Wellman is supposed to be a notable director. The film's script jumps like a wild cat (an animal that we never see in the film but only hear.) The youngest brother Harold (Hunter) with a ranch hand (a native Indian, unconvincingly played by "Alfalfa' Switzer' ) goes in search of his elder brother Curt (Mitchum) who has been missing for 3 days. The next shot of the film shows they have found him.. Wow! Are the audiences supposed to discount this incredible jump cut in the narrative?
The father is an alcoholic. Yet he is capable of hiding half consumed liquor bottles after consuming the other half (yet not sozzled?) and recall the places he hid them much later. Is the novelist the dumb guy or is it the director or is it the screenplay writer who is assuming the viewer would accept all this?
Why was there no blood on Arthur's body or in the snow, if he had been mauled by the large cat? How come his clothes which is later worn by Curt shows no tear or holes after Arthur was attacked?
The only trivia--Mitchum cries (almost?) on screen . That should be a rare scene..
The tale had strong ingredients that could have been better handled by a better director.
The father is an alcoholic. Yet he is capable of hiding half consumed liquor bottles after consuming the other half (yet not sozzled?) and recall the places he hid them much later. Is the novelist the dumb guy or is it the director or is it the screenplay writer who is assuming the viewer would accept all this?
Why was there no blood on Arthur's body or in the snow, if he had been mauled by the large cat? How come his clothes which is later worn by Curt shows no tear or holes after Arthur was attacked?
The only trivia--Mitchum cries (almost?) on screen . That should be a rare scene..
The tale had strong ingredients that could have been better handled by a better director.