As Good As It Gets

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

It's a minor point, but the Indian tribe John Morgan was associated with in "A Man Called Horse" was the Lakota Sioux, with the warrior Yellow Hand (Manu Topou) becoming it's chief during the course of the story. If this branch of the tribe broke off from the main one, it probably should have been explained because in the latter part of the story, there's a scene in which Red Cloud of the Lakota refuses to help the Yellow Hands, as he's allied with the 'white man of river'. If one follows these things with some sense of continuity, the error seemed to be an unforced one.With the 'vow of the sun' ceremony so prominent in the original picture, I didn't think there would be call to revisit the ceremonial rite here, but that's what happened as a prelude to Morgan purifying himself and seeking his vision. More surprising was seeing how younger males of the tribe willingly submitted to the ordeal as well. There's some historical fact to back that up, for young warriors it was a physical and spiritual test that was offered in sacrifice for their people. As I watched the scene, it occurred to me that Morgan showed no scarring from his sun ceremony of five years earlier, another unforced error if I had to guess.Reading previous posters for this film it appears that it's not nearly as well regarded as it's prequel. Personally, I thought it was a decent story, but would have to concur that the original was better since it was exploring the Lakota Indian rituals for the first time. Oddly, I've never run across the sun ceremony referenced in any other movies other than these 'Horse' films, a bit surprising since the Western is my favorite genre and I've seen hundreds spanning the decades.

I never hear anyone refer to this as a quality movie. Only eight user reviews here. This is actually a good, entertaining movie that is being overlooked.Here's what I liked:The teepee village sets and the fort set had a very authentic feel to them. It's clear that very knowledgeable consultants were used to construct these sets.Richard Harris fills this role admirably. I found his character very believable. This is quite an accomplishment, since the basic plot is fundamentally implausible.Nice balance between the "good" Indians and "bad" Indians and "good" Whites (or "good White" as the case may be) and "bad" Whites. This prevented the movie from becoming over-melodramatic or maudlin.Excellent placement of the story in the vastly underused pre-Civil War trapper/mountain man historical period.Good location shooting. Nice shots of buffalo herds. Well filmed buffalo hunt.Effective mix of English, Sioux language and subtitles.Here's what kept it from being better:As mentioned above, the premise of the movie is fundamentally implausible. I give great credit to Richard Harris for making his character believable.It has a nice Indian point of view and mostly avoids high melodrama by presenting good and bad Indians. However its "Indian-friendliness" is undercut severely by two things: one, the use of many Caucasian actors in Indian roles and two, the supremacy of "Horse" as the White leader of the hapless Yellow Hand Indians.Geoffrey Lewis was a weak heavy. He didn't help "High Plains Drifter" much either in a similar role. Should have stuck with orangutan movies. Very weak supporting cast overall behind Harris.No comic relief.In the final battle scene, a dozen Yellow Hand squaws on foot with no rifles wipe out an equal number of opposing male warriors, who are armed with rifles and on horseback. Still trying to figure that one out.I fast forwarded through the sadistic pagan breast piercing/cleansing ritual or whatever it was. Gimmicky and gratuitous gore.One more thing. Did ALL the whites have to be massacred at the fort? Were they all murderers and rapists? Weren't there a few decent Joe's there just out trapping? Maybe a few guys just passing through who would have disapproved of the Yellow Hand massacre? Just sayin'.....

this sequel to A Man Called Horse focuses much more on the spirituality of the Native Indians.i didn't mind that aspect at all.it's very interesting.the problem i had with the movie is there just didn't see to be a point.i didn't feel there was much of a story to it.to me,it felt like they made a sequel just for the sake a making a sequel.the first movie had much more thought put into it.i did really like the musical score,though.i thought it was very majestic and poetic.if you're expecting a lot of action,you'll have to look elsewhere.this isn't that kind of picture.adding everything up,i liked the first movie more.but this one isn't so bad.for me,Return of a Man called Horse is a 5/10

I thoroughly enjoyed A Man Called Horse when it was released in 1970, but Return played like a typical sequel. Everything about it -- budget, script, plot, casting, and acting -- was inferior to the original. Gale Sondergaard as Elk Woman, an elder of the Yellow Hand tribe, looks nothing like an Indian, and neither do half of the other "Indians," who were played by Italians, Mexicans, and Latinos with cheap wigs. And the old guy who played the chief acted more like a fat old squaw than a fierce leader of warriors. He even used the bow like a woman! Finally, Richard Harris, who did such a superb job in the original, seems to be coasting this time around. I guess he couldn't resist the easy paycheck he got for reprising his role as Horse.To be fair, there are some interesting moments in the movie, such as Horse's undergoing a painful purification ritual to "find his vision" and rally the Yellow Hands against their Indian enemies and white oppressors, but on the whole, Return is uneven, boring, corny, and predictable -- just like most sequels.