Fantastic!

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Alien Thunder (whoever came up with that title should have been pistol whipped) is just plain dull!Donald Sutherland (in a wooden, unlikable performance) plays Dan Candy, a member of The Royal Canadian Mounted Police who arrests an Indian for slaughtering a government alloted cow without prior approval. The Indian escapes and kills his partner.Most of this excruciating movie consists of Sutherland walking into the woods, coming back empty-handed, and arguing with his superior officer.There's no suspense and what little action there is (before the climax) consists mostly of pot shots taken by and against Indians on his various trips to the reservation.Considering the talent involved, (Sutherland, Kevin McCarthy, Chief Dan George) this should have been good. I suggest you watch Thunderheart instead.

There may have been something of a good chase film here, based on a true story about a Cree Indian who turned cop killer when confronted by the Mounties over a stolen cow, but the version I saw from Digiview is so amazingly badly transferred that it's almost unwatchable. It's too bad, simply because a clean, crisp version--not edited by some lunkhead in Lower Slobovia--may have saved it from my donate-to-the-library pile.On the whole though, it's not a bad story. A mid-thirties Donald Sutherland appears to have made this movie as a favor to his native Canada; he couldn't have been paid much because the whole movie looks as if it was made by a university film class rich with a grant from a provincial arts endowment. Sutherland is believable, and so are the group of Canadian actors and actresses, both Native and European.The only bad performance is by a great screen presence--Chief Dan George. It was either the transfer and lack of scan and pan or no direction for the chief that robbed George's character of doing much more than looking inscrutable, usually almost off screen (because of the lack of scan and pan). In fact, there are whole chunks of the movie where you can hear people cooking or slogging through slush or gurgling from a gunshot wound, but you can't see them because nobody taught that guy in the transfer booth how to operate the doohickeys on the master board.I had a heart procedure done last summer--nothing huge, but I'm good for another 40,000 miles. Anyway, while I was getting zapped by a high-tech soldering iron, I was strapped down on this table called an ironing board. I couldn't move my head; my vision was confined to the thousand-pound x-ray machines above me. Very unpleasant (except for the end result). Not having scan and pan is something like that. You so want to look around the sides of your screen to see what the hell you're missing. I wanted to sit up, push the x-rays out of the way, and ask the cardiologist what he was up to. I think that's why they strapped me down.Oh, well. What you can see, from time to time, is the provincial equivalent of some beautiful plains-state wilderness. Cold and raw, inviting to visit.It's still not worth the buck. If this sounds appealing, try to find a decent copy.

Donald Sutherland plays Mountie Dan Candy as if the character he knew he was in a movie and kept pushing it to be an action/adventure film, or a revenge movie, or a revisionist Western with a hero who could make a difference - but he's not. He's in an historical docudrama about a series of related domestic tragedies. Which means that the outcome is predetermined, and after insisting he has some power to effect matters for the better, he is left with the Indians to witness the end unfold.This is the clue to the real strength of the film, which many would find its greatest fault. It is indeed slow, in order to accommodate an elegiac visual style. Tone and effect - essentially of sorrow, and of powerlessness over the historic inevitability of it all - form the real substance of the movie.It's understandable that such is not to the taste of many audiences. But the film makers do deserve credit for attempting to approach their material in this fashion, rather than opt for something more profitably "exciting." That said, it must be admitted that a large scale production like this is operating on what appears to be a crash budget, and that doesn't help. It certainly didn't help in the preservation of the film, the available print on DVD is pretty bad. But occasionally the cinematography rises to the majesty that the script and director are calling for it, and eerie and beautiful moments pop up in the film, often when you least expect it.Not really a success, but by no means simply a failure.

in my opinion,this film is very poorly made.the beginning is so grainy and washed out,it's almost impossible to see anything.it may just be that the particular company that manufactured the DVD i saw,did a poor job on the production.it does c;ear up after bout 5 to 10 minutes and is pretty clear but i also thought Donald Sutherland did not do a very good acting job,nor did anyone else.also,at times,the movement of the actors lips did not match their words.i felt like i was watching a very badly dubbed foreign film.i also thought the movie moved at a glacial pace.the budget was not very high and it certainly shows.i really did not like this movie at all.maybe you just have to be in the right frame of mind to watch it,and maybe this particular manufacture just did such a poor job.my advice is to try to find a reputable DVD manufacturer and that might make the difference.i won't this movie as it wouldn't be fair