The Stalking Moon (1968)

Not your common variety of western, not even an action entry but a thoughtful look at the last days of the Indian tribes before the reservations took hold. It's a plausible story of these times that unfolds at a leisurely pace and builds to a suspenseful climax. Moon is a violent renegade Indian, hunting down those who have rescued his forcefully abducted white woman prisoner, along with his young son, as they attempt to move them to the safety of civilisation. Movie making veterans, director Robert Mulligan & director of photography Charles Lang, capture magnificent mountain vistas along with the murderous 'stalking' being performed by this Indian known as the ghost of the moon. Evocative music score by Fred Karlin adds atmosphere to this little remembered film. Should interest patient viewers of the genre & those who follow the careers of Gregory Peck and Eva Marie Saint - the interesting Robert Foster makes an impression as Peck's friend.

I have just concluded watching this underwhelming 'thriller' which does not even live up to its title - unless the Apache Salvaje used a nome de plume, "Moon" because only he stalked but rarely at night!The reviewers here who have alluded to the excellent script (others, thrashing around for something more precise used the term 'tight')should be barred from any future reviews on IMDb, because they obviously write a review without having watched the movie.Pathetically sparse is the only way to describe the blindingly obvious lack of a script. I really think I should go to the tedious trouble of re-watching this movie to count the actual number of words used! If there are many more words than 150 over the 109 minutes, I would be most surprised. What this does for plot and character development is all too obvious. The character to have uttered the most words was the railway attendant who outlined the train's route when supplying tickets.Forget character analysis here - so little is said or even intimated (fire the scriptwriter and the director)that we know precious little about the major characters' background. Why, for example, did Gregory Peck's character decide to take Sarah and the boy back to his homestead? Why did Sarah never even attempt to reveal who she really was and what circumstances had been the cause of her present predicament? Ned, Peck's 'friend' who was trusted to handle the purchase of the homestead seems like some distant extra in the cast of characters. Apart from the fact that Salvaje has come to take back his son, he utters not one word over 109 minutes nor do we have any explanation of why he abducts Sarah, only to leave her a little dazed and bloody in the vicinity of the homestead?Peck, after having been awarded an Oscar under the same director for "To Kill a Mockingbird" must have wondered if indeed Robert Mulligan directed this insipid and truly forgettable western. There are some nice shots of scenery and some passable passages of movie soundtrack here, but because of the snail-like pace and dullness in the direction as well as some plot holes (how come Salvaje is single-handedly so successful in leaving death and destruction in his wake but fails in his mission to recapture his son?) and the absence of a script, this movie is a failure on all levels.Surely those reviewers here who have described this film as the 'greatest western ever' are taking us for a ride. Such people must experience orgasmic pleasure in watching paint dry.

I chose to see this film because of the always excellent work of Gregory Peck -- however, this being a relatively unknown film, I wasn't expecting so very much in the way of ingenuity, storyline or overall entertainment.I'm very happy to say that I was very surprised. This is a very very good western. I've seen a lot of westerns and know pretty much what to expect out of your average fare. This is well above average. A couple facets in particular help it excel.One of the things I really enjoyed was the understated mood of the characters and the film as a whole. The plot and the characters don't slap you in the face with standard western conventions saying "HERE I AM!" The characters and storyline unveil themselves slowly, deliberately, and I think, beautifully.Some of the other negative comments site lack of character development and slow-moving story as major drawbacks. While each viewer may see the same thing from a number of different perspectives, I believe that these reviewers failed to recognize the subtleties which make this film stand out above others. True, there is not a lot of dialog. But consider how chatty most of the personalities out in the vast western frontier were likely to be. If you were a lover of social engagements and polite small-talk, this was not exactly your home sweet home. The main characters are an army scout and his half-breed friend who he trained; a captured, abused woman living among Indian tribes for the better part of a decade, and a little Indian boy put in circumstances where he is a fish out of water. The dialog of this film is seen the most by the characters' actions and expressions. Not many films dare to do this, and even then, not many succeed at it. It is a credit to this film that they pulled it off beautifully. In essence, the way the characters in this movie were handled came as a surprise and added a genuine sense of realism to the picture.Also, the cinematography and choice of shooting locations are to be commended. The laconic characters blend seamlessly with the vast landscapes of barren Arizona and the rugged, striking New Mexico ranch. This also added to the realism of the film.While this film does protrude ahead of many others, it is not perfect. I did find the utter, vast destruction supposedly wreaked by the one-man Apache army more than a little unlikely. Also, some of the cat and mouse between the "Stalking" warrior and our protagonists seemed stretched and a bit beneath the supposed cleverness of the characters. However, these things do not condemn the film, nor do they cancel out it's effectiveness. It's a great western, which lived up to much, if not quite all, of its potential.It's a shame this film is not more well known. It is wonderful, however, to have an excellent print available on DVD (albeit an absolute bare bones disc). Give it a try -- you might just be surprised too!

Not even listed as one of Gregory Peck's better films, I consider this to be one of the most exciting Westerns I have ever seen. The Stalking Moon, Jeremiah Johnson, High Noon,.. all three are Western Classics.The movie begins slowly but the sense of foreboding builds throughout the film as Sam and his adopted family wait for the inevitable. Eva Marie Saint portrays an abused woman with spare dignity and understated grace, the little boy is great and Gregory Peck is a formidable presence, growing stronger in character and determination as his feelings for the woman and her son develop. Nathaniel Narsisco, as the Stalker is realistically and excruciatingly frightening as he silently tracks his prey. Although almost 40 years old the movie holds up well even when compared to films like Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven.I have just read Roger Ebert's condemnation of this film and cannot believe that he and I differ so greatly as to its relative merits. How ever this is the man who loved "over the top" Donald Pleasance in "Will Penny" so one should not be surprised.