bkoganbing No western hero who was in the military ever took more on himself than did Dale Robertson in Sitting Bull. Not even Errol Flynn who buried Confederate gold in violation of orders in Virginia City got himself in as much trouble as did Major than Captain Robertson did here.This B film from MGM is yet another version of the events of surrounding the Little Big Horn battle where Douglas Kennedy as Custer got himself surrounded and massacred by some angry Sioux Indians. This version does show the Indian side of the events, how badly treated they were on reservations, how the whites once word of gold being discovered in their sacred Black Hills of Dakota territory systematically broke the treaties signed. Yet in fact the film went a bit overboard with presenting the Indian side and took great liberty with the facts.Dale Robertson's an army major who zealously follows his orders about respecting the Indian rights, to the dismay of former General now Colonel George Armstrong Custer. Robertson's maverick tendencies wouldn't be liked in the army in any event, but his fiancé Mary Murphy who is General John Litel's daughter wants an upwardly mobile career man and Robertson doesn't look like a good bet. For standing on his beliefs Robertson loses her to newspaper reporter William Hopper.But Dale gets himself in an even bigger jackpot. He's got an agreement with his former commander Ulysses S. Grant who is now president of the United States, the big chief of all the white folks. But when Custer moves prematurely and gets massacred and troops are sent on reprisal, Robertson does a very daring and potentially foolish thing to keep the peace process alive. That's the essence of our story.Which of course never did happen. Neither did Ulysses S. Grant as played by John Hamilton on hiatus from the Superman series ever come west to negotiate with J. Carrol Naish as Sitting Bull. That's the biggest flaw in this film.Murphy's character doesn't ring true either. From a woman who makes no bones about her desire for an upwardly mobile man, she does an about face and would make Tammy Wynette proud if Tammy had in fact ever seen Sitting Bull.The film's heart is the in the right place, but the rest of it is out to lunch.Though I will say one thing. If what I read is true about Mary Murphy's bout with Montezuma's revenge on location for this movie, she may have given one of the great performances of all time just getting through this film without a hint on screen.

ckjarrett TCM played this last night. It's cheap and shallow Saturday matinée stuff as the other comments suggest. I noticed two things: the day-for-night shots look good but the director(s) rarely used closeups. Most of the shots are long or waist shots, or two shots.This was an early CinemaScope production and perhaps they were limited by the lenses they had (the lenses were not plentiful at this time, especially to non- Fox producers). "Sitting Bull" was the first independent production to be shot in CinemaScope. This was W. R. Frank's last feature film production; he was a Minneapolis, MN theatre owner. The world premiere was held August 19, 1954 in Sioux Falls, SD. What did the Sioux Falls cinema-goers think of this picture being shot in Mexico?! It opened October 7, 1954 at the State Theatre in Minneapolis and Paramount in St. Paul. Both of the cities' film critics, Will Jones and Bill Diehl, hated the film. Comment cards were handed out at both theatres. A trade magazine item in April 1953 said that Frank had set May 20 as the production's start date, but decided to put it off until July when CinemaScope equipment was available. As early as 1950 actors such as Victor Jory were announced as being signed for this production. Later, names such as Boris Karloff and Dennis Morgan were mentioned in the trade press.

acg_imdb Okay, I admit it, we haven't finished it yet; we're somewhere into the second hour. It was packaged as the back half of a dollar-store DVD with "Custer" on the other side, so we bought it on a whim to see how badly you could repackage an old (probably public-domain) film in modern technology.The answer is: pretty badly. Watching this film is a challenge to determine which part is the filmmakers' fault (e.g. wooden acting; stilted dialogue) and which part is the result of an aging film that no one can be bothered to handle properly (e.g. a badly discolored old print; a truly horrendous pan-and-scan job of what was once an interesting-looking widescreen film).Of special note is the maddeningly constant, wall-to-wall musical background: cheesy weeping strings and such, non-stop, as if the filmmakers were terrified of having actual silence in the background once in a while. On the other hand, this _is_ how they liked to make films back then, so if you look at it as a period piece -- no, not as an example of life in the west, but as an example of what Hollywood churned out in the early '50s: the lighting, the acting, the hairstyles, etc. -- then it's actually interesting to watch... for a while, anyway.

donnieland The only thing worth watching is the opening credits. The film's downhill from there. Everybody in this film must have needed work really badly. The only 'Indian' in the movie is Iron Eyes Cody. Remember the TV commercial Iron Eyes did against polluting the environment, when, seeing a river full of trash, a tear rolls down his cheek? The guy must have been bawling his eyes out after being in this crap. J. Carrol Naish, an Irishman, plays Sitting Bull with a Yiddish accent. The faithful Indian scout is played by a black guy with a 'Rochester' accent. The dialog, the acting, is stiff as a board. Whoever told Cliff Robertson he could act should be made to watch this movie 10 times. If only I could tell you this movie is so bad it's good...... sorry..... So many great movies on nitrate film deteriorated and were destroyed, and THIS one has to survive??? I haven't seen this whole movie. I couldn't make it past the 30 minute mark.