For Anthony Harvey whose work - as far as I know - consists mainly of dialogue-driven psychodramas, "Eagle's Wing" represents something like a step aside. But what a step ! The movie featuring beautiful widescreen photography, nice score, and Sam Waterston as a Kiowa warrior (audacious turn, indeed !) can be viewed as a western, although it is rather a sophisticated ethno-socio-philosophical-ethical allegory of clashing + blending cultures (a.o.).Whenever I watch "Eagle's Wing" ending, I am reminded of the last shots of Ridley Scott's unforgettable debut "The Duellists" - after all, both films have a lot of things in common.It's a shame that there's not one DVD version worthy of such a great movie. The latest, American one, despite its flaws, seems to be the best of the three known to me - at least it is transferred in the original aspect ratio.

I saw this movie when I was about 18 years old, and I never forgot it. Now, almost 30 years later I have seen it again and I reassure my conviction: It is an excellent movie. It is not for everybody: If you are looking for western action, this is not going a good movie for you. If you are not open to weird movies, this is not for you either. But if you are open to new approaches, I am sure you will not be disappointed with it. It is exciting, unpredictable and has a very good photography. I liked also the acting of the main characters, and the twists of the story.From other point of view, it gives you a lot of material to think about the tragedies that occur because of the human ambitions, and the big Tragedy that occurred in that clash of civilizations that happened in the far west, the same kind of tragedy that is happening again in these days in several parts of our world.

The other commenters have written interesting things, indeed. The start of the movie had a reference to it being set in 1830. That is not "post-Civil War". It is thirty years before it. The setting is even a decade and a half before the Mexican-American War, thus being prior to the U.S. conquering what is now the southwestern United States and seizing it from the Mexicans. Pike was not a "cowboy", but rather a fur trapper, and it was the Indians who stole their pack horses and gear who killed his partner, with an arrow. Pike did not murder his partner. The setting was all wrong. The primary fur sought by the trappers was beaver, used mainly for the fashionable top hats of the eastern United States and Europe. The Europeans had already exterminated the beaver in much of its range in Europe due to over-harvesting. Beavers do not live in a desert, nor do any other furbearing animals that were being sought.

An unusual, revisionist western, well worth watching. Despite a slow start, the film builds – with scarcely any dialogue and no subtitles – an increasingly involving and intense, almost existential portrait of life in the harsh environment of the Western desert. The growth of the lead characters is worth waiting for, and the strong central cast bring a real sense of desperation to the struggle for ownership of the all-important horse. How interesting that this was made by a British director. I hope he's smiling now: I get the impression the film was largely ignored by contemporaries; but time works its usual alchemy, and hidden gold shines out as it inevitably must. One note jarred for me: the revisionism is only carried so far. Sam Waterston as an Indian? - granted he plays his part with real emotion and intensity, but really, couldn't one American Indian actor be found to do the job? But his scenes with Caroline Langrishe have an intimacy which contrasts nicely with the immense landscape around them.Forget big, bankrupt Hollywood versions of the past, men with big chins and swirling music; this one is all about a primeval struggle between protagonists who, stripped of all the trappings of 'ordinary' life, come to understand what is worth fighting for. Impressive.