Simply A Masterpiece

hyped garbage

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

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

Based on the same true story that inspired the much more recent "The Revenant", "Man in the Wilderness" is a truly impressive survival drama. It stars Richard Harris as Zachary Bass, one of a group of fur traders in the Northwest Territories in 1820. They've spent two years collecting their wares, and are now making their way South to a particular river that will take them to trading posts. However, as the film opens, Bass is very badly maimed by a bear. His companions believe he's a goner, and leave him behind. But Bass has an incredible will to live. His struggles to exist in the wilderness - and possible desire for revenge - form the balance of the film."Man in the Wilderness" is exquisitely shot in scope by the talented Gerry Fisher, written with heart by Jack DeWitt, and directed extremely well by Richard C. Sarafian of "Vanishing Point" fame. Bass' resolve is simply amazing, and Harris does a very fine job of creating a vivid and engaging character, a man who lived his life not particularly caring for what others consider "Gods' will". This man earns his sympathies honestly, and his situation is compelling every step of the way. There are some beautifully poignant moments throughout, both in the past (we see flashbacks to earlier parts of Bass' life) and present.At the head of the supporting cast is a typically commanding John Huston as Captain Henry, the leader of the trappers who insists that everything be done his way. Henry demands that their ship continue to be transported along with men, mules, and supplies, despite the fact that it really slows them down. Henry Wilcoxon, Percy Herbert, Dennis Waterman, Prunella Ransome, Norman Rossington, and James "Scotty" Doohan are all fine as well.There are some scenes that may be upsetting to some in the audience, but things remain convincing and believable for the duration of this well executed production.Eight out of 10.

The remake of this year called "Revenant" has suddenly brought this original up to date, and a comparison is inevitable. Both have outstanding credits, "Revenant" above all for its amazing panoramic landscape cinematography, but this original weighs heavier. The acting is so much better, it is more humanly convincing, and although it's the same story it's a totally different story with a much more satisfactory and actually surprising end. Already from the start you are informed of all the facts of this adventurous expedition and its circumstances, and how vital it was for the men to get down to Missouri in time before winter - that race with time is the real thriller of the tale, which is totally absent from "Revenant", where instead you are buried in the tribulations of the deserted man, who is being constantly overloaded with new trials and hardships, as if the first was not enough, which is totally unnecessary exaggerations constructed only for effect. Here the narrative is more down to earth with moving details stressing the increasing humanity of the sufferer, such as his witnessing an Indian childbirth and his helping a rabbit with a broken leg - this is all more convincing and credible as a Robinsonade from real life, while "Revenant" in comparison is just mostly exaggerations. Here there is no nasty crook with intentional foul play, and an interesting spice to the human problem complex of the story is how the men actually suffer from having left Zach behind, even hallucinating about him for an extra bad conscience, while Zach himself is brought to maturity and insight by his memories in flashbacks. No bloody cruelty here, only the natural force of circumstances, which makes this film credibly positive in contrast to the remake. "Revenant" also has almost no music, only some moody chords now and then, while here you can enjoy a full and masterful score (by Johnny Harris - never saw his name before) which is perfectly suited to this grand epic human drama of survival and redemption, making a full vote well justified.

I have a feeling that many people who might give "Man In The Wilderness" a try will feel cheated at the end. A lot of the advertising material (and the DVD box) suggest the movie is about a man seeking revenge against his former friends. Well, that's sort of the truth, but the actual execution is a lot different than you might think. The central character doesn't actually start his pursuit of his former friends until two-thirds of the movie has passed. Up to that point, the movie is more of his survival after being badly wounded. And when he does manage to catch up to his former friends, what he does will probably let a lot of bloodthirsty viewers sorely disappointing. But I enjoyed the movie all the same. Seeing the wounded central figure struggle to survive was quite captivating. There are some haunting and striking shots here and there of the cold and deadly wilderness. If there is a big problem with the movie, it is that the Native American leader that Harris' character encounters twice speaks some narration that would have made some things much clearer had we been able to understand him (he speaks his native language without subtitles.) Also, the flashbacks Harris' character has of his past doesn't really end up adding much to the movie. If the movie still sounds appealing after what I've said, it's probably safe for you to give it a spin in your DVD machine.

While I did enjoy seeing Richard Harris and John Houston, there really isn't much more to like about this movie.To its credit, I must say that it does a fine job illustrating the brutal relationship between man and nature that still exists today, though most are blissfully unaware.To its detriment, pretty much everything else about it. The story plods along at a naggingly slow pace, in which a string of unbelievable incidents play out before the mostly crippled protagonist. There are a few scenes in which live animals appear to have been mutilated for your viewing pleasure. The one with the buffalo being the most obvious, and in my opinion unforgivable.The movie is described as the protagonists journey towards revenge, and most of the reviews you will read here repeat that, but I don't feel that the movie itself really bothers to illustrate that he had revenge on his mind much at all.This movie could be of educational value to a generation that has no idea what life was like before now. But for everyone else, I feel it's a bit of a disappointment, considering it has earned such high ratings in the reviews.