The Far Horizons is a 1955 technicolour extravaganza based on the Lewis/Clark expedition of 1803-1805, that explored the North western part of what later became the contiguous part of the United States. Following the Louisana purchase, what is now Washington, Oregon and Idaho, (as well as about half of Montana and parts of several neighbouring states ) was not claimed by the United States or any foreign power, such as Spain, which still controlled much territory in the south-west. The Lewis/Clark expedition paved the way for this territory to be claimed by the USA.
This film has much to commend it, including fantastic scenery/location shooting, some good actors/acting, and a passable plot which casts the expedition in a fairly favourable light, from an ethical standpoint. However it has its weaknesses too; it is somewhat unevenly paced (maybe they ran out of time/money) and perhaps more importantly the film is -considering the events it purports to portray- wildly inaccurate and misleading.
Hollywood has a very poor record when it comes to films that are based on historical events, often blowing minor events out of all proportion, or just making stuff up as it suits them. In this case it is worse than normal because the film is based on a book, and the book is itself a very fictionalised account; really a romance novel, loosely set in a historical context. The result is that this film has been in the top ten of a list of 'misleading historical films'. This sort of thing is all the more annoying when the justification for it "to make a better film" is a promise not made good on. The film is only averagely interesting ("very dull" according to some) and the real events could hardly have been less interesting than those that are portrayed here.
So as history, take it all with a very large pinch of salt; of the characters portrayed that actually existed only a fraction are known to have interacted in any way that remotely resembles the film.
However, overall, despite the film's shortcomings, I quite liked watching it, if only to think that Charlton Heston's acting abilities were clearly much better suited to the roles he took a few years later.
This film has much to commend it, including fantastic scenery/location shooting, some good actors/acting, and a passable plot which casts the expedition in a fairly favourable light, from an ethical standpoint. However it has its weaknesses too; it is somewhat unevenly paced (maybe they ran out of time/money) and perhaps more importantly the film is -considering the events it purports to portray- wildly inaccurate and misleading.
Hollywood has a very poor record when it comes to films that are based on historical events, often blowing minor events out of all proportion, or just making stuff up as it suits them. In this case it is worse than normal because the film is based on a book, and the book is itself a very fictionalised account; really a romance novel, loosely set in a historical context. The result is that this film has been in the top ten of a list of 'misleading historical films'. This sort of thing is all the more annoying when the justification for it "to make a better film" is a promise not made good on. The film is only averagely interesting ("very dull" according to some) and the real events could hardly have been less interesting than those that are portrayed here.
So as history, take it all with a very large pinch of salt; of the characters portrayed that actually existed only a fraction are known to have interacted in any way that remotely resembles the film.
However, overall, despite the film's shortcomings, I quite liked watching it, if only to think that Charlton Heston's acting abilities were clearly much better suited to the roles he took a few years later.