Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Wuchak Released in 1971, "Man in the Wilderness" stars Richard Harris as Zach Bass who's adventures are based on the real-life account of Hugh Glass, a man who survives a mauling by a grizzly bear and makes his way crawling and stumbling 200 miles to Fort Kiowa, in South Dakota, after being abandoned without supplies or weapons by fellow explorers and fur traders during General Ashley's expedition of 1823. Vengeful, Glass then sets out to confront his trapping partners who left him to die. Glass' story is also the basis of 2015's more popular "The Revenant." Whereas that movie was way more expensive and therefore has the better filmmaking, "Man in the Wilderness" has the better story. Zach Bass' long journey is one of discovery and possible redemption. As a child he experienced the life-stifling slap of legalism, which turned him off to God, but his sojourn, while harsh, is enlightening and conducive to grace. An Indian-birthing scene is a highlight while John Huston is notable as Captain Henry. This is a one-of-a-kind Western. The film runs 104 minutes and was shot in Arizona, Mexico and Spain.GRADE: B

zardoz-13 Richard Harris doesn't die easily in director Richard C. Sarafian's frontier film "Man in the Wilderness," a rugged tale of survival set in 1820 about real-life tracker Hugh Glass. Although it unfolds with a savage bear attack staged with a genuine bear (Peggy the Bear) and her handler, neither the film nor Richard Harris can top the first scene with what constitutes a dreary yarn of vengeance that lumbers on for 104 minutes. Legendary writer & director John Huston co-stars as an equally determined captain who forces his beaver pelt frontiersmen to trundle a small boat through the desolation galore drawn by 22 mules. The sight of the boat with its single, small-bore cannon and Huston's lofty figure on deck in a crumpled stovepipe hat is captivating. Unfortunately, Huston doesn't have dialogue that makes you either love or loathe him like he had in Burt Kennedy's "The Deserter." Indeed, characterization is minimal in this stark adventure. Nevertheless, composer Johnny Harris' introductory theme is gripping, but the rest of the music, like the film itself, doesn't live up to the first ten minutes. Sarafian makes the going tolerable, but neither he nor scenarist Jack De Witt, who scripted another Harris survivalist saga "A Man Called Horse," can maintain momentum. Hollywood veteran Henry Wilcoxon is believable as an Indian chief, and Percy Herbert is appropriately unsavory throughout, with "Star Trek's" James Dohan as one of the trappers. "Young Frankenstein" lenser Gerry Fisher proved that he was adept both in a studio as well as out in the hinterlands. Fisher's widescreen cinematography is gorgeous, especially when you realize that "Man in the Wilderness" was photographed on location in Spain.The movie opens with the following exposition preceding the credits. "The Captain Henry Expedition has completed two years of fur trapping in the unexplored Northwest territory. Determined to reach the Missouri River before the winter snows the trappers and their boat, towed by 22 mules, struggled through the wilderness. Once on the Missouri they could sail south to the trading posts and sell their precious cargo. What occurred on this expedition is historically true." Of course, it is the trappers versus the Native Americans. Through flashbacks, we learn that our never-say-die protagonist was an atheist who had no use for God after his compassionate wife perished and left a son behind. Trouble with "Man in the Wilderness" is it's a contemplative movie that shows the leading man adapting to the perils of the treacherous environment that he has to live off. Boy Scouts would love this movie, especially when Harris builds fires. The ending amounts to something of a letdown. After a full-scale Indians on horseback attack on the boat in a shallow river bed, Zachery Bass—who survived a brush with the Indians, too—marches up to an apprehensive Henry (John Huston of "Chinatown") and appropriates his rifle and then tramps off to see the son that he refused to bring up in his youth. For all practical purposes, Leonardo DeCaprio remade this movie as "The Revenant."

Steve B Well I am putting this in after just watching the Revenant. I took another look at this film which scared the heck out of me as a kid. I can remember watching this on television, weekend days at least 2x. It is a horrifying story, but keeps your attention. The persistence and human will portrayed are somehow inspiring. The weird old boat and hunting party that drag along add to the weirdness that makes this memorable. This story of Hugh Glass has been told many times, I guess. The fear of native Americans on the frontier drives this plot of this film too. Portrayals like this trained me how to think in ways.....which are very hard to overcome. Having spent a lot of time in the woods, seeing bears (black only) and having spent time in the woods in winter, this story is very hard to believe. I can't imagine trying to fight a grizzly. As we all know now, watching survival shows, just getting water that doesn't make you sick is a big deal. You could die from something small like that let alone mortal wounds, no proper clothing, knives and hunting implements. This film seems to focus on the psychological, but its the tools and skills that would allow someone to survive.

clanciai The remake of this year called "Revenant" has suddenly brought this original up to date, and a comparison is inevitable. Both have outstanding credits, "Revenant" above all for its amazing panoramic landscape cinematography, but this original weighs heavier. The acting is so much better, it is more humanly convincing, and although it's the same story it's a totally different story with a much more satisfactory and actually surprising end. Already from the start you are informed of all the facts of this adventurous expedition and its circumstances, and how vital it was for the men to get down to Missouri in time before winter - that race with time is the real thriller of the tale, which is totally absent from "Revenant", where instead you are buried in the tribulations of the deserted man, who is being constantly overloaded with new trials and hardships, as if the first was not enough, which is totally unnecessary exaggerations constructed only for effect. Here the narrative is more down to earth with moving details stressing the increasing humanity of the sufferer, such as his witnessing an Indian childbirth and his helping a rabbit with a broken leg - this is all more convincing and credible as a Robinsonade from real life, while "Revenant" in comparison is just mostly exaggerations. Here there is no nasty crook with intentional foul play, and an interesting spice to the human problem complex of the story is how the men actually suffer from having left Zach behind, even hallucinating about him for an extra bad conscience, while Zach himself is brought to maturity and insight by his memories in flashbacks. No bloody cruelty here, only the natural force of circumstances, which makes this film credibly positive in contrast to the remake. "Revenant" also has almost no music, only some moody chords now and then, while here you can enjoy a full and masterful score (by Johnny Harris - never saw his name before) which is perfectly suited to this grand epic human drama of survival and redemption, making a full vote well justified.