Okay. I read all 18 user reviews on IMDb before watching this film and gathered it didn't have much of a fan club should I say! However I am quite early in my Randolph Scott journey so still decided to give it a try. The story very briefly is the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway in the late 1800's linking provinces of Canada blocked off geographically by great mountain ranges and being dogged by local opposition in the form of native Indians and some white locals. The film also provides a very basic grasp, some may say inaccurate grasp of the political divide amongst the Canadian provinces etc. But all that is for other resources. Randolph Scott plays a surveyor (Tom Andrews) for the railway construction company as being a sort of heavy troubleshooter it appears however his work is being distracted by a love triangle with two female characters, his girlfriend (Nancy Olsen) and a female doctor who at one stage saves his life played by Jane Wyatt. The Dr. Is very anti-violence it appears and her influence has an affect on Andrews work practices. Again all this information is available elsewhere. Now one element of the film I found fascinating was its restoration work. It was filmed in 1949 using an outdated basic colour system called Cinecolor which provided a challenge to the film's restoration and does still show up as a very reddy colour palette? A good music score is provided by famed musical composer Dimitri Tiomkin. Okay the film may have some historical inaccuracies with regard to Canadian history. I mean there are no Chinese workers etc. However it is still an enjoyable film. It's location of Canada is a far cry from the usual southern United States locales of 'Western' genre films. I would call it a semi-Western!

source: Canadian Pacific

Trailer—Canadian Pacific

Canadian Pacific

If there is a bin for movies that should never be viewed again, except as an example of Old Hollywood run amuck with racism and bigotry, this film belongs there. From blowing up "injuns" by lighting dynamite cigars, to mispronouncing Métis consistently, to overuse of the greeting trope "How", to a French Canadian priest with an Irish accent (because in the US all Catholics were, of course, Irish), this movie runs the gamut of horrendous stereotypes and bad acting. And there was no excuse for the horrendously inaccurate Canadian references. "I call upon the member (of Parliament) for Ontario." Like there was one representative for the whole province! Hollywood at this point was teeming with Canadian actors and filmmakers and the the movie was filmed in Alberta! Bad. Just incredibly, irretrievably bad.

I would have rated this a 3 but I didn't want to insult all the 3's that came before it. I can not believe that some reviewers actually rated this film? a 9 or 10. Do you people not get out much? Have you never seen a movie that is actually good? Not decent but just good? Scenery was good though. Bad reason to give it a rating higher than 5.

Very disappointing to Canadians who know a little of their history, this 1940s-style western treats the building of the Canadian Pacific transcontinental railway as if it had occurred in the U.S., with many mistakes noted elsewhere in this entry, and a heavy dose of the U.S. cultural imperialism so typical of 20th century Hollywood's treatments of other peoples' histories. The film makes no references to the important political issues and scandals in eastern Canada that surrounded and heavily influenced the building process, nor the important effects of the ever-present French- English-Indian cultural tensions. A passable B-grade western for an undiscriminating audience.

This Canadian western is filmed in Cinecolor, an early and not very effective attempt at colour. Randolph Scott is a surveyor for the railway and the locals attempt to stop the railway by stirring the Red Indians. Already with a fiancé, a keen and ripe local, Scott shacks up with a doctor working on the line. She gives him her blood after an incident, fortunately the same type as he lives rather than dying in screaming agony. But she's a dud, cos her fancy university learnin' has taught her to hate fightin' and shootin'.

Randolph Scott drives the railroad through the Rocky mountains, fighting off Indians and trappers every inch of the way, as well as juggling two women - wildcat Nancy Olsen and pacifist doctor Jane Wyatt. Victor Jory is his usual villainous self, trying to stop the railroad, and almost kills Scott in an explosive sequence. Love railroad westerns, and though its tendency for melodrama can over shadow the plot, it's an entertaining saga of building a railroad. Yes, it's not historically accurate, but was never meant to be. It's just good entertainment with great scenery and some good action - the finale is rip roaring. An outdoor adventure they sadly don't make anymore.

In the opening of the film there is a scene of a modern steam-powered freight train leaving Calgary, and there the accuracy comes to an end. This film is supposed to be based on the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but it's pure Hollywood hokum. Nobody did their homework. There is the usual shoot-outs, gun battles, renegade Indians, "bad guys," sabotage, and the "romantic angle." None of these things happened during the building of the Canadian Pacific; the ever-present Mounties saw to it. In defense of the film it is a typical out-of-the-file story. Not good, but not that bad either. Randolph Scott is good (Randolph Scott was always good!) If you're looking for a Saturday-afternoon-matinée Western, this one will do. If you're looking for an accurate story of the building of the Canadian Pacific, forget it.