Paramount certainly didn't stint on the massed scenes. There are tons of extras for the battle at the river and for the many procession scenes. They're convincing as heck in their sheer numbers. Then too, the Montana locations are spectacular, even the flatlands. And for a touch of exotica, the many Indians really look like Indians, probably because they are. So given these ingredients, why is this epic-sized Western as obscure as it apparently is. In my view, the script is too cluttered—the two themes, revenge and Indian wars tend to crowd one another, and that's along with a number of subplots, like the needless romantic one. As a result, there's no suspenseful buildup to any kind of climax. Except for the river attack that should be the climax, the vignettes simply unfold. Then too, lead actor O'Brien can make you believe he's tough, but physically, he's miscast. Especially when he tangles with the towering Tucker. For sheer acting ability, he's a great one, but for star power or marquee appeal, the dynamo of DOA (1950) remains a lesser- known. Anyway, as others point out, the river battle is spectacularly staged, and that along with the vivid Technicolor photography compensate for a lot. I just wish they had sent the screenplay back for a slimming down and restructuring session.
