequel to that film, as it deals with the post-Little Bighorn Sioux movement into adjacent Canada and their interactions with the resident Cree. On the other hand, the plot much more resembles 2 other spin offs of the late '40s and early '50s I am familiar with:John ford's 'Fort Apache'and Anthony Mann's 'The Last Frontier'. These 2 films generally get higher ratings than the present film, although 'The Last Frontier' is probably no better known today. That film dealt with the US army's conflicts with the Sioux headed by Red Cloud in a slightly earlier era, just as the Civil War was drawing to a close, and is based on a historical conflict. In 'Forte Apache', the Sioux are replaced by the Apache. In all 3 films, at some point, there is a strong conflict between an 'injin'-savvy subordinate and the company commander who is either naive in dealing with 'injins' or feels duty-bound to deal with them as he believes his distant superiors wish. In the end, the rebel is vindicated. To one who has seen all 3 of these films, clearly 'Fort Apache' is the most entertaining, because of the charisma of the main adversaries(John Wayne and Henry Fonda) and the periodically interjected humor of some of the supporting actors. In contrast, the other 2 films lack any substantial humor to break up the drama, save for Victor Mature's taunting of Robert Preston, who has fallen into a bear trap pit. In 'The Last Frontier', Mature certainly provides a more animated charismatic rebel than the rather stiff monotonic Alan Ladd in the present film. This is the third film of this era I have seen , in which Shelly Winters is the lone white female among a horde of men traveling through a hostile 'injin'-infested West. Usually, she comes across as a hard-bitten floozy, sporting a low-cut dress, although she seems a tad more respectable in the present film.The gorgeous Canadian Rockies scenery is certainly one of the pluses for this film even though, geographically, it has no business being on the route from Saskatchewan to Great Falls, Montana.It was amusing seeing Alan Ladd in his cardinal red RCMP uniform sneaking up on the Cree encampment in broad daylight, in contrast to a much more appropriate drab buckskin outfit of his French Canadian scout. It was difficult for me to tell the Cree from the Sioux by their dress, horse riding and lodges. The Cree were a very diverse and widespread group. The Plains Cree, by necessity, adopted much the same lifestyle as the Plains Sioux, riding horses and living in bison-derived tepees, as opposed to the Woodland Cree, who made wigwams and canoes out of birch bark. By staging most of this film in the Rockies, both the horsemen and canoeing aspects of Cree transport were included. Jay Silverheels, who achieved fame as The Lone Ranger's constant companion in the TV series, again serves as a sometimes companion and confident to the hero. Hugh O'Brian plays a very conflicted character: a US marshal out to capture Shelly's character for the supposed murder of her brother, but who also has the hots for Shelly, to his ultimate demise.

alexandre michel liberman (tmwest) In 1955 (almost sure) I was stuck with my parents in a line of more than one hour to see this film. Later, when we left the theater we were all satisfied. We had seen a beautiful scenery, Mounties and Indians, on rivers and mountains, plus an entertaining film. Seeing this film yesterday I was happy to realize that after so many years my opinion about it is just the same. Raoul Walsh has to his credit great classic westerns like "Colorado Territory", "Pursued" and "They Died With Their Boots On". "Saskatchewan" is not on their level but is better than many other westerns directed by Walsh. My impression is that the film was shot mostly in Lake Louise and the mountains surrounding it. The scenery is breathtaking and considering Walsh's expertise on grandiose scenes combining the outdoors with hundreds of people on horses you can be sure you are seeing something unique. Ladd is O'Rourke a man that was raised among the Cree and later became a Mountie. Shelley Winters, in one of her best roles is a woman pursued by the law. The Sioux, after Little Big Horn flee to Canada and try to make the Cree join them. Ladd, who knows the Cree better than his superior, does not agree with him, and is on a way to a court martial. The only way he can redeem himself is by proving that his decision was correct. Fom reading other comments I gathered many people were shocked by this film not being accurate neither by the locations where it was filmed, nor by the story. I can understand their point of view, but I still think it is a good film.

bob the moo O'Rourke is a red coat – no, not Butlins but a member of the Canadian Mounted Forces; and he is returning to service having travelled with his Cree Indian half brother Cajou. When he reaches his posting, his commander Benton immediately distrusts Cajou, driving a divide between the half brothers that see them separate. Escorting the beautiful survivor of a Sioux attack (Grace Markey) across the territory, the Mounties are fearful of the Sioux, even though O'Rourke can see their side of things – a viewpoint that makes him the target of suspicion and mistrust from Benton, Smith and others in the party.The strange name attracted me to it, a statement that perhaps shows just how ignorant a person I really am! The cast also suggested that this would be a solid and enjoyable b-movie western that would meet my needs. The film actually did more than that and I found it to be an enjoyable if slightly apologetic b-movie that provided solid characters, a good plot and some exciting (if dated) action scenes. Of course it isn't anything that wonderful and those who dislike the genre would do well to avoid it for obvious reasons. The plot starts well, with some interesting character issues but then does little with them and heads into the usual b-movie territory, forgetting the more interest conflict between O'Rourke and Cajou that appeared to be the focus early on. That said it does well enough for the genre and provided enough entertainment for my needs.Cinematography wise it looks good; despite the claim that it was all filmed in Saskatchewan the presence of rolling hills and impressive mountains suggest that perhaps this was not the case. Despite this it looks good, not John Ford but the bright colours and location feel that the better b-movies could muster. Ladd is enjoyably wide-chested in a typically heroic role and will please genre fans. Winters is a good female co-star, pretty enough to fill that role but feisty enough to avoid blandness. Silverheels has a smaller role than I would have liked and people like Long, Douglas and Naish all fill their roles well enough despite not doing anything in particular of merit.Overall this is a solid b-movie western that does all that you expect it to and, if that is what you want, you'll enjoy it like I did. It could have done more of course but it works for what it is and the colourful presentation and solid pace help cover what "could have been" with what is.