R.E. Rogers The story line offered with the movie, "Buffalo Soldiers," starring Danny Glover, describes the film as fact based. With the apparent noble intention of illustrating and informing their audience of the important contributions made by African American soldiers in the invasion, occupation and settlement of the southwestern United States, writers Jonathan Klein and Frank Military weave a tale of Company H, Tenth Cavalry and its attempt to capture an "Apache warrior named Vittorio" who slaughters settlers in New Mexico. Directed by Charles Haid, the film further promises to reveal "the truth about the Indian invaders." "Buffalo Soldiers" is a major disappointment. The great cinematography delivers misinformation at best and definitely sets back the education of the public with its false narrative.In 1997, I saw this movie and shook my head. Because a number of people have mentioned it to me this year (2012) with praise, I saw it again last week. This time, I was appalled.Black cavalrymen and infantrymen of Buffalo Soldier fame were well respected by their Indian adversaries. They earned grudging recognition from fellow white soldiers and genuine praise from their white officers. And, they certainly did not commit the repugnant crime purported near the end of the movie. Civil War hero Colonel Grierson was not the wimp portrayed in the movie, nor was he wounded by Indians during his twenty plus years as the commander of the Tenth Cavalry.Chihenne Chief Victorio (not "Vittorio") is known to scholars as well as buffs. Between 1970 and 1991, authors Eve Ball and Dan Thrapp wrote scholarly and complete volumes about Chief Victorio and why he led his Mimbres Apaches (sometimes called Warm Springs Apaches or Eastern Chiricahua Apaches) in a fourteen month war against the United States. Called America's greatest guerrilla fighter, Victorio was certainly not a Mescalero Apache as he was called in the movie, though a few Mescalero warriors joined his band.At Rattlesnake Springs in West Texas, the movie makers missed a chance to depict the actual dramatic showdown. It was Grierson versus Victorio. The two generals deployed their troops expertly and with aplomb. That day, Grierson used his Companies A, B, C, G, and H – each a company of Buffalo Soldiers. Find the factual and exciting outcome in readable story form here along with a recommended bibliography for your reading pleasure. https://bobrogers.biz/Page_per_Book/First_Dark.html "Buffalo Soldiers," in addition to being an instrument of misinformation, is a teaching opportunity squandered.

rhonda-stump The authors know nothing of the history of the Buffalo Soldiers nor how a dedicated soldier would behave. The authors completely rewrote the history of the particular character of Nana (who was a real person). It's pretty disappointing that the authors chose to give an explanation of the Apaches killing spree as a group who didn't want to live on a reservation. The Apaches historically had raided and murdered many other peaceful tribes as well as settlers; there is plenty of historical documentation. The authors chose to depict them as victims in this film. It's clear that the authors also know nothing about the military and show little regard for them in this film. The Buffalo Soldier would have done his duty with honor as any soldier would, they were not men of cowardice or considered themselves victims. I'm quite ashamed of writers like this who change stories to make a personal statement, they have an agenda. I thought there might be something more accurately portrayed when I rented this movie but it turned out to be quite disappointing.

buiger For TV standards this was a good, well made film.Basically, the makers of this motion picture lost an excellent opportunity to make a great film, which would not have required too much more, The camera was very good, the sound also (allbeit the soundtrack is a little overly melodramatic). The acting was also very good, especially for television standards, and overall the film gives a very realistic impression. Unfortunately it could have been much better. Just the ending alone destroys most of the good impressions made during the movie. Why on earth did they want to depart from the historical facts in order to engage in creating a situation so absurd that not even a 5 year old kid would believe it. All for the sake of political correctness? But this is ridiculous! How stupid do they think the viewers are? If you only do as much as look up the Indian wars in Wikipedia, you will find that "Encounters with the Indians usually resulted in skirmishes; however the 10th engaged in major confrontations at Tinaja de las Palmas (a water hole south of Sierra Blanca) and at Rattlesnake Springs (north of Van Horn). These two engagements halted Victorio and forced him to retreat to Mexico. Although Victorio and his band were not captured, the campaign conducted by the 10th successfully prevented them from reaching New Mexico", not that they sat down with the Indians, had coffee, talked about it and then let them go! It just doesn't make sense. Why destroy a perfectly good movie with nonsense like this?In other, the character development is far too simple, too one-sided for this to be an "important" movie. All in all, good made for TV fare, but unfortunately nothing more.

lawrence_elliott Why are the revisionists in Hollywood content to produce worthless drivel that no one cares about? Fiction that professes to produce some sort of truth is nauseating to watch. Boring work like this is only worthy of a gullible TV audience, victims of TV and Hollywood propaganda that does nothing to disseminate the truth. Danny Glover should be ashamed of himself and his performance, to be taken in by such trite, politically correct dialogue. Poorly acted, because there is no script or story or truth, this movie is, simply put, just a complete waste of time. This movie is not worth reviewing.I think historical research by people who can glean truth out of historical records would have benefited this project immensely. Why can't Hollywood producers do that anymore?