Eagle's Wing

8+ points for a take on a fresh and probably-kinda-maybe-perhaps-was look into back 'then'. American Indians quite probably stole more than killed (I doubt they were unusually bloodthirsty)...who really knows. Nice slower and somewhat uncommon pursuit... and the way things develop are not patterned which means it has a unique and lovely pace. I found this film to be most interesting. Thankfully not another mindless shoot em up. I thought this film would suck at first, but *wow* I wound up getting wrapped up and being entertained, this is why we have cinema... nice treasure... good job! I have hopes nobody dissects this film. When the entire movie unfolds I experienced many unique twists, impossible to determine what will be next. The characters are entirely human and have either honor or not... passion or not... forgiveness or not. Wound up loving the White Horse, the Indian, Sheen... even the damned desert was great. All good.

First; I'm over seventy years old.

This trash was made in 1978, though the claim is 1979.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING makes sense; the sequence of events are so skewed, I'd be tempted to accuse the makers of being on hallucinogenic drugs.

One of the main characters, Martin Sheen, is shown wearing a Civil War era jacket, with a saber, but the setting seemed to be thirty years prior.

Nothing is explainable. Other events which are supposed to be generally during the same timeframe, are disconnected, and never add any semblance of coherency to the scheme of things, as the film progresses.

Don't waste your brain watching this tripe. I fail to understand the other commenters giving it such high marks, unless they are also on drugs.

The whole thing seems like a very beautiful film school exercise, the rehearsal for a real film, or the cuttings from another film, picked up off the floor and edited into a... well, not a cohesive film, but certainly something.

Story is hardly there, or nonsense, and at one point has a couple of threads that I guess come together, to no particular purpose. Other threads are dramatically brought up then entirely dropped just as they reach their zenith.

The whole film is really like that. The most beautiful, well-scored, emotionally-moving, and generally sensible part of the film is the last few seconds, and the scene that plays out under the credits. No, not being insulting to say "credits were the best because it's over." I mean, there's a scene there, and it was the one time the movie really worked.

Too bad it took the better part of 2 hours to get there.

Also: Sam Waterston as an Indian. Sigh.

The other commenters have written interesting things, indeed. The start of the movie had a reference to it being set in 1830. That is not "post-Civil War". It is thirty years before it. The setting is even a decade and a half before the Mexican-American War, thus being prior to the U.S. conquering what is now the southwestern United States and seizing it from the Mexicans. Pike was not a "cowboy", but rather a fur trapper, and it was the Indians who stole their pack horses and gear who killed his partner, with an arrow. Pike did not murder his partner. The setting was all wrong. The primary fur sought by the trappers was beaver, used mainly for the fashionable top hats of the eastern United States and Europe. The Europeans had already exterminated the beaver in much of its range in Europe due to over-harvesting. Beavers do not live in a desert, nor do any other furbearing animals that were being sought.

I just saw "Eagle´s wing". I do not really know why this movie was made. What is the message of this story? Nevertheless I liked it. There are some exciting scenes in it. I appreciate a strong performance by Martin Sheen. Harvey Keitel is less convincing.