Choosing to go to the furthest reaches of the Western Frontier, circumstances conspire to ensure he ends up alone in a very remote location well supplied but detached from the war that almost killed him.
When no relief or resupply comes he finds himself having to deal with the feared Lakota Sioux nation alone.
I had never seen this before and was surprised to find out this is not a Western.
OK it's obviously a Western but it's just not really about usual Western stuff. Some of the same parts are there but it's a shambling tale of a man who didn't fit in finding somewhere he does in an unexpected place.
It's got its problems. It's a very 90s Hollywood version of "hey we did some really bad stuff in our Empire building phase and we feel a bit bad about it". It's perhaps the definitive example of that.
It also relies too much on luck/happenstance/serendipity to prop up the story. Real John Dunbar would have got shot in the first twenty minutes, died of gangrene or starved and his remains got eaten by the wolf. He certainly wouldn't have handily found a future wife that could happen to speak Lakota and English serving as a bridge to the tribe.
There's a phrase that does the rounds about inclusivity "you can't be what you can't see" and it's usually about women and minorities being on screen in non stereotypical roles but I think that also applies here. This is an overwhelmingly positive movie about the white male war hero being seen to be able to deal with people who are not quite like him in a respectful way that leads to mutual trust. That's what it's showing you so you know you can be like that and this is why it's not a Western.
Forget all the "but it's just another white saviour movie" negativity. It is but you meet people where they are. John Dunbar can only "save" the Lakota Sioux because he trusts them and they trust him not because of some "innate superiority".
9/10 excellent because it's a rare piece of "subversive positivity", boy is it long though.