O Retorno do Homem Chamado Cavalo

Well reviewed here to date, I would like to give a different slant in the hopes it may give pause to reflect to one or two of you. I enjoyed the movie, however the experience was upgraded since it was with a gang of friends that piled into my semi-antiquated but proportionately generous 1964 Chrysler Imperial to see the movie previewed at the studio. As one of us was the proud ex- of one the the villains in the cast, we looked forward to a free night on the town. Meeting one of the producers, cast members, and an old favorite of my dear Mother-Gale Sondergaard making perhaps somewhat of a comeback after many years-added spice to the event for us humble non-industry types. Realizing this is a silly and non-conforming review, the point is: "If you're getting out, make a night of it!" Happy Hour before at Yamashiro, after hours at a private party, whatever, try not to give up too soon, even if the flick is less than stellar. Just a thought.

The movie, by the way, was indeed a decent sequel, with reasonable production values throughout.

This is a weak sequel: it lacks the interest and light touch of the magnificent "Man Called Horse" in nearly every aspect and when compared to each other they hardly seem to be the same genre.

The Return is almost a parody of the first and tries to evoke different Indian ceremonies but comes across as trying way too hard to bottle the magic of the first. In this film the tribe is lost and abandoned, having lost their homelands, modern life has encroached on paradise and they are living in abject misery and poverty. Perhaps this is the point: the first film took us to a place where we would want to be, a simpler time. This takes us to broken Indians in a miserable world and the White Man is the hero and savior which rather negates the whole idea of the film.

The beauty of the first lay in the fact that the white man learnt and discovered that real civilization lies in values rather than western materialism. In the second film this is all but lacking and so we end up with a weak film.

A huge disappointment.

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.

The first sequel to A Man Called Horse {there was another one a few years later which turned out to be something of a disappointment} is a much more conventional adventure movie. This does not mean it's bad,not at all,in fact it's probably more enjoyable. There's more English language dialogue,The Sioux dialogue is subtitled instead of just being incomprehensible to those who don't know Sioux,and it follows a familiar action movie structure and scenario. It just lacks the originality and edge of the original,where we were exploring an unfamiliar culture and weren't sure all the time if we liked everything about it. Disappontingly,none of the Sioux in the first film appear to return.

Well directed by Irvin Kershner,generally a journeyman director who occasionally excelled himself {i.e.The Empire Strikes Back},it has a fantastic cut early on from violence in the wild west to fox hunting in England,a different kind of savagery. The early scenes do a really good job of showing the film's hero,again well played by Richard Harris,as a man who appears to have everything-a title,a big house,a wife,etc} but inside is empty because he was only truly himself when he was with the Sioux. The first half of the film is leisurely,and has a re-run of the Sun Vow ritual of the first film,but longer and more graphic. But it's essential to the film,especially the vision Harris has of meeting himself as an old man.

The film's second half is mostly conventional if well staged action fare,although Harris looks out of place riding with the Sioux in western clothes-surely he would have dressed like one of them? Laurence Rosenthal's soaring score is wonderful and,in contrast with the more authentic sounding music of the first film,is more evidence that the filmmakers were generally going for a more romanticised approach. On that level,this sometimes rousing follow up works well.