rjun67 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

FightingWesterner Nothing brings together Indians, anti-imperialist lefties, and white southerners together (albeit for different reasons) quite like their disdain for General George Armstrong Custer.Custer Of The West tries hard to walk a fine line between portraying the man as the cold, amoral, arrogant man his detractors claim him to be and the all American hero that others think he was. My opinion is that ultimately he was portrayed as the former.Robert Shaw is okay in the title role even though he barely manages to hold back his English accent, with frequent slips that he probably couldn't have gotten away with if the dialog wasn't so crisp.(Thank you Bernard Gordon.) The supporting cast does well too, especially Robert Ryan in his pointless cameo as the gold hungry deserter. Mary Ure is wasted as Mrs. Custer.What makes Custer Of The West worth viewing are the mesmerizing action sequences (well directed by Robert Siodmak) as the US Army and the Cheyenne each try to massacre their way to victory. I especially enjoyed the first person shots of the logging canal, the runaway train, and the out of control rolling wagon.The action hits a roadblock when Custer is called back to Washington. However, it does provide an interesting contrast between the officers in DC with the ones doing the real hard work out west.The climax at The Little Big Horn is an incredible and exciting spectacle.

warren_w_r SPOILER: Sorry, that should read *MINUS SEVERAL STARS* but they don't give me that option.I detest Custer and all he did post-Civil War. I'll start with that. I've been to the Custer Battlefield near Garryowen at least twice and feel that it is Holy Ground ... but not owing to the 7th Cavalry. Here ended the career of the man who would have been President, had his ambitions come to fruition. He would have also been remembered as the American Hitler.I've read historical accounts and military histories of the battle, National Geographic articles on the fascinating forensic examination archaeologists were able to make of the battlefield after grass fires swept away much of the overgrowth. And I've always been fond of saying that I can't watch him die on film enough times.((When he finally sent for Benteen and Reno, he had already charged into the trap: his message was (in part) "Bring rounds! P.S. BRING ROUNDS!" They were similarly ensnared in well-planned traps and could do little to help, however, not sitting on their hands protesting their sobriety in the shade of pleasant riverbank trees, let alone to each other: they were not together.)) Well, I just checked this stinker out from the local library, and I take my fond saying back. I've just seen him die one too many times. Or more accurately, I've seen *somebody* flog himself around on screen and *claim* to be Custer. I have no idea where he's flogging around, it certainly doesn't look like the Custer Battlefield -- not even remotely.Benteen is played in one of the worst performances I've ever seen from late and talented Jeffrey Hunter as a simultaneously wooden and spineless gopher; Reno as an incompetent and insubordinate drunken lout. The families of these competent (but overwhelmed) heroic officers should have legal recourse to sue director Siodmak for their portrayals in this travesty.Historically, geographically, politically, this movie crosses the line from "creative interpretation" to blatant twisting and reversal of anything resembling facts. Even Custer's portrayal in the wonderful farce, "Little Big Man", came much closer to the truth, and the California terrain that stood in for the Little Big Horn region in an old B&W "Twilight Zone" time-travel episode was more accurate than this.The whole film seems to have been concocted to give the Cinerama audiences a few roller-coaster moments (a runaway wagon ride, a log flume ride, there were a few forgettable others) and even these went on *long* after they'd already proved their point.A truly awful film. I'm taking it back to the library tomorrow first thing: it's drawing too many flies. I also want my 2 hours and 21 minutes back.

denscul 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?