just watch it!

A Disappointing Continuation

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

A fairly good film, which tries to change the idea that Custer was only an Indiankiller. It gives a fair image of the problems he had with the white mens hunger for territory. It looks like this film is in fact the center image of a Cinerama film. It's full of spectacular scenes and people are cut off at the edges of the screen. Sound on the other hand is very spacious and full of effects. The film shows in the beginning a Cineramatitle.

SPOILER: Custer of the west has more than its fair share of detractors, generally citing historical inaccuracy, but as entertainment, this film has really got it going on. The remarkable thing about COTW is the character assessment of Custer himself, between the Errol Flynn film of the 40's and this version from the late 60's, the goal posts had been moved to accommodate the hopeless position of the Native-American tribes (not before time!) and the film at least shows 'Yellow hair' questioning his government's policy towards the Indians. Also Custer is not portrayed as a legend so much as a glory hunter who gets the job done, but deplores the new technology brought in to quell (and ultimately destroy) the tribes. The Libby story-line doesn't get in the way of the action, and the relationship between Sherman and Custer is explored more deeply. Other people have commented on Robert Shaw's 'British' accent, but as an Englishman I don't think he sounds at all British, and besides, in 1865 the average US citizen would have sounded a lot more English. I love westerns and this movie is in my top 10, and for all the folks that moan about historical inaccuracy, perhaps you should watch Braveheart, if you want the truth bent out of all proportion

I've heard people complain of the historical inaccuracies of this film based on Custer's field position at the Little Big Horn.Stylizing history is not revising it. This film sequences real events in a stylized way, and emotionally depicts the events of Custer's short life.I refuse to accept the charge of historical revisionism from those who accept all out lies in so many other "based on a true story" films on the basis that the film shows no real bloody mutilations.Custer was about thirty-six, married, and brutally honest. Honest men always make enemies - those enemies may have been responsible for his early demise more so than any Cheyenne, by withdrawing from combat and leaving him isolated at Little Big Horn.This movie captures those events and, I believe, helps the viewer develop sympathy for all the characters, including poor Libby, his wife.

There was some decent photography and camera work. Robert Ryan should have played Custer, at least he didn't have an Irish accent. However the plot, directing and waste of Cinerama film was almost as bad as the History. Why doesn't someone make an accurate movie about Custer? He really is a fascinating study. He really was a "boy "General" in the Civil War and even though most West Point Grads who were like Custer, in the right place at the right time for promotions; his rise in rank was phenomenal.Custer was an American hero of the time who went bust, but only a few people realize it at this late date. I live near the graves of several Confederate Soldiers who surrendered and should have been treated as POW's. Custer had them hung. Lucky for him that he was on the winning side, and he didn't have reporters running around with cameras.All this may not have much to do with the movie, but since the producers didn't have the guts to put a disclaimer on their film that any any resemblance to real characters is strictly accidental, I will continue to describe some of the errors of the film itself.The Civil War battle scenes were obviously not filmed in locations close to resembling Northern Virgina. I believe General Phil Sheridan had one arm, and he was a real General who saved the Union from disaster in the Shenadoah Valley. His character as played in the movie is not accurate. Custer, like most officers who remained in the service after the Civil War, was reduced in rank. He was a Lt. Colonel when he died, although I looked hard to see his rank, and couldn't see it. I was in the military and in combat, and rank is nearly always prominently displayed. I also know that enlisted men never eat steak for breakfast, as portrayed in the film. They were lucky if they got more than biscuits and coffee.Custer was the head of a regiment of cavalry. I have seen some pictures of cannons being hauled around in the west, but generally, the cavalry means mounted men on horses, not infantry or artillery.While in duty in the West, Custer was convicted of 7 offenses in a military court and his fine was loss of a year's pay. Sheridan did get him off the hook. The film attempts to portray Washington as the primary villain, but in reality, it was finding gold in the Black Hills that lead to the end of the Indians rights to the Black Hills. Whether Custer, or others looked the other way defending the Native American's rights was moot. A nation that had just fought a major conflict and still had weapons and trained soldiers was simply a fact of life. What was really tragic about Custer and the real inaccuracy of the film, is that Custer's political ambitions are not shown. That is the theory of most historians as to why he lead his troops into such a disastrous military situation. He knew that the total might of western troops could easily defeat the hostiles, but if he won a major victory with a small army, he would achieve immense fame. The one tell tale sign that the writers of this film were on to the real Custer is when he said that Juan Pizzaro conquered the Inca Civilization with less than 200 men. Custer was responsible for the safety of his men. He sacrificed them to gain that same immortality. Wouldn't this story be better than wasting Robert Shaw's talents?