CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Pluskylang Great Film overall

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Scott LeBrun Based on the same true story that inspired the much more recent "The Revenant", "Man in the Wilderness" is a truly impressive survival drama. It stars Richard Harris as Zachary Bass, one of a group of fur traders in the Northwest Territories in 1820. They've spent two years collecting their wares, and are now making their way South to a particular river that will take them to trading posts. However, as the film opens, Bass is very badly maimed by a bear. His companions believe he's a goner, and leave him behind. But Bass has an incredible will to live. His struggles to exist in the wilderness - and possible desire for revenge - form the balance of the film."Man in the Wilderness" is exquisitely shot in scope by the talented Gerry Fisher, written with heart by Jack DeWitt, and directed extremely well by Richard C. Sarafian of "Vanishing Point" fame. Bass' resolve is simply amazing, and Harris does a very fine job of creating a vivid and engaging character, a man who lived his life not particularly caring for what others consider "Gods' will". This man earns his sympathies honestly, and his situation is compelling every step of the way. There are some beautifully poignant moments throughout, both in the past (we see flashbacks to earlier parts of Bass' life) and present.At the head of the supporting cast is a typically commanding John Huston as Captain Henry, the leader of the trappers who insists that everything be done his way. Henry demands that their ship continue to be transported along with men, mules, and supplies, despite the fact that it really slows them down. Henry Wilcoxon, Percy Herbert, Dennis Waterman, Prunella Ransome, Norman Rossington, and James "Scotty" Doohan are all fine as well.There are some scenes that may be upsetting to some in the audience, but things remain convincing and believable for the duration of this well executed production.Eight out of 10.

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.

Jeff (actionrating.com) See it – This one caught my attention in the opening scene with the big wooden boat being wheeled through the forest. Yes, this is technically a western, but the story takes place in 1820, so it's almost a "colonial era" western. The film stars Richard Harris in his usual stark role as a coarse ruffian. The aforementioned boat is being pulled across the mountains to the Missouri River. But when Harris' character is badly wounded, his fellow trappers leave him behind to die. He must survive on his own in the wilderness. There's not much dialogue by Harris in this film, and it reminded me a lot of "Jeremiah Johnson." There's a great Indian battle with the trappers using the boat as a fort. And there is a very unique ending. Not a twist per se', just not the ending you would expect.

dfgrayb This film is ostensibly about a man (Richard Harris) who is left for dead by the leader of his expedition into the Northwest Territory in early 1820. As other reviewers have pointed out, there actually was a man mauled by a grizzly who managed to survive in much the way that Richard Harris does in the film. In this respect, it is based upon a true story.This film actually has only three main characters: Zach Bass (Harris), the expedition leader (John Huston), and the Wilderness. The photography is stunning. And the Zach Bass theme is beautiful and haunting. The film is full of action and excitement, as revenge stories usually are. Bass survives by his courage, by his strength, and by resourcefulness.And on that basis alone, this film is an enjoyable movie experience.But this movie exists on an additional plane that moves it from being just a great action movie to instead being a great film.The movie it is most like is the John Wayne/John Ford film The Searchers. In that movie, John Wayne's search for his niece is actually his search for inner peace, which he finds by not seeking revenge but, instead, by finding his capacity for love and compassion.The "Wilderness" in this film is actually the wilderness in Zach Bass' mind--memories of a life full of regret and loss. As he works his way back to Huston to exact his revenge, he actually is working his way to a better mind, which by the end of the film is no longer a wilderness. It is, instead, a place of love, with, finally, clarity of purpose. The film is almost flawless in its execution. It is beautiful, moving, exciting, and touching. There is very little "dialogue" because the wilderness has its own richness of dialogue. Richard Harris is a fine actor. This is his best film, in my opinion.I first saw Man in the Wilderness almost 40 years ago. And I have allowed myself the pleasure of its company every few years since. And I will for many more years.