Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: geoman-1 on June 15, 2006, 03:51:08 PM



Title: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: geoman-1 on June 15, 2006, 03:51:08 PM
Has anyone seen the film "Man in The Wilderness" with
Richard Harris. I thought it was a very good film with great cinematography and a memorable soundtrack. It has minimal dialogue which works well. Any opinions?


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: cigar joe on June 15, 2006, 08:35:28 PM
Yea seen it and enjoyed it, believe its based on a true story too.


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: Tim on June 18, 2006, 11:07:01 PM
  I enjoyed Man in the Wilderness, Harris is excellent, as you pointed out with little to no dialogue.  It still suprises me how graphic this movie was, violence-wise.

  This flick always reminded me of "A Man Called Horse" because it deals with the early American west when most westerns deal with post-Civil War themes.  And Harris, a very underrated actor IMO, gives an excellent performance in both.


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: geoman-1 on June 20, 2006, 07:15:53 AM
I couldn't agree more.


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: tucumcari bound on May 27, 2008, 06:07:19 PM

Finally, it's been released on DVD! However, it's been released as a double-feature with "The Deadly Trackers" which is also with Richard Harris. geoman has told me many times to see this, and I will pick this up for sure! Hopefully the picture is clear.


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: tucumcari bound on June 21, 2008, 01:23:36 AM

What a great film! I finally got the opportunity to view it for the first time tonight on DVD. I'm so happy they finally released this. This has got to be one of the most over-looked classics I've ever seen. Richard Harris gives a stirring performance here. You really are taken into the film and feel this man's inner deamon's, pain, and struggles as he fights to stay alive. The film also has a memorable score which I will soon not forget. This should not be missed!


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: geoman-1 on October 11, 2008, 06:53:00 PM
Glad you liked this film. Your concise review is spot on.
It's one of those films that stay with you long after the credits have rolled.
I must now buy the movie soundtrack O0


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: dave jenkins on October 12, 2008, 10:14:18 AM
I forgot this had come out. Right, I'll be sure to get a copy.


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 25, 2013, 11:03:44 PM
well lookee here! just saw this film for the first time, and what a beauty it is!
a gem you don't hear much about, I can thank y'all who have praised the film on this thread for introducing me to it. And what a film it is!

8.5/10

The greatest risk for a wilderness/survival story is, can you be kept captivated and never bored, and the answer here is a resounding Yes! There isn't a boring moment, this is a just a wonderful movie to experience. The boat is an incredible prop, Harris does a fine job and John Huston is terrific, and a special note to the cinematography, which is absolutely marvelous. The score is terrific too.

The only thing I wasn't so sure about is the ending; I was initially disappointed, but the more I think about it now, the more okay I am with it. (I accidentally looked at the Time Remaining - never advisable - and noticed there were only 4 minutes to go, and I was like, "woah, is that all there is left?")

If you are a Western fan who hasn't seen this yet, make sure to do so...


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: titoli on August 04, 2013, 04:42:06 PM
This must have been the most trafficked wilderness available at the time, everything and everybody seem to happen around the apparently dying Harris.  But the movie is entertaining, though I would have gladly done without the flashbacks and the vignette of the giving birth Indian. And the chief's speech (one sentence of which gave the distributor the italian title: "Go with your God, White Man") sounds ridiculous both as to content ("You are immortal") and form. And then I don't understand why Huston (here posing as Noah Cross) who feels like a father to Harris, decides first to cure him, then to leave him there (when he could have have him hoisted on the ark)  giving orders to have him shot  if he doesn't recover in the morning. Bah...And then admitting later he's  sure he has made it. Then he wanted him dead from the start? 7\10


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on August 04, 2013, 06:54:58 PM
This must have been the most trafficked wilderness available at the time, everything and everybody seem to happen around the apparently dying Harris.  But the movie is entertaining, though I would have gladly done without the flashbacks and the vignette of the giving birth Indian. And the chief's speech (one sentence of which gave the distributor the italian title: "Go with your God, White Man") sounds ridiculous both as to content ("You are immortal") and form. And then I don't understand why Huston (here posing as Noah Cross) who feels like a father to Harris, decides first to cure him, then to leave him there (when he could have have him hoisted on the ark)  giving orders to have him shot  if he doesn't recover in the morning. Bah...And then admitting later he's  sure he has made it. Then he wanted him dead from the start? 7\10

well that's the whole ridiculous/hilarious thing about that boat - Huston has 22 mules dragging it across the wilderness, but it apparently never occurs to him (and nobody else thinks, or has the guts, to suggest) to maybe have that thing carry Harris. You can't analyze Huston's actions with logic or morals here. He is not exactly a character whose actions/motivations you can question logically or morally.


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: titoli on August 04, 2013, 11:20:11 PM
Yeah: but then we must keep in mind that his illogical behaviour is not depending on the depiction of the character but serving (quite goofily: that's the whole point) the  aim of giving Harris a reason for revenge and the other two characters (Huston and the older man left behind) a reason for obsession and a sense of guilt.


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: cigar joe on August 05, 2013, 05:35:16 AM
I think it was based on a true story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass)


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: titoli on August 05, 2013, 06:15:06 AM
Yes, so it says in the opening credits as well.


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 19, 2013, 07:49:43 AM
This must have been the most trafficked wilderness available at the time, everything and everybody seem to happen around the apparently dying Harris.  But the movie is entertaining, though I would have gladly done without the flashbacks and the vignette of the giving birth Indian. And the chief's speech (one sentence of which gave the distributor the italian title: "Go with your God, White Man") sounds ridiculous both as to content ("You are immortal") and form. And then I don't understand why Huston (here posing as Noah Cross) who feels like a father to Harris, decides first to cure him, then to leave him there (when he could have have him hoisted on the ark)  giving orders to have him shot  if he doesn't recover in the morning. Bah...And then admitting later he's  sure he has made it. Then he wanted him dead from the start? 7\10
I watched this last night on the occasion of Sarafian's passing, but was disappointed. Titoli has all the problems nailed. How can they think Harris is going to die after they've stitched him up? Have they never seen a dying man before? Can't they tell the difference between a goner and a guy with a chance? Why wouldn't they take him on the boat? It's pulled by a mule train of about 20, so even with Huston still riding it should have been no problem. It wasn't as if Harris was going to slow them down. Then, having made the decision to leave him, why not leave Harris some provisions and things just in case he pulls through? Why leave two guys behind to bury him when he dies? If Huston is so sure he's going to die, why not kill him now, bury him, and move on? Then, Harris seems to make a miraculous recovery--was he just faking? We see him using all his woodland skills to survive--trapping game, building fires, even curing skins! Man, these things take time. As I see it, you can either live off the land OR you can track the guys who've left you behind, there aren't enough hours in the day to do both. But Harris has no trouble keeping pace with Huston and company. And later, as titoli points out, the statement made by Huston about Harris's survival is just nuts. And when they get to the river and the water is low and someone asks about the possibility of it rising after the winter, Huston's response is, "No, we got here too late." Now what the heck is that supposed to mean? D&D would have you believe that the fact that Huston is crazy alibis all these problems. But is his whole crew nuts? They go along with all of this, so they must be. And at the end, they just leave the very valuable fur pelts behind to follow Harris? Fits with the "everybody's nuts" theory, all right, but kind of does damage to the lyrical ending. Harris has come through it all, earned the respect of the Indians, has moved beyond the need for vengeance: the crew, even Huston, begins to follow Harris out of respect. It kind of loses something if they're all insane anyway.

The plot aside, there are too many other things that annoy. Again, per titoli, the flashbacks suck. None of the encounters with the animals is convincing. We run across the Indians too many times (and Harris witnessing at close hand both the ambush of the trapper and his squaw AND the Indian woman giving birth is ridiculous). Finally, the music drove me up the wall.

I wanted to like this film, but at every turn I was rebuffed. 5/10.


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 21, 2013, 06:50:07 PM
I don't think they're all crazy. I think Huston is crazy, and he has an absolutely firm hold over the group; they are all terrified to challenge him. Of course they could have easily taken Harris on that boat being pulled by 22 mules, but that's the thing - Huston is absolutely crazy about that boat (I saw one person describe it as an ark, like he is Noah!): nobody else is allowed to go on that boat (which probably could have carried half the men!), it's Huston's symbol of power. I agree that the flashbacks are useless (with the possible exception of the flashback that tells us he has a son waiting for him at home), I could have done without the whole element of Harris's belief in God; (in general, religion is not my favorite subject in movies). I've never been in the wilderness, but I do suppose that Harris's recovery and chase is not something that is humanly realistic, but for me, it didn't go beyond the realm of normal cinematic suspension of disbelief.
So while I could have done without some of the preaching and flashbacks, I still think this was a very good movie.


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: cigar joe on September 21, 2013, 08:24:24 PM
I don't think they're all crazy. I think Huston is crazy, and he has an absolutely firm hold over the group; they are all terrified to challenge him. Of course they could have easily taken Harris on that boat being pulled by 22 mules, but that's the thing - Huston is absolutely crazy about that boat (I saw one person describe it as an ark, like he is Noah!): nobody else is allowed to go on that boat (which probably could have carried half the men!), it's Huston's symbol of power. I agree that the flashbacks are useless (with the possible exception of the flashback that tells us he has a son waiting for him at home), I could have done without the whole element of Harris's belief in God; (in general, religion is not my favorite subject in movies). I've never been in the wilderness, but I do suppose that Harris's recovery and chase is not something that is humanly realistic, but for me, it didn't go beyond the realm of normal cinematic suspension of disbelief.
So while I could have done without some of the preaching and flashbacks, I still think this was a very good movie.

Again, isn't it based on a true story? There must be some historical account about the why it went down like it did, that the screenplay is based on.


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 21, 2013, 11:01:43 PM
Again, isn't it based on a true story? There must be some historical account about the why it went down like it did, that the screenplay is based on.

Wikipedia says this was based on a true story; see the "Production Background" section here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_in_the_Wilderness
However, it does not provide any sources


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: Dust Devil on December 15, 2013, 09:23:13 AM
Yes, the logic seems missed in every occasion in every possible direction, yet, it didn't bother me one bit... I was completely immersed in the story, and the flashbacks were constructive IMO, and I appreciated the whole 'spiritual growing' thing too. Great visuals and touches.


7/10


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: Spikeopath on May 29, 2017, 12:04:06 PM
Plenty positives for this. Worth checking out now that The Revenant has proved most viable to a modern day audience.

God Made The World!

Man in the Wilderness is directed by Richard C. Sarafian and written by Jack DeWitt. It stars Richard Harris, John Huston, Prunella Ransome, Percy Herbert, Henry Wilcoxon, Norman Rossington and Dennis Waterman. Music is by Johnny Harris and cinematography by Gerry Fisher.

"1820. 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."

He was left for dead. He would not forget.

Essentially, Man in the Wilderness is the redemptive tale of Zachary Bass (Harris). Left for dead by his unfeeling Captain (Huston) after being savaged by a grizzly bear, Bass survives the wilds of nature and the threat of man with revenge firmly on his mind. But as he recuperates and adjusts to the spiritualisation that the surrounds brings him, he looks back at his life and beliefs.

It is undeniably a very slow picture, with dialogue appropriately in short supply, but the atmosphere created is perfect for the unfolding events. Strikingly the film also has a surreal quality that really cloaks the story with considerable impact, where deft touches of imagery land firmly in the conscious. The makers slot in some "bloody" moments, backed with tension, such as the well constructed sequences involving the bear attack and a time when Bass has to scare away two snarling wolves so he "also" can feast off of a stricken Bison. The presence of Indian attacks is handled with care by the director, and in fact helps the finale get away with the expected outcome. While strong moments such as two separate incidents involving rabbits really show the makers to have the best of intentions to tell a valid and interesting story. Especially when it's scenes of just Bass and nature at war.

Narratively, however, it is a bit hit and miss. The pertinent question of faith and the use of flashbacks are an uneasy alliance, mostly because the former drapes the film in predictability, and the latter takes you out of the whole "man in the wilderness" struggle that Bass is luring us into. It renders the film far from flawless which is a shame because it has much to recommend a viewing. The Almería, Andalucía location is used to good effect to pass as the Northwest of America, where quite often Gerry Fisher's photography neatly shifts between beauty and the harshness of mother nature. Harris could do this type of role in his sleep, he isn't asked to stretch himself but still leaves a very favourable impression. Huston is up to scratch, but again he doesn't have to do much, while everybody else are giving performances that any other working actor of the time could have given.

A movie of rewards and frustrations for sure, and it's no Jeremiah Johnson, but this is definitely worth a spin for anyone interested in the "Man Vs Nature" sub-genre of period films. 7/10



Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 29, 2017, 03:18:23 PM
IMO, MAN IN THE WILDERNESS is a lot better than JEREMIAH JOHNSON or THE REVENANT


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: Novecento on May 29, 2017, 09:19:36 PM
The pertinent question of faith and the use of flashbacks are an uneasy alliance, mostly because the former drapes the film in predictability, and the latter takes you out of the whole "man in the wilderness" struggle that Bass is luring us into.

That's an interesting point regarding the use of flashbacks. It often takes some skillful editing (often considered in advance during the shoot) to prevent any jarring effects.

... it's no Jeremiah Johnson, but this is definitely worth a spin for anyone interested in the "Man Vs Nature" sub-genre of period films. 7/10

IMO, MAN IN THE WILDERNESS is a lot better than JEREMIAH JOHNSON or THE REVENANT

I absolutely loved "The Revenant" due to how incredibly well filmed it was. I remember enjoying "Jeremiah Johnson". I have never seen "Man in the wilderness".


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 29, 2017, 09:53:47 PM


I have never seen "Man in the wilderness".

Change that  :)


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 29, 2017, 10:29:24 PM
This movie recently became available in BRD from Warner Bros. Archive.

As an aside, Searching for the disc now, I think I just came to realize a little something about Netflix that I had never figured out before: (note:  throughout this post, when referring to Netflix, I'm referring to the disc rental only, not the streaming. I never use the streaming.)

I rented this movie on DVD from Netflix - a double-feature DVD, along with another Western called THE DEADLY TRACKERS (which is not a very good movie) - coincidentally, my Netflix history tells me, exactly on this date in 2013  :)

But I see now that this double-feature DVD is no longer available from Netflix  :( And I think that double-feature DVD is only available from Amazon merchants but not Amazon itself.

I think I figured out now now why the DVD is no longer available on Netflix, and in general why discs that were once available on Netlfix suddenly become unavailable: a Netflix operator  once told me that Netflix does not actually own any discs. Rather, they have some sort of leasing agreement for the discs with the studios. So I assume that once a disc goes out of print, the studios pull their copies from Netflix as well. This sucks, because it means that when a disc is out of print, it will not be available for renting on Netflix, either. How did I figure this out? Cuz Recently, I noticed that a bunch of Melville discs I had  once rented from Netflix are no longer available on Netflix, and are also out of print (and therefore very expensive from Amazon sellers). That's probably what happened: once the discs went out of print on Criterion, Criterion also pulled their copies from Netflix. So now, all these discs that I had never bought because I assumed they would be available as rentals forever on Netflix, are no longer available for rental on Netflix, and are also very expensive to buy on Amazon because they are out of print  :'( So When  there is a movie I like, you may as well buy it now; because if it one day goes out of print, it may not be available for Netflix, either.

With the particular case of MAN IN THE WILDERNESS,  it is no big deal: I don't care about the DVD anymore because the Blu-ray is out. It's all buy the Blu-ray and that's it. (I do not think the BRD is available on Netflix; the Archive Collection discs rarely are). But in general, I've learned that Netflix is very good if you want to rent a movie for the first time, so as not to purchase the disc before knowing if the movie is good. But once you like a movie, the safest way is to purchase it; you never know when it may go out of print and the price will shoot up, and at the same time may no longer be available for Netflix rental, either.
 


Title: Re: Man in the Wilderness (1971)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 30, 2017, 07:16:27 AM
But I see now that this double-feature DVD is no longer available from Netflix  :( And I think that double-feature DVD is only available from Amazon merchants but not Amazon itself.
Still available on the Jenkins Home Entertainment System, though. And always will be (or until the pry it out of my cold, dead hands).

Quote
So When  there is a movie I like, you may as well buy it now; because if it one day goes out of print, it may not be available for Netflix, either.

Tell me, did your parents have any children who lived? Did they? Any at all?