AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Robert Joyner 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

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

edwagreen I can see when you want to take liberties with certain historical films but this was absolutely ridiculous.Despite beautiful cinematography, what natural resources do we see depicted in this 1955 blunder of a film.Not only are there historical inaccuracies, this film is made into some sort of love triangle that never existed. It's really about Lewis fending off suitors for Sacajawea.Donna Reid looks haggard in the role of the great Indian woman. Whoever made her up should really have been dismissed from the make-up department. William Demarest delivers his lines as if he is coming straight out of Brooklyn, New York. I haven't stopped laughing when he said Louisiana Purchase. The "ur" in that word was made to sound like "oi" instead.Fred MacMurray and Charlton Heston do their best with the exceptionally bad screen writing. At least, Heston had good thoughts-his next project would be the awesome "The Ten Commandments."This film was in Vista Vision. For the life of me, I never quite understood what that film process was all about. No wonder it quickly went out of vogue. The picture should have followed.

MARIO GAUCI A crucial event in American history is rendered dull and unexciting by Hollywood convention; the story of the Lewis and Clark expedition which in the early 1800s conquered unclaimed territory for the ever-growing United States. Production values are glossy and there are a few action highlights, but the handling is uninspired and the slowly-paced film emerges an undistinguished effort overall.Casting is variable: Fred MacMurray makes for a staid Lewis but Charlton Heston's Clark is, as ever, at home in such larger-than-life surroundings; Donna Reed (as an Indian squaw!) and Barbara Hale provide the none-too-convincing romantic interest - which actually takes up a good deal of the running-time (before the expedition, both men love Hale but she prefers Heston; when the latter meets up with Reed, they fall for each other - but complications of the boring variety arise when it's revealed that she's been promised by the tribe which has abducted her to a villainous French trapper/guide and, even when she finally escapes and goes back to her people, she's spoken for by a rash young Indian brave!). This allows Heston to engage in fisticuffs and he even falls out with MacMurray, but the audience's interest is never more than dimly aroused; however, veteran William Demarest is on hand as a level-headed sergeant who actually keeps the company together during such trying times.Anyway, the film is watchable enough in itself - though it's better approached, perhaps, as a Western rather than a widescreen spectacular (with which Heston would soon come to be identified)...and, in any case, it's miles behind such celebrated 'epics' of American colonialism as John Ford's DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK (1939) and King Vidor's NORTHWEST PASSAGE (1940).

alexandre michel liberman (tmwest) If I would have seen the trailer (preview) of this film in the fifties I would probably not have missed it. It had everything to please , the colorful scenes on the river, the great scenery and potentially a great story about Lewis and Clark that wanted to get to the Pacific and faced all kinds of dangers. It had a lot in common with 'The Big Sky' with the advantage of being in color. But 'The Big Sky' was quite a film and 'The Far Horizons' failed. By casting Donna Reed as an Indian woman and making her character so important they went wrong. Reed is a good actress, but this part was not for her. Just comparing her with the Indian girl in 'The Big Sky' we realize why. It is not really her fault, but her character was too much of a cliché. SPOILER AHEAD. I thought the great moment of the film would be when they start seeing the Pacific Ocean. I kept thinking of 'Lawrence of Arabia', that spectacular moment when Peter O'Toole is walking in what seems like an endless desert and suddenly sees the Suez Canal. But in this film, who knows why, probably because they went over budget, this is not shown. The film cuts abruptly to when they are already in the Pacific, celebrating their achievement. Quite a letdown.

TxMike "The Far Horizons", made in 1955, is based on the 1803 to 1806 Lewis and Clark expedition to discover a water route from St Louis to the Pacific ocean. It is a nice vehicle for the three stars of the movie.Fred McMurray had already made 70 movies, and Donna Reed 35 movies, when they made this one. Charlton Heston had only made 13 prior, and a age 30, this one was made right before he became a giant star in the "biblical" series of movies.Shortly after this movie, McMurray went on to star in the TV series "My Three Sons", and likewise Donna Reed in the "Donna Reed Show" TV series. In this movie, at age 34, she plays the teenage Sacajawea, and does it very well.Recall that in the 50s most western movies played on the "savage Indian" theme and this one fits that description too. The writer and director took lots of "literary license" with the Lewis and Clark story so it is not to be considered historically accurate. Still, it gives a good, meaningful dramatization of a great historical event in the USA.In addition, most of the journey filming was done at or near the original Lewis and Clark trail, and the movie contains great scenery of mountains and rivers.Overall I found the movie very enjoyable, 7 of 10, and fun to watch such veteran actors in a movie almost 50 years ago. And especially since the USA just this year (2000) released the new one-dollar coin commemorating Sacajawea.