The Return of a Man Called Horse (1976)

Caught this by accident on a t.v. showing - and could hardly believe how utterly awful the whole experience was. By comparison, the original "A Man Called Horse" was spell-binding because it held one's interest throughout. But this piece of nonsense - words fail me. It was bad enough to have some kind of a "story" presented with all the impact of a wet loaf of bread, but that error was compounded by the obvious lack of subtitles throughout whenever the so-called "Sioux" spoke. For goodness sake, couldn't the film-makers have found enough North American Indians who were also actors and near-actors to perform as "Indians" in this farrago instead of the imposters they actually used? I also found it quite embarrassing watching Richard Harris cavorting all around the countryside at the obvious behest of the director standing just behind camera, telling him to run and jump from pointless Point A to pointless Point B just to make up film footage and minutes. Absolutely terrible in all respects!

As mentioned I watched both this and the classic original last night (03/27/08)back to back because my local library had both. In my review of "All Quiet On The Western Front",I stated that re-makes are hard to do,especially a TV movie version. TV sequels to theatrical films are just as difficult. The idea and story of John and/or Horse returning to seek solace and then fighting battles with his adopted tribe should have easily been,not just a great adventure but a film that makes some strong statement,like the original.Unfortunately,the constraints and pitfalls of TV make this difficult sometimes. One thing for sure in my view is the use of that "Little House On The Prarie"-like music in scenes. In the opening it's fine,he's returning to America and looking forward to seeing everyone again. When things get more serious & violent later,it really has no place here. This kind of story and this kind of music do not mesh very well. As for the actors playing Native-Americans,TV always did go for an easier route. I mean,this was the same medium that wanted us to believe John Travolta was 16 on "Welcome Back Kotter" when he was actually in his 20s. On the upside the movie,for 70s TV,is fairly daring and represents the times as they were then. What's really best about it,is that it concludes the true story of a unique man and character. It's just too bad it wasn't made for the cinema,with writers and directors and larger named actors. It could have given a much greater sense of urgency and compassion on our part as viewers. The first movie is really the only reason to watch this sequel,aside from the story of it's central character. Seven out of ten,2 points off for what it lacks and 1 more for that corny 70s TV music. (END)

I loved the movie,because it showed the beautiful people,that the American Indians are. They are really, very spiritual people. I lived with a family (who did the dance),for about 4 months and it was by far the most interesting period of my life,so far. I learned a lot from this Wonderful family,I could go on. But my point that I want to make,is I understand why the Richard Harris character returned to help his old family. I have experienced many of the ways of the Indians in modern society. Seeing an Eagle fly,now makes me touch my heart with the knowledge of what it signifies.Their spirituality will touch your heart,IF you let it in.

Harris reprises his weak and tepid role of an 1800's gentleman who can't stomach modern life in England so he goes back to the Plains to find his adopted tribe of Sioux Indians. He finds them on the verge of extinction, starvation and he is there to lead them to new hope, which means bowing to his leadership. Why the Sioux didn't kill him in the first film goes beyond reason. More silly stuff from hippies in the 1970's in this second installment of the wildly popular but empty "A Man Called Horse" saga. Look for a psychedelic scene where Harris is butt naked while emerged in color shots of eagles flying in the sky.