|
|
Rating:  - wish I could get a refund and give this minus-5 stars
I wasted my money on a fictional work that claims to be factual. It opens with grossly incorrect information: "The year is 1820. The Captain Henry Expedition has completed two years of fur trapping in the unexplored Northwest region." (Then it displays that the expedition is heading back east, etc. I need not address that.) "What occurred on this expedition is historically true."
The statements above are preposterous and thus they are not "historically true." Why are they not "historically true"? Since there are so many errors, I'll start and finish at the beginning of the movie.
(1) The expedition that it refers to did not leave from the St. Louis area until 1822-23, yet they are returning from said expedition in 1820 after having trapped for 2 years. Unless they were capable of time-travel, that statement is preposterous. Glass was attacked in 1823 and he is left to die in 1820? Please...
(2) Major Henry, in the movie, tells Bridger and Fitzgerald that if Glass were not dead by the following morning, they were to kill him. In reality, Bridger and Fitzgerald volunteered to stay (for extra money, apparently) and were with Glass for at least 5 days. This is a obvious error to one that has studied that incident and the trappers in general, thus to claim it is "historically true" is to be ignorant of history.
(3) In the movie, they do not kill him because Indians, which they can see, will hear the gunshot. One is to presume that either the Indians could hear it if they killed Glass with a knife or that Bridger and Fitzgerald were too stupid to use a knife. In reality, Henry did not tell anyone to "kill" Glass. Indeed, that command by Henry is so outlandish that is is patently laughable. Basic common sense dictates that had he made that statement he would have lost both the respect and, more importantly, the loyalty of the other trappers. They would not be loyal and trust a leader that might command that they be killed (unless they were insane). It is absurd to claim that is true.
There are so many more errors that it would be foolish to list them, yet the above 3, which are undeniable, are ample to prove the movie is fiction.
Perhaps an accurate movie will be made about the bear attack that Glass suffered at Grand River (in present-day South Dakota) in August of 1823.
Basing a movie on "Hugh Glass" (by Bradley) and "The Saga of Hugh Glass: Pirate, Pawnee, and Mountain Man" (by Myers) would be of little help, for in my opinion based upon years of study, both books are built on truth that became fables. I have read both of those fictional accounts and enjoyed them both.
Research the so-called "true" story if you choose to do so. You shall see the glaring errors, as did I. You will see that the movie is not "historically true," as did I.
Refund, please? Calling Amazon? Oh, well...
Rating:  - AN ABSOLUTE WESTERN CLASSIC
I recall the first time I ever saw MAN IN THE WILDERNESS. I had stayed up late to watch the weekly feature on the local station's weekly Western. And there it was, MAN IN THE WILDERNESS, a tale about a mountain man who is left for dead after a brutal grizzly mauling and not only lives to carry on but finds his real life in the process.
First, throw away any misconceptions that this is a historical account. Yes, there are fictionalizations of historical characters. Zach Bass, himself, is loosely based on Hugh Glass. But who cares? The drama here, the sweeping panoramas, the gritty cinematography combine to offer a movie experience the likes of which are just not available anymore.
Richard Harris stars as Zach Bass, a stowaway who became a mountain man, thrust into the West during the 1820's. His mentor, Captain Henry, played masterfully by the inimitable John Huston--one of Hollywood's greatest legends--a man demonized by his past on the sea while being locked within mountains and valleys and pursued by Indians. After leaving Bass for dead, his crazed mind adds Bass's specter to his tormenters.
In the end, this one is a classic tale of obsession, of survival, of priorities and of forgiveness, all set in the rugged grandeur of the frontier. An absolute Western classic.
And, as this DVD is a double feature, forget about the flipside of this one and stick with MAN IN THE WILDERNESS.
THE HORSEMAN
Rating: - IS IT BASS? WELL.....IS IT BASS !!??
"MAN IN THE WILDERNESS" has always been a personal favorite of mine since its release back in 1971. Historical inaccuracies aside, this is a story about a man who is left for dead in the northwest territory, but...more than that, it is the story of man lost inside himself. In his fight to survive he learns a little more about the hard cruel world around him and comes to appreciate that he is not the only human being to have suffered. His near death experience becomes (in the end) a sort of rebirth...a renwal of spirit and hope which, until the mauling, was a complete mystery to him. The images and music in this production have always touched and impressed me. It is not typical of the usual formulaic bilge Hollywood cranks out...and for that you will be grateful. This is a motion picture well worth your time and money. The actors do a fine job in all their portrayals and it is fun to see James Doohan, John Huston and Percy Herbert in their supporting rolls. For me this is one of Richard Harris's finest performances...better even than "A MAN CALLED HORSE". Richard Sarafian (the director of credit) had a small part in the Wachowski Brothers "BOUND" (1996) as a mob boss.
As for the DVD quality, it looks fine considering the time the movie was made and the no frills approach to this release. The print is far better than that of the VHS and is finally shown in the proper aspect ratio. The sound is monoural and the dialog a tad shrill in parts, but that is how I remember it...even in the theatrical release, which I went to see many times.
As for "THE DEADLY TRACKERS"...it is generally a waste of time. It is a sloppily made and heavy handed film of vengence that yields little (if any) satisfaction by story's end.
Whatever you pay for this release will be money well spent for "MAN IN THE WILDERNESS" alone. *** ENJOY ***
Rating:  - Double feature
DEADLY TRACKERS is a violent tale of revenge as Richard Harris pursues Rod Taylor and his band of killers after a botched bank robbery results in the death of his wife and son. Taylor is fine as a really bad guy and in a small part, B-Movie Legend William Smith as one of his men, "School-Boy" -- a violent semi-retard with one side of his face scarred and a drooping eye who kills a man with a knife to take his bowler. They just don't make appealing characters like anymore! Unfortunately, the Billster is killed early on and the film looses all appeal for me. MAN IN THE WILDERNESS is the better of the two, based on mountain man Hugh Glass, who was attacked by a grizzly and left for dead by his companions. They should have made sure he really was dead!
Rating: - YOUNG ENGLISH BOB
I have waited a long time for MAN IN THE WILDERNESS to be released on dvd.Originally released in 1971,there is a rough edge,seventies ambience about the film that modern films,even westerns, sadly lack. The film
follows the ordeal of one Zachary Bass(Richard Harris),after he is attacked by a bear and left for dead by Captain Henry(John Huston)and
a motley crew of trappers and traders hellbent on getting back home
before Winter seals them in.Set in the early 1800's,it is more colonial than western, but regardless of any label,it is a film worth watching
on the strength of Harris' performance alone.There is not a lot of
dialogue and that is one of the movie's strengths.The spectacle of an old wooden ship being hauled on the frozen tundra on wooden wheels by men and
horses is a sight to behold.No CGI here,folks.Richard Harris became
somewhat of an offbeat western cult hero with this movie and A MAN CALLED HORSE and it culminated with the role of English Bob in UNFORGIVEN. He
always played an Irishman or Englishman so he was true to his origins.
The other movie on this double feature dvd is THE DEADLY TRACKERS.Made in
1973,it fails in comparison to MAN IN THE WILDERNESS. The lore is that
Samuel Fuller was the original choice to direct this film,but clashes
with Harris forced him out.With a supporting cast that included
Al Lettieri (his last film),William Smith,Neville Brand,Paul Benjamin
and Rod Taylor,you would think this film would be a lot better than it is.Taylor,in the role of a ruthless killer, actually plays against type
and does a damn fine job. This movie seems to be aimed toward the hippy stoner crowd circa 1973.There is even a psychedelic sequence when Harris loses his sight complete with trippy colors.The movie even tries its hand at being "hip & relavent" with a lot of moral posturing when Harris and Taylor finally have their showdown.Even Isela Vega(BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA) doesn't lift the movie up from its unintentional heavy
handedness.For some reason,this movie "stole" a lot of the soundtrack/music from Jerry Fielding's score from THE WILD BUNCH .That's why it rates two stars. MAN IN THE WILDERNESS gets four stars.
|
|