jdinkins-62103 I feel like this would have been a much better film if it had been filmed more clearly. I am a fan of revisionist westerns and I like the bare bones story that this particular film told. My only complaint with it is that it was filmed poorly. The actors were excellent and there aren't nearly enough stories about the northwest mounted police, outside of some 1930's era horse operas. I feel there are hundreds of stories that could be told about the northwest mounted as they are famous worldwide for always getting their man. This, in my opinion is a fine story of a man seeking vengeance for his friend but I also think that it would have been a much better, if not far more recognized film if it had only been filmed better. I understand that westerns of this particular era were filmed in a more grainy way to conjure up a more authentic air the same way we would look at photographs of this era but this film unfortunately just seems to say that the producers were short on money and were trying to cut corners. It's really a shame because I truly believe that it was a fine story with very great actors and filled with historical and exciting events.

classicsoncall Can a movie actually be painful to watch? I was already hitting the pause button at the eighteen minute mark to see how much of the picture was left and that's never a good thing. Up until now, "Cry Blood, Apache" has been the worst Western I've ever seen, but this one replaces it handily. Not a Western you say; merely a technicality. Not an American film, fine, the Canadians made some duds as well. By the way, I saw the picture under the title "Dan Candy's Law", not that it makes any difference. Dan Candy was Donald Sutherland's character, just a couple years after he appeared as Hawkeye Pierce in "MASH". So I have to ask, what was he thinking? Based on a true story apparently, I could basically make out it had to do with Dan Candy tracking a rogue Indian after he shot Candy's partner, fellow Mountie Malcolm Grant (Kevin McCarthy). What made the story difficult to follow were the frequent and abrupt scene changes, almost always disconnected, and editing that was fond of showing headless characters, half faces and the sound of voices with no one on screen. Any episode of 'Sergeant Preston of the Yukon' blows this film away, so string three of them together and you have a better hour and a half spent.Besides Sutherland, this one also had Chief Dan George in the cast, probably my favorite Native American actor. However even he couldn't salvage the story, because as he himself stated in "Little Big Man" - "...sometimes the magic works, sometimes it doesn't". He had a memorable quote in this picture as well, speaking to Dan Candy on the whereabouts of his son Almighty Voice (Gordon Tootoosis) - "You've become hunter, but there's nothing to hunt". However he was trumped by Corporal Bellringer, who was probably speaking about the picture when he stated - "The whole thing is sloppy, beginning to end". That's what I thought too.

bard-32 First of all, I have one thing to say. I was there. Between 1968 and 2002, I went to Canada quite regularly. The movie is based on the story of the Cree Indian Almighty Voice. A fugitive who killed an Agency cow, and went on the run for over a year. Almighty Voice is pursued by Constable Dan Candy. Played quite ably by a young Donald Sutherland. Set in 1885, the same year as the Metis Uprising led by Louis Real, Candy commandeers a train of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. The Northwest Mounted Police, (the forerunner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,) post a reward of five thousand dollars. Candy's ordered more than once to come in. He refuses because he's close to bringing in Almighty Voice. The Northwest Rebellion was part of Canadian history. The movie illustrates the differences in the treatment of the First Nations by the Canadian people, as opposed to the treatment, (or lack thereof,) of the Native Americans, by the Americans. There are, and were, differeces. The Canadian approach was like that of Heinlein's Patrol in Space Cadet, and the Federation in Star Trek. More diplomacy. Guess what? There were actually REAL peace treaties with the Indians. Where were they? Canada. The Cree Indians who lived at the Duck Lake Agency, were close knit and didn't turn Almighty Voice in for five thousand dollar reward. The American treatment of the Native Americans was quite different. It followed General Sherman's maxim that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." We made fake peace treaties and NEVER kept them. The movie ends with____see it for yourself to find out. As another reviewer said, make sure you have a legitimate version because the beginning's grainy and most of the historical note at the end is cut off. The movie itself was filmed at the Duck Lake Agency.

cowboy12156 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.