I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Too much of everything

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

What terrific production values—that trek across a hellishly barren Utah desert had me off the couch, running for a water pitcher. And catch all those cavalrymen, Indians, and wild horses, enough for at least ten more westerns. Then there's the great James Garner to headline, along with a spiffy Sidney Poitier. So, why isn't this a top-notch horse opera, given such promising prospects.For one thing, there's about ten sub-plots too many. Heck, just the ordeal across the desert should be enough for most westerns without over-crowding the storyline. Sure, the script is making a good point about racism with Ellen's half-Indian baby. But do we need the soap opera sub-plot with husband Dennis Weaver that's mainly a distraction. Then there's Poitier showing it wasn't just white guys who won the west. And, of course, the screenplay has to carve out a large enough role for a second headliner. Add to that Garner's search for whoever scalped his wife that is sort of tacked on at the end, and we've got enough plot material for three more features.Sure, the movie's heart is in the right place. But messages are one thing, while merging them into a fluid narrative is another, and here the sub-plots add to the general problem of too much storyline clutter. The root of the problem, I expect, was hiring too many name stars, even if Travers and Andersson are known mainly to foreign audiences. Speaking of the cast, Garner's unusual skills are largely wasted in a role any number of imposing presences like Clint Walker could have easily handled.And I never thought it would happen, but by about the twentieth skirmish across the desert, I actually got a little bored with all the repetitive stunts and endless shooting. 'More', it seems, is not always better, and I suspect the lesson is there can be too much action even in an action movie.Anyway, I don't want to simply dismiss the movie because of its excesses since there are also a number of good touches (Chata gets some respect as a leader of his people, even though we see him as cruel), along with the generous production values. I'm just sorry the movie doesn't succeed better given its praiseworthy side.

Strong portrayals by Bibi Andersson, as Ellen Grange, and James Gardner work here with skillful director Ralph Nelson to create a well acted, beautifully photographed, entertaining Western, even though some mannered performances by other actors as such Sidney Poitier distract from the natural feel Andersson and Gardner bring to the effort.Utah locations are classic aspects of carefully imitated Western icons and tropes exploited to create a fifties look to this lovely film. If the icons seem clichés, they are formulae exploited to create standard entertainment. They do not develop the genre; they simply exploit it, perhaps, with some effectiveness. Counting the codes becomes part of the entertainment—does the film miss any one of them? However, watching Bibi Andersson in any film treats the viewer. Further, I doubt that James Gardner can make a bad movie. Dennis Weaver is perfect as he always is.

What we have here is a b western whose messages are probably of more value than the film. This is not shot well, with a script that does not stand out and the action set pieces are obviously cheap, but well ahead of it's time we have no real good and evil here with flaws in both sides and it is here that the film excels. James Garner is the anti hero who is only persuaded to come along on the quest to see his ex-army colleagues through territory filled with hostile Apache because he is looking for revenge on the man who killed his Indian wife. Sidney Poiter is in the unusual position of an empowered black man who despite his statements has loyalty to his ex-army colleagues. In fact all the characters are multi faceted and I feel this movie could actually be remade extremely easily to great effect. Not a great film that I would not really go out of my way to view again but well ahead of it's time in terms of message.

The problem with this picture is that so many of the costumes are over the top, and they change from scene to scene. I saw Sydney Portier's character wearing two different hats in the same battle scene (one brown and one whitish-gray). Gaudy things. Way too gaudy to be authentic. Plus, the flat characters are all exceptionally flat. It seemed like a very canned enterprise from the word go. I am in favor of the older westerns that are more realistic to the period. This one was not. This one was a metaphor for how westerns turn me off. The scenes were way too stagey. The players too clean and bright. During many of the fight scenes (for instance) all of the hats stay on even though they are infighting in intense battle. Plausibility is on the wane in this movie. Sorry, 4 stars (out of 10).