The Return of a Man Called Horse (1976) User Reviews

A British aristocrat returns to his native homeland and takes place vengeance against nasty white men

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 8 April 2013]

Enjoyable and entertaining sequel to ¨A man called Horse¨ . The English gentleman known as Horse, returns to the American west to save his adopted Indian tribe from extinction . As the Britisher aristocrat abandons his formal ways and returns the Sioux territory , in the Dakotas , and discovers again is own strength . As he passes their torture tests , and he is again embraced by the tribe . And again the ¨Sun Vow¨scene where our ex-aristocrat is suspended by horsehair ropes from bones inserted into holes made in his chest by eagle claws before they will accept him .

This exciting picture packs thrills , chills , marvelous outdoors and more of the torture scenes for which this series is notorious . The picture contains a deep critical on the inevitable contempt that ignorance of different cultures engenders as well as anthropological differences . This is a very gripping and realistic portrayal of American Indian way of life and many critics considered to be better than its precedessor . Interesting screenplay by Jack DeWitt who wrote also the original plot , based on a 1958 segment of the TV series ¨Wagon Train¨ 1957 , bearing the same title , The Man called Horse, it is the same story as this movie, with a few changes, even chief with two sisters, and a slave to Yellow Rope's mother . Furthermore , the story is based on Cabeza de Vaca's real life , a soldier from Spain that in 1528 suffered all that happens in this movie.

Richard Harris is excellent , as always , at one of his mightiest box office hits . He is in terrific form as the Britisher nobleman who returns along with his Indians friends . Gale Sondergaard , replacing Judith Anderson , provides a strong acting . In addition , a fine support cast such as William Lucking , Geoffrey Lewis and Mexican actors as Jorge Luke , Claudio Brook , Enrique Lucero , all of them ordinaries in Indian roles . It displays rousing and powerful musical score by Laurence Rosenthal at his best . Colorful as well as evocative cinematography by Owen Roizman , including impressive landscapes . The motion picture was very good directed by Irvin Kershner . Due to George Lucas found to be a very attractive sequel , he hired Irvin Kershner to shoot another awesome follow-up : "The empire strikes again" .

The original version ¨The man called Horse¨ is the best , starred by Harris , Judith Anderson , Iron Eyes Cody , Dub Taylor , James Gammon and directed by Elliot Silverstein ; it deals with Harris who fall into the clutches of a tribe of Sioux ¨Yellow Hands¨ Indians and they proceed to inflict torture by ritual ; it remains a riveting variation of ¨the man living wild¨ issue . Sequelled by a third part titled ¨The triumphs of a man called Horse¨ (1983) an inferior and inadequate following dealing with Horse's son who have to save his people from prospectors in order to keep his title as Chief ; being realized by John Hough with Michael Beck , Anna De Sade , Simon Andreu , but not much Richard Harris .

Beautiful People

[hughdunnit48 · 7/10 · 19 February 2005]

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.

not as good as the original

[disdressed12 · 5/10 · 1 May 2008]

this sequel to A Man Called Horse focuses much more on the spirituality of the Native Indians.i didn't mind that aspect at all.it's very interesting.the problem i had with the movie is there just didn't see to be a point.i didn't feel there was much of a story to it.to me,it felt like they made a sequel just for the sake a making a sequel.the first movie had much more thought put into it.i did really like the musical score,though.i thought it was very majestic and poetic.if you're expecting a lot of action,you'll have to look elsewhere.this isn't that kind of picture.adding everything up,i liked the first movie more.but this one isn't so bad.for me,Return of a Man called Horse is a 5/10

Not quite as interesting and more conventional, but also more fun than the first movie

[DrLenera · 14 August 2005]

The first sequel to A Man Called Horse {there was another one a few years later which turned out to be something of a disappointment} is a much more conventional adventure movie. This does not mean it's bad,not at all,in fact it's probably more enjoyable. There's more English language dialogue,The Sioux dialogue is subtitled instead of just being incomprehensible to those who don't know Sioux,and it follows a familiar action movie structure and scenario. It just lacks the originality and edge of the original,where we were exploring an unfamiliar culture and weren't sure all the time if we liked everything about it. Disappontingly,none of the Sioux in the first film appear to return.

Well directed by Irvin Kershner,generally a journeyman director who occasionally excelled himself {i.e.The Empire Strikes Back},it has a fantastic cut early on from violence in the wild west to fox hunting in England,a different kind of savagery. The early scenes do a really good job of showing the film's hero,again well played by Richard Harris,as a man who appears to have everything-a title,a big house,a wife,etc} but inside is empty because he was only truly himself when he was with the Sioux. The first half of the film is leisurely,and has a re-run of the Sun Vow ritual of the first film,but longer and more graphic. But it's essential to the film,especially the vision Harris has of meeting himself as an old man.

The film's second half is mostly conventional if well staged action fare,although Harris looks out of place riding with the Sioux in western clothes-surely he would have dressed like one of them? Laurence Rosenthal's soaring score is wonderful and,in contrast with the more authentic sounding music of the first film,is more evidence that the filmmakers were generally going for a more romanticised approach. On that level,this sometimes rousing follow up works well.

Englishman and Indians?

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 9 February 2017]

The English gentleman known as Horse (Richard Harris), returns to the American west to save his adopted Indian tribe from extinction.

According to Roger Ebert, "The film reveals its basic white-chauvinist bias, but it certainly seems to take itself seriously. It's of average length, but paced like an epic. There are four main movements in the plot: Return, Reconciliation, Revenge and Rebirth. If this seems a little thin for a two-hour movie, believe me, it is, even with all that portentous music trying to make it seem momentous." The film as a whole is not remarkable. Allegedly this is the film that convinced George Lucas to hire the director for "Empire Strikes Back", arguably the best of the "Star Wars" franchise. But this movie, I don't know... aside from the race issues (a white man intervening t save the Indians, and the Indians being played almost entirely by whooping, stereotypical white actors) it is just a bland movie. Even by sequel standards. Richard Harris is great, but he can't save this one.

A TV Movie Sequel, Somewhat Out of Sequence.

[happipuppi13 · 7/10 · 4 May 2022]

I watched both this and the classic original back to back recently because my local library had both.

A TV sequels to a theatrical film is an interesting idea.

The story of John 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.

The constraints and pitfalls of 1970's TV made this difficult. 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 then always did go for an easier route.

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)

"To give up hope is to die."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 29 March 2017]

It's a minor point, but the Indian tribe John Morgan was associated with in "A Man Called Horse" was the Lakota Sioux, with the warrior Yellow Hand (Manu Topou) becoming it's chief during the course of the story. If this branch of the tribe broke off from the main one, it probably should have been explained because in the latter part of the story, there's a scene in which Red Cloud of the Lakota refuses to help the Yellow Hands, as he's allied with the 'white man of river'. If one follows these things with some sense of continuity, the error seemed to be an unforced one.

With the 'vow of the sun' ceremony so prominent in the original picture, I didn't think there would be call to revisit the ceremonial rite here, but that's what happened as a prelude to Morgan purifying himself and seeking his vision. More surprising was seeing how younger males of the tribe willingly submitted to the ordeal as well. There's some historical fact to back that up, for young warriors it was a physical and spiritual test that was offered in sacrifice for their people. As I watched the scene, it occurred to me that Morgan showed no scarring from his sun ceremony of five years earlier, another unforced error if I had to guess.

Reading previous posters for this film it appears that it's not nearly as well regarded as it's prequel. Personally, I thought it was a decent story, but would have to concur that the original was better since it was exploring the Lakota Indian rituals for the first time. Oddly, I've never run across the sun ceremony referenced in any other movies other than these 'Horse' films, a bit surprising since the Western is my favorite genre and I've seen hundreds spanning the decades.

Here's the best way to watch a movie!

[thedesertraven · 6/10 · 22 November 2018]

Good reviews here generally averaging 6 stars out of 10 except for one tortured soul So I'll cheerfully add this review although upon reading you no doubt find it completely unusable With our small joyful entourage we saw this as guests of one of the main cast members, as a pre-release screening, I believe it was at the studio in Century City I was delighted to meet the producer Sandy Howard, one of the main cast members Geoff Lewiswas there, other cast members, the reporters were there and also Gale Sondergaard making a comeback after many years (my mother was delighted!) Great fun, so this is my valuable advice to you--get invited to a preview, you'll feel more important and the movie will be better!

Underrated Western

[doug-balch · 4/10 · 22 July 2010]

I never hear anyone refer to this as a quality movie. Only eight user reviews here. This is actually a good, entertaining movie that is being overlooked.

Here's what I liked:

• The teepee village sets and the fort set had a very authentic feel to them. It's clear that very knowledgeable consultants were used to construct these sets.

• Richard Harris fills this role admirably. I found his character very believable. This is quite an accomplishment, since the basic plot is fundamentally implausible.

• Nice balance between the "good" Indians and "bad" Indians and "good" Whites (or "good White" as the case may be) and "bad" Whites. This prevented the movie from becoming over-melodramatic or maudlin.

• Excellent placement of the story in the vastly underused pre-Civil War trapper/mountain man historical period.

• Good location shooting. Nice shots of buffalo herds. Well filmed buffalo hunt.

• Effective mix of English, Sioux language and subtitles.

Here's what kept it from being better:

• As mentioned above, the premise of the movie is fundamentally implausible. I give great credit to Richard Harris for making his character believable.

• It has a nice Indian point of view and mostly avoids high melodrama by presenting good and bad Indians. However its "Indian-friendliness" is undercut severely by two things: one, the use of many Caucasian actors in Indian roles and two, the supremacy of "Horse" as the White leader of the hapless Yellow Hand Indians.

• Geoffrey Lewis was a weak heavy. He didn't help "High Plains Drifter" much either in a similar role. Should have stuck with orangutan movies. Very weak supporting cast overall behind Harris.

• No comic relief.

• In the final battle scene, a dozen Yellow Hand squaws on foot with no rifles wipe out an equal number of opposing male warriors, who are armed with rifles and on horseback. Still trying to figure that one out.

• I fast forwarded through the sadistic pagan breast piercing/cleansing ritual or whatever it was. Gimmicky and gratuitous gore.

• One more thing. Did ALL the whites have to be massacred at the fort? Were they all murderers and rapists? Weren't there a few decent Joe's there just out trapping? Maybe a few guys just passing through who would have disapproved of the Yellow Hand massacre? Just sayin'.....

A decent sequel, especially if you saw the preview with the producer, cast and reporters.

[thedesertraven · 6/10 · 22 September 2017]

Well reviewed here to date, I would like to give a different slant in the hopes it may give pause to reflect to one or two of you. I enjoyed the movie, however the experience was upgraded since it was with a gang of friends that piled into my semi-antiquated but proportionately generous 1964 Chrysler Imperial to see the movie previewed at the studio. As one of us was the proud ex- of one the the villains in the cast, we looked forward to a free night on the town. Meeting one of the producers, cast members, and an old favorite of my dear Mother-Gale Sondergaard making perhaps somewhat of a comeback after many years-added spice to the event for us humble non-industry types. Realizing this is a silly and non-conforming review, the point is: "If you're getting out, make a night of it!" Happy Hour before at Yamashiro, after hours at a private party, whatever, try not to give up too soon, even if the flick is less than stellar. Just a thought.

The movie, by the way, was indeed a decent sequel, with reasonable production values throughout.

Horse never should have returned

[barnfife-1 · 4/10 · 27 January 2005]

I thoroughly enjoyed A Man Called Horse when it was released in 1970, but Return played like a typical sequel. Everything about it -- budget, script, plot, casting, and acting -- was inferior to the original. Gale Sondergaard as Elk Woman, an elder of the Yellow Hand tribe, looks nothing like an Indian, and neither do half of the other "Indians," who were played by Italians, Mexicans, and Latinos with cheap wigs. And the old guy who played the chief acted more like a fat old squaw than a fierce leader of warriors. He even used the bow like a woman! Finally, Richard Harris, who did such a superb job in the original, seems to be coasting this time around. I guess he couldn't resist the easy paycheck he got for reprising his role as Horse.

To be fair, there are some interesting moments in the movie, such as Horse's undergoing a painful purification ritual to "find his vision" and rally the Yellow Hands against their Indian enemies and white oppressors, but on the whole, Return is uneven, boring, corny, and predictable -- just like most sequels.

A Forgettable time passer.

[TankGuy · 6/10 · 12 April 2015]

Lord John Morgan(Richard Harris)is an English aristocrat who was captured and enslaved by the Yellow Hand Sioux on a visit to the American west in the 1820s. Over time he fought to prove himself and eventually became a respected member of the tribe. The Sioux called him Horse. Years later, Morgan has returned to England and the Sioux are attacked by bloodthirsty trappers who massacre most of the tribe and destroy their sacred home. A jaded Morgan returns to the west to aid the Sioux in their fight against the trappers.

I particularly enjoyed the first movie, A Man Called Horse(1970). It was a fascinating essay on life in a Sioux tribe that was colourful and inspiring too. This sequel however, is really just a forgettable potboiler which drags on. The characters are not allowed to develop and the plot looses itself in endless scenes of chanting, screeching and riding. The villainous trappers are barely seen and appear to be nothing but a bunch of dumb labourers. Geoffrey Lewis' head honcho had especially little to do, trying his hardest to be menacing but never really succeeding in doing so. The script feels as if it's been written by a 14 year old with several unnecessary scenes which are merely there to pad out the movie's 2 hour running time. The film is at least half an hour too long and several important plot points are tossed aside. For example the film did not delve deep enough into Lord Morgan's life at home in England with his wife and how he suffered when returned to civilised society. Also, his reason for returning to the tribe is explained so promptly that you are likely to miss it if you aren't paying attention. So much potential is wasted, the depth and atmosphere of the first movie is non-existent here .

The purification ritual is featured in this film once again. In the original it was executed with professionalism, the end result being gorgeously psychedelic. Here it just looks outlandish and takes up too much time. I found it unintentionally humorous as well as corny. There isn't much action apart from the climatic attack on the fort which was pretty well shot but far too abrupt and rather anti climatic. The fact that some of the horse falls have been removed took away the tension thus making me enjoy the battle even less. Richard Harris just runs around the interiors of the fort trying not to get shot, but the special effects were really good. The final explosion of the hut was ruined by the fact that the adjacent watchtower did not come crashing to the ground. Again it was an action sequence that they could have done a lot more with by throwing in some hand-to-hand combat, ambitious stunts and maybe even Lord Morgan sacrificing himself for his Sioux brothers. Although the film did boast some fine scenery with beautiful vistas of sun kissed plains and lush forests and it at least sounded nice courtesy of Laurence Rosenthal's operatic score.

Don't worry if you haven't seen this sequel, you're better off watching the original and leaving it at that. The sequel is one of those movies that is best enjoyed when one is intoxicated. 6/10.

What, More Horse Chunks?

[osloj · 4/10 · 14 August 2001]

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. Or something along those lines.

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.

I think the director was inherently affected by something or other, perhaps something in his cup of coffee or in his smoking pipe. There is nothing else that can explain the ludicrousness found in the movie.

Richard Harris never gets any credit

[HotToastyRag · 7/10 · 12 March 2022]

I'll admit it: I only watched the sequel of A Man Called Horse to catch another glimpse of Richard Harris's fantastic body. Since he took his shirt off in the '70s as often as Kirk Douglas did in the '50s, it was a safe bet that I'd be a happy audience member. Sure enough, within ten minutes, Richard decided he didn't want to stay fully clothed in England any longer, and he returned to the American west to find more Sioux Indians. Once found, he gives tons of presents to the tribe, strips down, and does the same sacrificial induction ceremony he did in the first movie: hanging from a rope while animal talons pierce through his pectorals. If you're wondering why he didn't just show the Sioux his scars from the previous piercings (or why his chest is unblemished and gorgeous), just be quiet and appreciate his smooth chest before he mutilates it again.

In the plotline of this story, you'll see Richard trying to save the Sioux nation from extinction. He teaches them how to fight with guns and how to combat the different tactics white men will use in combat. You'll also see all the ways of life of the Native Americans, and it's not always pretty. What starts as a beautiful cinematography shot of the men riding wild horses among the buffalo ends with several buffalo dead and being skinned and carved up. You'll see scalpings and ceremonious violence, because, after all, this is a man's movie. Ladies, just pay attention to the eye candy and let your fellow enjoy the testosterone.

In case you're not in it for the testosterone or the eye candy, you'll really appreciate the music. After you finish the trilogy and hear the lousy music from the third movie, you'll appreciate it even more. Laurence Rosenthal's lovely themes truly transport you to a simpler time when the greatest beauty was in nature. It's easy to get swept away by this story from the first few scenes as the music swells and carries you off to the west. Dances with Wolves may have swept up a bunch of Academy Awards, but Richard Harris found his home among the Indians first. He also survived a bear mauling first, even though someone else won an Oscar for the remake. Interested? Check him out in Man in the Wilderness, the original of The Revenant.

Kiddy warning: Due to violence, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Introspective but fails to ignite

[intelearts · 4/10 · 21 October 2009]

This is a weak sequel: it lacks the interest and light touch of the magnificent "Man Called Horse" in nearly every aspect and when compared to each other they hardly seem to be the same genre.

The Return is almost a parody of the first and tries to evoke different Indian ceremonies but comes across as trying way too hard to bottle the magic of the first. In this film the tribe is lost and abandoned, having lost their homelands, modern life has encroached on paradise and they are living in abject misery and poverty. Perhaps this is the point: the first film took us to a place where we would want to be, a simpler time. This takes us to broken Indians in a miserable world and the White Man is the hero and savior which rather negates the whole idea of the film.

The beauty of the first lay in the fact that the white man learnt and discovered that real civilization lies in values rather than western materialism. In the second film this is all but lacking and so we end up with a weak film.

A huge disappointment.

Pointless and Useless Sequel

[cribyn44 · 1/10 · 12 October 2008]

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!

Back to the roots.....

[searchanddestroy-1 · 30 November 2023]

This is a gritty, tremendous sequel, and I would say, better than the first film, from director Elliot Silverstein. Not for the squeamish, it is bloody, realistic in terms of action and battle, fights sequences. I agree that the bad white men and the good Indians was not that new in 1976 film industry - a good thing though - but it doesn't matter for me. Richard Harris is better than ever in this second movie of the franchise. The Indians way of life, daily life is very authentic, and I guess the research for writing was very serious, accurate and that adds much to the power of this film. Among the best westerns dedicated to Indians.