Alien Thunder

I only gave this movie a 4, but that's mainly because it was kind of slow. I like Chief Dan George, so that was a plus right there. I read a comment from one of the commentors and he mentioned how grainy the picture was and I pretty much experienced the same thing. However I thought it added realism to the movie. The dialogue, the sets, the wardrobe, the scenery. It almost looked like someone had a video camera back in those days and actually filmed what was taking place. It's always a good thing when movies use real Indians instead of actors that are painted up to look like Indians. You would think that I would have givin' this movie a higher rating with all the positive things I've said, but it is a movie to fall asleep too. I got this movie in a 20 movie pack, so what the heck.

Alien Thunder is a 1974 Canadian film that deals with the conflict between European and Indigenous (Cree) people who already populated regions of Canada and USA, focusing on the search for a Cree individual (Almighty Voice) who kills a cow that did not belong to him, kills a military in the process and becomes a fugitive. As has always happened in colonization processes in history, the Indigenous people lose a lot in the clash with the Europeans. The film does not make very clear some details of an event that was crucial for the development of the story and, also, does not develop well the interpersonal relationships between several of the participants in the story. In my opinion, it is not a good film - at most, it is regular.

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

Average movie which only intermittently comes to live. A good performance from Sutherland, and it's always a delight to see Chief Dan George.

Not sure why they got Kevin McCarthy for such a small if pivitol role.

Imdb trivia reminded me that the movie featured the lead actors of the original invasion of the body snatchers and it's remake ie MCarthy and Sutherland. McCarthy had a small role in the remake, playing the same character as in the orignal. His appearance is more brief than in this movie, but it's a better one Note I prefered the remake to the original. I mus see if I can anything more about this story, and see how accurrately the movie portrays it.