Charlton Heston plays an Indian-hating scout very loosely based on famed frontiersman Al Sieber (who, in reality, was a German immigrant who not only didn't hate Apaches but often lived with them and spoke fluent Apache dialects; he spoke almost no English because he detested American whites and refused to learn any more English than he considered necessary). He goes up against Jack Palance, an Apache he knew from his boyhood who is returning from several years at an Indian agency school that is supposed to have "civilized" him (also based on fact; many Indian children were forcibly sent to such a school in Carlisle, Pennsylvania). Heston, unlike the local military and civilian authorities, doesn't believe that Palance has been "civilized" and suspects that he's secretly planning to lead the Apaches in attacking and massacring the local white population. This is a tough and, for its time, brutal little western, well written and directed by Charles Marquis Warren, and pulls no punches in its depiction of racism on both sides; Palance hates whites as much as Heston hates Indians, and both have no compunction about killing those on the "other" side they've known for years simply as a matter of course. Palance and Heston are suitably intense in their roles--Heston perhaps a bit too much so--and the action scenes are handled very well, although the final confrontation between Heston and Palance is a bit of a disappointment. A good supporting cast of veteran western actors--Milburn Stone, James Anderson, Robert J. Wilke (not playing a villain for once), among others--contribute greatly to the film's pace and atmosphere (although the rivalry between Heston and army officer Brian Keith over a girl at the post is a bit superfluous). Well worth your time.
Add a Review
-
Bunuel197616 April 2008Considering the vast amount of Cavalry-vs.-Indians Westerns made during the genre's heyday, this emerges as a reasonably engaging entry thanks to the pleasant Technicolor hues but, even more so, the scenery-chewing antics of its two stars (Charlton Heston and Jack Palance). I'd owned a copy of the bare-bones Paramount DVD for quite some time, but found the perfect opportunity to check it out now in tribute to Heston's recent passing.
He plays a maverick scout who, in the past, had spent some time with the Apaches; he knows them inside out and is, therefore, indispensable to the Cavalry because he can anticipate what their next move will be. The tribe has ostensibly capitulated and is heading towards the reservation but, when the current chief's son (Palance) arrives on the scene having undertaken an education merely to fulfill a prophecy which would make him the savior of his people! the attacks start anew, thus confirming Heston's skepticism of the whole deal (and which had practically ostracized him from his office). The film, whose title remains unexplained throughout, generally delivers in the action stakes (even if Heston and Palance's long-awaited showdown, the 'war' being resolved in single hand-to-hand combat between them, is a disappointingly hasty affair) but is let down by a couple of obligatory romantic rivalries: Heston is torn between half-breed Katy Jurado, who's wasted, and Mary Sinclair, the widow of the Fort Commander who's also desired by his successor (Brian Keith).
Heston made a number of such minor genre fare (which, I have to admit, I had all but ignored all these many years) including another Western penned by Charles Marquis Warren, PONY EXPRESS (1953) before carving a niche for himself playing larger-than-life roles in a myriad big-budget spectaculars. Having mentioned the writer/director, I recently acquired another Western of his the well-regarded and, reportedly, noir-tinged LITTLE BIG HORN (1951) which, naturally, revolves around Custer's infamous Last Stand. -
Nazi_Fighter_David26 September 1999Any film with Jack Palance as the villain is intense and strong... This great actor is unique and classic in this respect!
His order to his braves: 'There will be no more fighting until Bannon has met Toriano!,' marks a summary of the entire motion picture: Toriano against Bannon!
But who are these two men?
Ed Bannon (Charlton Heston) is the Chief of Scouts for U.S armed forces fighting Apaches in the post Civil War... He despises Apaches: 'Anything Toriano for, I'm against!'
Toriano (Jack Palance) is the son of the Old Apache Chief Chattez (Frank Dekova). He rejects permanent confinement and refuses to accept how his warriors are gathered like cattle in their reservation...
Apache Wars were among the fiercest fought on the frontier... The U.S government attempted to limit their territories and movements...
In the film we learn that an Indian cannot touch, harm or kill a man if he comes unarmed into their encampment; an Apache leader can be mystified through the Great Spirit by ritual drum beat; when an Indian and a white man are blood brothers, the only way to break the bound was for one of the two to die This explains why Toriano and Bannon assigned the time and place to meet in a single combat to death at the end of the picture...
The pretty Katy Jurado is Bannon's lover, a young girl, half Indian, half Mexican, who admires Toriano as a true leader...Wanting to serve him, she keeps an eye on Bannon, spying all his moves...
Shot in Technicolor, with good directing and strong supporting cast (Brian Keith in his film debut), "Arrowhead," overcomes as a good-looking Western by the excellent acting of its stars... -
JoeKarlosi25 November 2004(possible spoilers)
It's a shame that the world has gone so Politically Correct these days that a straight-forward film like ARROWHEAD is so maligned and probably couldn't be made today. It starts off with Charlton Heston as a very despicable and prejudiced cavalry scout who hates Apaches with a passion (he's grown up with them and claims to know their ways), and continually foils any efforts at peace talks between the Indians and the white men. When his bigotry results in the killing of a group of Apaches as well as his own people, he is fired and his boss Brian Keith wants nothing more to do with him. But even while ousted from his duties, nobody is spared Heston's personal wrath -- not even his pretty half-Mexican, half-Apache laundress (the beautiful Katy Jurado).
When the respected Indian Chief Toriano (Jack Palance) arrives on the frontier to make peace, Heston still warns not to trust him. And in an old-fashioned turn of events (by today's standards that is), everything Chuck has tried to impress upon his men from the very start actually turns out to be true... Toriano and his followers are in fact planning an ambush. So in a very bizarre twist, Heston's hateful character is hired back to help the fight and turns into the hero.
Not a "great" film, and a tad long at 105 minutes. But it's a strong depiction of the personal animosities and prejudices from both sides that often get in the way of progress. The performances of Heston, Palance and Keith are all good. Those who wish to change history and act as if these things never really happened should remember that this film was based on factual, real events. *** out of **** -
bkoganbing19 February 2006Arrowhead is one of that batch of films that Charlton Heston did between his two DeMille pictures, some good, some mediocre. Arrowhead kind of falls between both categories.
It is one of the most uncompromising films in terms of the place of the American Indian. It's point is that the more we get rid of, the more room for the whites. So either pack 'em off to reservations or kill them. At least Charlton Heston's character feels that way.
Now there apparently is some justification for Heston's feelings at least as far as this group of Apaches are concerned. He was raised among them and knows them well. And knows that the young warrior prince. Jack Palance, is not going to go quietly off to a reservation.
None of which is really explored in the finished product. I have the feeling the editors left a lot of this film on the cutting room floor. Also Heston's relationship with Katy Jurado who acts as a spy while living without benefit of clergy with him is similarly untouched. But for that I blame the Code. What there is is quite daring for its time.
The ending is kind of silly also. When he has the drop on Palance, Palance asks Heston why he doesn't shoot him. Good question Jack, I can't figure it out either. More I won't say.
The film was shot on location in Texas and done very well. Palance, fresh off the acclaim he received from Shane, has the best role in the film. This is also an early film for Brian Keith and he acquits himself well as a young cavalry officer.
But Arrowhead could have been a whole lot better. -
Like most racist films (or books, for that matter) that lack the saving graces of humor and/or ambiguity, this movie is a bloody bore. Charles Marquis Warren's screenplay, from W. R. Burnett's novel, is unspeakably bad (pun very much intended). Every scene in this very long film is, to a greater or lesser degree, (usually greater), given over to Indian scout Ed Bannon's discoursing on the evil, perfidy and downright odiousness of Apaches. Makes for rather repetitive, didactic viewing, in my opinion. And Warren the director is little better than Warren the adapter. Pace, as alluded to above in discussing the film's inordinate length, is quite deliberate and the battle scenes are sluggish, at best. Ironically, I admit to a prejudice where Warren is concerned since I feel that my favorite TV series, "Gunsmoke", didn't start to take off, both in quality and popularity, until Warren yielded to Norman Macdonnell as show runner. Still, I think the evidence is undeniable that this is one of your clunkier westerns and for that the director must take the biggest hit. Second biggest culprit is DP Ray Rennahan and his prosaic often out of focus camera. In short, the film looks as ugly as the stuff spewing from the main character's mouth. Which leads me to the acting which, unsurprisingly, since it boasts a cast of pros like Heston, Palance, Keith and Jurado, among others, is solid and saves this thing from a three star, D plus rating. Give it a C minus instead and hope that TCM doesn't show it too often.
PS...Sure is strange to see Milburn Stone in a Western sans shuffle, ear tugging, string tie or stethoscope. -
Ed Bannon (Charlton Heston) is a no-nonsense scout at Fort Clark, Texas, who used to live with the Apaches. He is suspicious when the son of the chief, Toriano (Jack Palance), is returning from his education back East at the same time the Chiricahuas are meeting the U.S. Army. He solemnly warns that they will not peaceably be shipped off to Florida. Brian Keith plays the new commanding officer of the fort in his feature film debut. Katy Jurado and Mary Sinclair are also on hand.
"Arrowhead" (1953) was based on W.R. Burnett's novel wherein the author patterned Ed Bannon (Heston) after the real-life Albert Sieber. Meanwhile the film was shot at the actual Fort Clark in Brackettville, Texas. As such, it has some authenticity in its favor even while a bit marred by the dated style of its era. The problem is some people don't want ugly reality, but rather political correctness.
I don't get what the problem is. Bannon is understandably cheerless in a tense life-or-death situation while the Chiricahuas are depicted as formidable warriors who are willing to fight to the death. The movie portrays the culmination of the Indian Wars (as far as the Apaches go) in a fictitious story backed by factual material and it's not pleasant, but rather grim and brutal. It was the Indian WARS, after all, not the Indian love-in.
The film runs 1 hour, 45 minutes.
GRADE: B -
DarthBill20 March 2010When the late Charlton Heston (RIP) stated that if he could do his career over again and not do certain films, he must have had this tough, unpleasant little western in mind, which he himself cited as not being among his best. In fact, the only real praise he could offer for the film, made and released about three years before "The Ten Commandments" made him a star, was the typically intense performance of the late Jack Palance as his nemesis. Now from a cinematic standpoint, Heston is best remembered for his contributions to the epic (both historical and biblical) and cult science fiction genres, so it's not surprise that his contributions to the western/cowboy genre is often overlooked. In the case of this particular film though it's probably just as well that most people outside of his fan base don't remember it too well. "Major Dundee" and "Will Penny" were considerably more worthy efforts, the latter in particular.
Plot in a nutshell: Heston plays a grumpy, mean spirited cavalry scout, and ex-confederate to boot (VERY loosely based on a real man), who is so deeply possessed by his hatred of Native American Indians, especially the Apache, that it threatens to ruin just about everything around him. If he were any less civil towards the immediate soldiers in the fort, led by Brian Keith, none of whom want anything to do with the surly prick, he'd probably be voted out Survivor style. When an apparently "domesticated" Indian, played by Palance (back when it was considered politically correct and practical to take a white guy and essentially "paint" him to look like some other ethnicity) presumably to barter peaceful relations, Heston continues to badger everyone not to trust him. In the long run, Heston turns out to be correct as Palance's character rallies together his fellow Indians and goes on a killing spree, massacring every white person unlucky enough to get his line of sight (including a mild mannered fellow who was actually his 'blood brother' as children). This gives Heston's character the chance to step up and play the hero, as much as the character is capable of such.
Heston does the best he can with a thoroughly unlikable character who never really grows or learns or in any way redeems himself. Palance delivers the kind of quietly intense performance that put him on the map in better films such as "Shane". But the climactic clash between the two legendary tough guy stars is surprisingly underwhelming and disappointing. Brian Keith arguably gives the best performance of the film. Some okay action scenes and nice Technicolor help but not enough. Of interest primarily for western fans and fans curious to see earlier works for Heston. -
hitchcockthelegend13 November 2013Arrowhead, the mere mention of it in Western circles sometimes induces a sharp intake of breath, even a furrowed brow or two. Starring Charlton Heston and Jack Palance, directed by Charles Marquis Warren; who also adapts the screenplay from W.R. Burnett's novel, Adobe Walls, Arrowhead rewrites the Indian Wars and firmly paints the Apache as distrustful thugs.
Based in essence on real life Indian scout, Al Seiber, with Heston in the role but named as Ed Bannon here, story is set in Texas 1878 at the Fort Clark Cavalry post. Peace has been brokered and the good old Cavalry boys have arranged for the Apache, led by a newly educated Toriano (Palance), to be dog tagged and whipped off to some arid land in Florida. However, the pesky Toriano has been plotting a revolution and is ready to lead his people in an all out assault on whitey and to hell with the treaty. Only white dude who smells a rat is Bannon, who with some Indian blood coursing through his veins, hates the Redskins and will never trust them. But the Cavalry hate Bannon as well, because he is in the way, causing friction, a hindrance to their wonderful ideas for piece.
No surprises for guessing what happens next! If Warren and the big wigs at Paramount Pictures were aware of the racist overtones here in 1953? Is cause for debate. I tend to agree with the theory that puts this as a sort of anti-communist allegory, but of course that doesn't excuse the xenophobic narrative whoever is on the receiving end! Yet surely the makers were genuine in trying to make a good old Cavalry versus Indians actioner? That the picture often meanders and is not carpeted with action, is a little moot, but it is well put together, well acted and looks nice with its actual real Bracketville location filming (Ray Rennahan on cinematography). Paul Sawtell does one of his robust thematic musical scores, and fine acting support comes from Robert Wilke and Brian Keith.
It's a solid routine Oater, and can be enjoyed if you can forgive it its sins? Forgive them for they know not what they do...or something like that! 6/10 -
Throughout the thirties and most of the forties Hollywood's attitude to Native Americans was quite a simple one. It wasn't quite as simple as "The only good Injun is a dead Injun", but it wasn't much better. There was little or no attempt to challenge the "Manifest Destiny" ideology, namely that white Americans had a more advanced civilisation than other races and that they consequently had a God-given right to dominate the whole of the North American continent, regardless of the wishes of its indigenous peoples.
This attitude began to change in the late forties and early fifties. In particular, "Broken Arrow" from 1950 has become famous as one of the first major Westerns not only to treat the Indians sympathetically but also to treat them as the equals of the white man. An Indian character is given equal prominence with the main white character and it is made clear that the whites are just as much guilty of cruelty and savagery in their conduct of the war as the Indians. "Apache" is another example of a film from this period made from a pro-Indian viewpoint.
Not all Westerns from the fifties, however, were so liberal. "Only the Valiant", for example, takes a straightforward "Whites good, Indians bad" line, and "Arrowhead" is, if anything, even more reactionary. The story is set in the 1880s and the US government has tasked the army with implementing its policy of making peace with the Apaches. "Peace" is something of a euphemism for a policy of ethnic cleansing which will see the Apaches relocated to reservations in Florida, leaving their land free for colonisation by white settlers. (As this land seems to consist of little more than arid semi-desert, I couldn't actually understand why any white settlers would want it).
The main character is Ed Bannon, a scout working with the US cavalry. Bannon is that stock Western character, a white man who has grown up among the Indians, but his childhood experiences have not made him sympathetic towards them. Quite the opposite. Bannon loathes the Apaches, whom he regards as cruel and treacherous savages. Believing as he does that all red men speak with forked tongue, he opposes even the Government's harsh peace terms as unduly lenient, and does all he can to obstruct them. His argument is that the Apaches are only feigning acceptance of the whites' terms and that the real aim of the Apache leader, Toriano, is to launch a bloody uprising. The army, inevitably, distrust and disbelieve Bannon, and he, equally inevitably, is proved right by events.
It is often argued that films and other artistic products of past decades should not be judged by modern standards of "woke" political correctness, but the truth is that the attitudes expressed by Bannon, and impliedly endorsed by the film, were unacceptable even by the standards of 1953. The war, which had finished only a few years earlier, should have taught us the dangers of blind hatred of entire races of people. Racist attitudes, however, are not the film's only weakness.
Charlton Heston made a number of Westerns, but with the possible exception of "Will Penny", few of them are as well-remembered as his work in other genres, notably the epic. His performance in "Arrowhead" is not one of his best, but he was struggling with the difficult problem of "how do you play a guy who's supposed to be the hero but who in fact is a complete racist jerk?" Probably the best acting comes from Jack Palance as Toriano (this being a period when it was still politically correct to cast white actors as non-whites) but I felt that even he did not really merit the fulsome praise which Heston showered upon him in his autobiography.
The film's other weakness is the direction of Charles Marquis Warren, specifically the pacing, as the first half is very slow moving, with all the action coming in a rush at the end. This is one of the weakest westerns of the period, and the prime candidate for the title of Heston's worst-ever film. 3/10. -
quatermassandersen27 December 2006As opposed to the politically correct people here, i think this movie portrays the Indian more realistic than the politically correct image will have it. Fact is it wasn't only the white man who broke treaties and peace initiatives. It's not good to show this down the politically correct memory hole. That's why I think this kind of movies are important and should of course be shown on TV. Of course, I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that this movie should be banned like some reviewers have hinted upon.
A strong performance by Palance and a fine Heston plus a very interesting storyline makes this one of my favorites. -
mark.waltz13 August 2023Along with the 1950 western classic "Broken Arrow", this is one of the best views of history because you get both sides of the story, and there's no doubt that there was treachery from both Apaches and the American military scouting in unsettled areas. The relationship between Charlton Heston and Jack Palance is not a black and white one, and the viewer comes out of this understanding the sides of hatred between them yet a connection that bounds them together.
Loosely based on real life events, Heston is playing a fictional version of a real man, Al Sieber, so the writers were obviously trying to educate as well as entertain. Both the white man and Apache get to tell their side, and even if their methods of warfare were brutal, protecting their land from domination is certainly an understandable motivation, especially for Palance, perfectly cast in one of his best parts before his acting style became wildly unpredictable.
There's also Katy Jurado, hot after "High Noon", fiery but all woman as a half Apache from Heston's past. Mary Sinclair as his main love interest is reminiscent of Maureen O'Hara and Rhonda Fleming with her flaming red hair and no nonsense demeanor. Brian Keith and Milburne Stone are great in supporting roles. Terrifically photographed in that wonderful 50's color, this is a good looking, no nonsense western that tries hard to present the truth where the only villainy comes from desperation, not deeply embedded character. -
In the 1950s, westerns changed a bit in how they treated the various natives tribesmen...and for the better. Quite a few films showed these folks as victims of White society or the Cavalry or at least tried to humanize them. Well, "Arrowhead" is certainly NOT one of these more enlightened films about Native Americans....as it clearly sends the message that the only good Apache are dead ones! It's virulence is pretty striking when you see the film.
When the story begins, the US Army out west is about to conclude a peace with the Apache and an offshoot of the tribe, the Chiracahua. However, their Chief Scout, Ed Bannon (Charlton Heston), knows better...the Apache cannot be trusted and so he kills their peace party! When the peace does fall apart, the Army blames Bannon's actions...but Bannon insists the Apache and Chiracahua would have attacked anyway and he was just saving them the trouble of killing them later! Not surprisingly, pretty much everyone in the film hates Bannon.
The truth is that the Apaches were fierce warriors and were feared by many neighboring tribes. They were not especially friendly nor 'nice'. But the film seems to be saying all of them were awful and really helps you understand nothing about why they were especially angry and dangerous at this time. In other words, the film is missing context. Now I am NOT saying films like this should be banned or ignored...I hate this and would rather be offended by films like "Arrowhead" than living in a world where nothing could possibly offend. Plus, on a superficial way, it IS an entertaining film. Charlton Heston is entertaining as Bannon...a man who seems perpetually grouchy (or perhaps constipated). Brian Keith is exceptional...and I think his acting was probably the best in the film. As for Jack Palance, he's very good and LOOKS like an Apache but is Ukrainian by ethnicity! Even among the more enlightened (and less, like this one), the American Indian leaders in films were nearly always played by white guys (such as Jeff Chandler or Rock Hudson or Iron Eyes Cody). Worth seeing but pretty nasty in its sensibilities. -
ksf-211 April 2020Charlton Heston is Bannon, Chief of Scouts, fighting the apaches. The army was trying to meet with the apache peacefully, but Bannon and his men have started off on the wrong foot, and now he's in trouble with his leaders. a few other big names here... Brian Keith and Jack Palance. The apaches appear to surrender and live on a reservation... but Bannon isn't falling for it. he spent part of his life among the apaches, and he doesn't think they will give in so easily. he knows the chief, his son (Jack Palance) , and apache law, and he is suspicious. Katy Jurado is Nita... part indian, part mexican, and Bannon isn't quite sure what she's up to either. Jurado will be nominated for Broken Lance, one year later. Heston and Palance were both oscar winners, of course. The story is quite good, and partly based on a real scout. it all leads up to a final showdown between the scout and his blood brother, the apache. Written and directed by prolific western writer and director Charles Warren. according to wikipedia, he had a large hand in creating Gunsmoke and Rawhide, not to mention writing on TONS of other great films. Arrowhead is pretty good.
-
richardchatten14 January 2022Charlton Heston and Jack Palance make formidable adversaries squaring up against each as an alpha male Apache-hating Cavalry scout and a very saturnine Indian brave heading an insurrection in this rugged Technicolor western based on a novel by W. R. Burnett vividly rendered on location in Texas by veteran cameraman Ray Rennahan.
-
jromanbaker2 June 2019This is as near to American evil as you can get. The Apaches are named and tagged like people going off to a concentration camp and they revolt. I will not spoil the story more than this, but please, all those who have a shred of humanity, avoid it, and remind yourself that it was a holocaust. 'Soldier Blue' shows this clearly, but is considered too violent to be shown now. White men scalping Indians is not for America, but the other way yes. It is the myth that has brought elements in America that are still dreadful today.
Katy Jurado is always good, and sadly far away from the Mexican cinema of Luis Bunuel. She was excellent in 'El Bruto' but ham meets ham in both Charlton Heston and Jack Palance. Palance has the edge; he was convincing ham, but Heston is convincingly callous in the dull way he delivers dialogue. A nasty film. Children in the 1950's were indoctrinated by this hatred. It still lingers today as I am sure Katy Jurado would admit if she were still alive. There should be a -10. It is what it deserves. -
I was about ten (10) years old the first time I saw this film on television and after watching it a second time most recently it still brings back those deep rooted emotions of adventure, action, fear and gets my adrenalin pumping on over drive.
Yesterday's black and white western with the unsettling dust from the thunderous horses hooves between the calvary and the Indians is still a memory rooted deep in my head that is a lost art now overtaken by todays films oversaturated with CGI, digital sound, and lousy script writing.
Charlton Heston, Katy Jurado, Jack Palance, Brian Keith, and Milburn Stone, add enormous street cred to this classic western and I always enjoy these 1950's black and white westerns. I have now watched it at least three times and if I am lucky enough to live into the next decade I will most likely watch it again....and again....and again.
I give the film a stellar 7 out of 10 IMDb rating. -
jarrodmcdonald-116 October 2015In ARROWHEAD, we have Charlton Heston as a white Cavalry scout who once spent several years of his childhood with the Apaches. He has since rejoined white civilization and he now has nothing but contempt for the native people around him. So by fifties' standards, he is supposed to be the Injun-hating hero.
Add into the mix Jack Palance as an Apache who was sent east to be educated by white men. But while he was at school in Pennsylvania, he refused to cut his long hair and act much like a white. Now he's come home to Texas, where he will take off his hat, show off his long hair proudly and declare he is still Apache, which means instant conflict with Heston's character.
This all seems rather interesting, until the script takes both characters in a somewhat vicious direction. Heston is given all kinds of dialogue that today seems quite politically incorrect, where he disparages the Apaches, calling one of them dirt. But the tipping point, where we learn who the filmmakers want us to root for, is when Palance goes into an office to meet a white guy he once played with as a child. He has decided that it was a mistake for an Apache to have bonded like a blood brother with a white man. Just as the man goes to call his wife and young son to meet Palance's character, Palance pulls a gun out and shoots him at point blank range, instantly killing his old friend. It is depicted as a senseless brutal act.
Of course, this sets into motion a series of scenes where Heston as the good guy must avenge the other white man's death and bring Palance and his lawless Apaches to justice. As I said, it's hard to decide whether either one of them should be who we root for. Do we root for Palance who is filled with his own blind rage against whites and trying to seek vengeance against those who have taken so much from his own people? Or do we root for Heston who supposedly has law and order (and civilization) on his side, but is filled with just as much contempt toward the natives? -
jdrows30 July 2016This movie has it all: great names, great locations, bad acting, bad writing and plot holes. The racism from both sides serves no purpose at all. Chuck Heston and Jack Palance both over-act, especially the former. Brian Keith does well for his first acting job but his character changes direction so many times it's hard to tell what his objective as a cavalry officer is supposed to be. There isn't enough of a story so extra characters were brought in that are really not needed to support the story. Confusing Apache culture and dress with that of the Lakota does nothing to create authenticity. Main characters do and say things that don't make sense. Not worth watching twice. Too bad. Katy Jurado was never more beautiful.
-
No revisionist Western here, in fact all the players seem to be in conflict with one another most of the time. Actually, it's Charlton Heston's character Ed Bannon who appears to be the equal opportunity hater in the story, he expresses his displeasure with just about everyone, including his sidekick Sandy (Milburn Stone) during an opening segment.
The first appearance of Jack Palance on the scene was fairly impressive, he looked like he could have passed for a real Apache Indian. The idea that he was a returning Eastern student to take up the mantle of the Invincible One for the Chiricahuas was an interesting element, particularly since he never stated that role for himself. Perhaps even more so was the blood brother pact Bannon forced on his Apache foe to set up the final confrontation between them. However the denouement between the two did come across as a bit of a letdown, Bannon seemed to handle him just a bit too easily.
Nice support here from Brian Keith as Captain Bill North, and Katy Jurado as Bannon's half Mexican, half Apache paramour Nita. I couldn't really grasp the dynamic there from Nita's perspective; Bannon was pretty much a heel toward her most of the time. Nor could I rationalize the attraction Leila Clark Wilson (Mary Sinclair) held for the Indian scout when he was such a lout to her as well, especially in the company of more refined guests. Social manners were apparently not his strong point.
Based loosely on the life of real life Indian scout Al Sieber, it appeared to me the connection was pretty much by reference only. Though Sieber did engage Apache Indians in battle during his scouting days, he was just as apt to be cooperative while running work crews that included Native Americans. Sieber even gave up scouting for a time in the 1890's when he became dissatisfied with treatment of the Apaches at the San Carlos reservation. -
This is typical Hollywood revisionism with the US Cavery constantly talking about peace and respect for the Apache, while all the Indians want is to kill and destroy. Nonsense. I could never figure out the Charlton Heston character. He plays someone who learned everything he knows from having lived and been raised by the Apaches, yet he hates them with a vengeance, always referring to them in degrading and subhuman terms. At home, however, he has no problem using the beautiful Mexican-Apache laundress (Katy Jurado) as his concubine.
Poor Katy Jurado. Only a year away from her pillar 1952 role in 'High Noon,' this doll, with more class and talent in her little finger than most of her female Hollywood contemporaries, can only get offered this role playing a half-breed concubine to a hate-mongering character who insults her at will and doesn't deserve her company. Kind of puts it in perspective why 40 years later we similarly didn't see most of the intelligent kids from 'The Cosby Show' cast in any roles of substance once that non-stereotypical show ended. Maintaining your integrity while remaining employed is a monumental challenge for many in Hollywood. No wonder Katy never relinquished her Mexican citizenship or Mexican movie acting career.
The end credits to the movie state that Heston's character is based on the true life of the Army's Chief of Scouts during this period, Al Sieber (1844-1907). If so, it isn't exactly a flattering portrayal. After seeing the movie, I wonder if Sieber's family sued the studio for 'definition' of character. Watch this one only if you've never seen how Hollywood depicted American Indians in the West. -
jdcoates8 September 2019Underrated classic made so by the outstanding performances by Jack Palance, and Charlton Heston. A little slow in the beginning but it once it discards the obligatory love interest, which isn't really needed, the movie focuses on the compelling aspect of the movie, which is the rivalry between Palance and Heston's characters.
Worth a look! -
JohnHowardReid29 August 2015There's plenty of action in this one, but there's a lot of talk too. Basically, the movie is an anti-Apache harangue, complete with a large cast, actual location filming in Technicolor, and plenty of action. Maybe too much action. Maybe too much talk too. Certainly the movie would benefit from astute cutting but what to cut is the problem. Cutting Katy Jurado's scenes is the obvious method of attack, but she is not in the movie all that much anyway. Mary Sinclair could also go, but she has only one or two brief scenes. Throwing them away, is not going to make any difference. Besides, Mary Sinclair was actually a prolific TV actress who made only two movies (the other, playing herself briefly in 1974's Alice Goodbody), so it would be a shame to cut her brief role in Arrowhead. And it would also be difficult to cut Jack Palance's footage as just about all of it is essential to the plot. So the scissors would have to be sharpened for Charlton Heston. Although he's the good guy (the character was actually based on a real army scout named Al Seiber) and he's always in the right, this role is actually a bit of a liability as he often tends to rub the audience – as well the people on the screen – the wrong way! Available on an excellent Paramount DVD.
-
mod_boy11 November 2003Charlton Heston stars as Ed Bannon in a role the NRA would
be proud of. Ed has a fierce hatred for the Apache Indian which
dates as far back as his childhood. The movie starts out with Ed
killing some go-between Indians who come in peace to relay a
message that the tribe is surrendering. Ed belongs to the US
Army and is kicked out for the aforementioned action by Captain
Bill North, played by Brian Keith. Keith does a great job in his role,
at times sounding like John Wayne but never carrying it out quite
as coolly or confidently.
Captain North and his men are tasked with taking the Apaches
to an Indian reservation in Florida. However, it's not going to be so
easy thanks to Apache Toriano, played by Jack Palance. The
Captain thinks he and his men can pull off this feat without much
trouble, but can they, without help from Bannon? After all, he's
lived with the Apache and knows how they think.
This film doesn't really have any good nor bad characters
although at the time it came out the Apaches were the bad guys,
why else would they cast Palance as Toriano? It's an interesting
film from a historical perspective (film history, not actual history)
but much finer "cowboy" vs. Indians have been created. In today's
world the movie's very un-PC, but weren't most early films starring
Native American bigoted in some way? -
iquine26 December 2019(Flash Review)
Times and trust are precarious between the American soldiers and the Apache Indians. The military generals strive to trust them while a rogue ex-soldier Bannon, played by Heston, refuses to trust them. In part because they killed his father yet he was also partially raised by them as well so understands how they think. Thus, Bannon is at odds with the Apaches and the soldiers. Do the Apaches want peace as much as the Americans hope or do they have a hostile strategy queued up? Heston as Bannon delivers a number of witty lines and puts the movie a tiny notch above completely average. This is literally a cowboy vs Indians movie with several fighting scenes. Pretty typical yet Heston adds a bit of smoothness to the story.