thedesertraven 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.

gavin6942 The English gentleman known as Horse (Richard Harris), returns to the American west to save his adopted Indian tribe from extinction.According to Roger Ebert, "The film reveals its basic white-chauvinist bias, but it certainly seems to take itself seriously. It's of average length, but paced like an epic. There are four main movements in the plot: Return, Reconciliation, Revenge and Rebirth. If this seems a little thin for a two-hour movie, believe me, it is, even with all that portentous music trying to make it seem momentous." The film as a whole is not remarkable. Allegedly this is the film that convinced George Lucas to hire the director for "Empire Strikes Back", arguably the best of the "Star Wars" franchise. But this movie, I don't know... aside from the race issues (a white man intervening t save the Indians, and the Indians being played almost entirely by whooping, stereotypical white actors) it is just a bland movie. Even by sequel standards. Richard Harris is great, but he can't save this one.

doug-balch I never hear anyone refer to this as a quality movie. Only eight user reviews here. This is actually a good, entertaining movie that is being overlooked.Here's what I liked:The teepee village sets and the fort set had a very authentic feel to them. It's clear that very knowledgeable consultants were used to construct these sets.Richard Harris fills this role admirably. I found his character very believable. This is quite an accomplishment, since the basic plot is fundamentally implausible.Nice balance between the "good" Indians and "bad" Indians and "good" Whites (or "good White" as the case may be) and "bad" Whites. This prevented the movie from becoming over-melodramatic or maudlin.Excellent placement of the story in the vastly underused pre-Civil War trapper/mountain man historical period.Good location shooting. Nice shots of buffalo herds. Well filmed buffalo hunt.Effective mix of English, Sioux language and subtitles.Here's what kept it from being better:As mentioned above, the premise of the movie is fundamentally implausible. I give great credit to Richard Harris for making his character believable.It has a nice Indian point of view and mostly avoids high melodrama by presenting good and bad Indians. However its "Indian-friendliness" is undercut severely by two things: one, the use of many Caucasian actors in Indian roles and two, the supremacy of "Horse" as the White leader of the hapless Yellow Hand Indians.Geoffrey Lewis was a weak heavy. He didn't help "High Plains Drifter" much either in a similar role. Should have stuck with orangutan movies. Very weak supporting cast overall behind Harris.No comic relief.In the final battle scene, a dozen Yellow Hand squaws on foot with no rifles wipe out an equal number of opposing male warriors, who are armed with rifles and on horseback. Still trying to figure that one out.I fast forwarded through the sadistic pagan breast piercing/cleansing ritual or whatever it was. Gimmicky and gratuitous gore.One more thing. Did ALL the whites have to be massacred at the fort? Were they all murderers and rapists? Weren't there a few decent Joe's there just out trapping? Maybe a few guys just passing through who would have disapproved of the Yellow Hand massacre? Just sayin'.....

intelearts 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.