I feel like this would have been a much better film if it had been filmed more clearly. I am a fan of revisionist westerns and I like the bare bones story that this particular film told. My only complaint with it is that it was filmed poorly. The actors were excellent and there aren't nearly enough stories about the northwest mounted police, outside of some 1930's era horse operas. I feel there are hundreds of stories that could be told about the northwest mounted as they are famous worldwide for always getting their man. This, in my opinion is a fine story of a man seeking vengeance for his friend but I also think that it would have been a much better, if not far more recognized film if it had only been filmed better. I understand that westerns of this particular era were filmed in a more grainy way to conjure up a more authentic air the same way we would look at photographs of this era but this film unfortunately just seems to say that the producers were short on money and were trying to cut corners. It's really a shame because I truly believe that it was a fine story with very great actors and filled with historical and exciting events.

Donald Sutherland who was Canadian never misses a chance to boost the film industry in his native country. With this in mind he starred in Alien Thunder about the true story of Cree Indian who was arrested for some minor charge, but resented confinement and escaped. The Cree, Gordon Tootoosis kills Mountie Kevin McCarthy who is Sutherland's partner.In Canada as well as in the USA when you're partner is killed you're supposed to do something about it. That's what The Maltese Falcon teaches us. Sutherland feels the same way, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were never in the same kind of numbers that our US Cavalry were, they didn't need to be. It was a more solitary occupation with them having to cover the vast wilderness in this case of Canada's Northwest Territory.I didn't see a particularly good print of the film, it had a really grainy and washed out look to it. That could have been corrected, but the rather dull telling of the story was not something better cinematography or editing could have remedied. The performances by the cast were sincere and the Indians were as realistically portrayed as ever been on screen.An interesting story that was ruined with a dull treatment.

I only gave this movie a 4, but that's mainly because it was kind of slow. I like Chief Dan George, so that was a plus right there. I read a comment from one of the commentors and he mentioned how grainy the picture was and I pretty much experienced the same thing. However I thought it added realism to the movie. The dialogue, the sets, the wardrobe, the scenery. It almost looked like someone had a video camera back in those days and actually filmed what was taking place. It's always a good thing when movies use real Indians instead of actors that are painted up to look like Indians. You would think that I would have givin' this movie a higher rating with all the positive things I've said, but it is a movie to fall asleep too. I got this movie in a 20 movie pack, so what the heck.

in my opinion,this film is very poorly made.the beginning is so grainy and washed out,it's almost impossible to see anything.it may just be that the particular company that manufactured the DVD i saw,did a poor job on the production.it does c;ear up after bout 5 to 10 minutes and is pretty clear but i also thought Donald Sutherland did not do a very good acting job,nor did anyone else.also,at times,the movement of the actors lips did not match their words.i felt like i was watching a very badly dubbed foreign film.i also thought the movie moved at a glacial pace.the budget was not very high and it certainly shows.i really did not like this movie at all.maybe you just have to be in the right frame of mind to watch it,and maybe this particular manufacture just did such a poor job.my advice is to try to find a reputable DVD manufacturer and that might make the difference.i won't this movie as it wouldn't be fair