Custer of the West (1967) User Reviews (46)

Interesting portrayal of George Armstrong Custer and his last stand

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 28 August 2009]

The film centers around general Custer (Robert Shaw) and wife (Mary Ure), though takes liberties with historical facts . George Armstrong Custer's career begins when is graduated in the known Military Academy of West Point and after that , he intervened in American Civil War where detaches in battle of Gettysburg . General Sheridan (Lawrence Tierney) assigns him the command a regiment at Fort Abraham Lincoln . In 1869 Custer and his 7th Cavalry carried out the massacre of River Washita , where a lot of Indians and their chief Black Kettle were murdered . Later on , Custer takes command a fort and two officers (Jeffrey Hunter and Ty Hardin) will help him to face off Indians with the warring chiefs Dull Knife (Kieron Moore) , Sitting Bull , and Crazy Horse and their tribes Sioux , Cheyenne , the Awpahla and the Munikhanja . The fights go on until the final battle of Little Big Horn (1876) where his entire command was exterminated .

This movie well produced by Philip Jordan blends good action scenes, shootouts , adventures and being quite entertaining , because happen many deeds and fast-moving and that's why it is neither boring , nor dreary, but entertaining . George Armstrong Custer's complex characterization with an unusual point of view is well performed by Robert Shaw who gives a nice embodiment of this Western hero. Robert Shaw's interpretation as a hippie-type, long-haired general , is top-notch , unfortunately he early died , in fact , this is his last film . His wife in the real life, Mary Ure being early dead , as well. The thrilling final confrontation between Custer army and Indians is spellbound and breathtaking similar to ¨ They died with the boots on (1941)¨ with Errol Flynn and directed by Raoul Walsh . The film obtained a limited success in spite of the lavish budget and spectacular sets . Direction by Robert Siodmak is average , in spite of a long career with many cinema classics (Criss Cross , The killers , The spiral staircase , The suspect) and the film is mediocre and overlong , too. The great director Fred Zinnemann even directed some scenes and originally to be directed by Akira Kurosawa, but he ruled out . Cecilio Paniagua's cinematography is glimmering and fascinating and photographed in Super Technirama 70 , the outdoor scenarios are overwhelming , this is the best of the film . Bernardo Segall musical's score is sensitive and moving and performed by Royal Philarmonic orchestra. Splendidly staged battles with obligatory cast of hundreds is well made by the art directors Eugene Lourie and Julio Molina . The motion picture will appeal to biopic enthusiasts and Indians western buffs.

Other adaptations about this historic character culminating in thrilling battle of Little Big Horn are the following ones : ¨Santa Fe trail¨ by Michael Curtiz with Ronald Regan as Custer ; ¨Great massacre Sioux¨ by Sidney Salkow with Philip Carey as Custer and Iron Eyes Cody as Crazy Horse ; ¨Little Big Man¨ by Arthur Penn with Richard Mulligan as Custer ; ¨Son of the morning star¨ TV miniseries by Mike Robe with Gary Cole , among others.

Disingenuous locations and tedious scenes, but several highlights

[Wuchakk · 5/10 · 8 April 2018]

RELEASED IN 1967 and directed by Robert Siodmak, "Custer of the West" is a French/Spanish/American production starring Robert Shaw as the titular hero who becomes the youngest general in the Civil War at 23 and then goes on to fight in the Indian Wars of the northern plains, eventually dying at the Battle of Little Bighorn at the age of 36. Mary Ure plays Custer's wife while Ty Hardin and Jeffrey Hunter play his subordinates Major Reno and Capt. Benteen. Lawrence Tierney is on hand as Gen. Sheridan.

"Custer of the West" both stresses the mistreatment of the plain's Indians by the U.S. and portrays Custer as a tragic American hero who was a puppet of government policy. The film is usually lambasted for its inaccuracies, particularly its depiction of the closing battle. For instance, in real-life Custer's soldiers surprised the Native encampment, they didn't ride up and dialogue with the waiting Indians; moreover, the battle was a chaotic one, moving toward Last Stand Hill. Yet it's not like previous films were any more accurate, e.g. "They Died with Their Boots On" (1941), but audiences apparently demanded more accuracy by the late 60s.

Regardless, the gist of events is true: Reno and Benteen were real-life subordinate officers at odds with Custer and reportedly failed him on the day of battle, although they supposedly had justified cause. If I were Benteen, I would've probably done what he did in the face of Custer's glory-hound rashness and a formidable foe: Dig in, face the enemy, and survive to fight another day. In any case, if you want historical accuracy (to a point) see "Son of the Morning Star" (1991).

The main problem I have with this movie are the Spanish locations substituting for Virginia, the Dakotas and Montana. Fortunately, the creators at least tried to find a setting with trees for Virginia and some of the locations they used for Dakota/Montana occasionally work (just occasionally). But there's a long desert sequence when nothing of the sort exists in the region. You'd have to go far south to New Mexico/Arizona or way further west to eastern Washington to find such deserts. Yet it could be argued that the desert sequence is substituting for the Badlands of the Western Dakotas, which is certainly desert-like.

If you can ignore the disingenuous topographies, there's a lot to appreciate in "Custer of the West." But the film's overlong and bogged down by tedious or useless sequences, like the capture/imprisonment of Sgt. Mulligan (Robert Ryan). But there are some gems, like when Dull Knife (Kieron Moore) pays Custer a visit at the fort (which in real life didn't have a timber stockade). Custer bluntly conveys to the Chief the simple (awful) truth about conquerors and those they conquer: "The problem is precisely the same as when you Cheyenne decided to take another tribe's hunting ground. You didn't ask them about their rights. You didn't care if they had been there a thousand years. You just had more men and more horses. You destroyed them in battle. You took what you wanted and, right or wrong, for better or worse, that is the way things seem to get done. That's history."

FYI: Deviating from the original script, Robert Shaw made the character of Custer over to suit himself, turning him into a "sadist of Shakespearean depth." He also directed the battle scenes with Siodmak staging everything else.

THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours 21 minutes and was mostly shot 30 miles from Madrid, Spain, except for the Battle of Little Bighorn which was filmed in Costa del Sol near Almira. WRITERS: Bernard Gordon and Julian Zimet with additional work by Shaw.

GRADE: C

Custer deserves a more colorful script...and a better Custer...

[Doylenf · 5/10 · 22 January 2007]

Handsome but dull western (courtesy of Spanish landscapes) to depict Custer on a mission to steal land from the Indians. A blond ROBERT SHAW looks convincing enough on horseback but something about his accent seems wrong and charisma is lacking. The Indians look more European than like American Indians and too many of the action scenes are slow paced and repetitive as Custer and his men go on various missions.

MARY URE as his wife, Libby, has little to do but register impatience with being kept in the background between battles with long waits before she shares the screen with real-life hubby, ROBERT SHAW. A more mature looking JEFFREY HUNTER (sporting gray hairs) is Will Benteen, one of Custer's more loyal officers.

The mountainous plains in Spain are no substitute for our standard glimpses of John Ford territory with not a single shot looking as though photographed in the American West. But it's the dull storyline that defeats the movie from ever becoming anything more than a series of handsomely photographed outdoor sequences. A surprise Indian attack by the Cheyennes on an Indepdence Day Celebration is one of the more colorful moments and triggers Custer's determination to fight the redskins, no matter that they greatly outnumber his men.

Nothing in Shaw's performance suggests the color and vigor of Custer's bigger than life personality nor does the screenplay do any real justice to the man or the myth. As storytelling goes, the first half of the film manages to be just plain dull and the film only picks up speed as it nears the climactic fight at Little Big Horn.

Battle skirmishes with Indians are, on the whole, well staged and full of furious gunsmoke and flying arrows--but the big set piece is saved, of course, for the finale which comes too late to save the first half of the film from the doldrums. One is left with the impression that some inventive fictionalizing would have helped (as it did with THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON).

Summing up: A very miscast Shaw plays Custer as a snarling villain who barks orders and the story has a plodding script. Could have been much more impressive if filmed in the U.S. on more realistic locales with more accurate casting. A cameo by ROBERT RYAN is no help at all.

Movie Re-writes History, Poorly...

[BALLARDITE · 25 January 2002]

I'll make this short and sweet, on second thought, I'll try to! For anyone who has studied history and even scanned a chapter about Custer, could tell that this story line seemed to be made-up as it went along. I have watched this movie only once, and that was more than enough. I understand Hollywoods need to add to, or change charactors or situations to sell a movie. BUT, when they feel the need to give Gen. Armstrong Custer an english accent, Wow!!! Flags went up as soon as he spoke. Ok, ok, overlook that. The thing that gets me the most is the way this movie seems to change the man, to what (I Guess) they wish he was. That too can be overlooked. But, when you change history around to such extremes as, lets pick on the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The way it is acted out is not only corny, but totally oblivious to the truth. The movie has Custer confronting the Indians right before the battle, (According to both versions{The Indians & The Whites} of history, HE DIDN'T).In the movie he didn't flee up the hill(as he did inreal life), away from the village, then finally dismount at almost the top of a hill, surrounded, there to die, and where some mutilations took place.Custer, being the last man standing(YEA, RIGHT!), gets an offer from the chief to let him go, (There was no, I repeat NO SUCH OFFER!) as there was in the movie. Enough you say, there had to be some good. Robert Ryan, in his, much to small a part, was, as usual top notch. However, the story being sooo far fetched ruined it for me. MY RATING: For the valid attept to make a movie,I give 1 Star, Add 1 Star for some decent Charactor Actors, & add 2 for Robert Ryans far too few moments. But, I have to subtract 1 just becaus they thought we wouldn't notice the english accent. 3 Out of 10 STARS

The Best Is First

[Kakueke · 7/10 · 27 December 2008]

Various elements of this movie make it worth seeing, but this does not include the Last Stand itself, which is poorly done, a big disappointment. It fails in every category. After Lieutenant Colonel Custer (Robert Shaw) returns from giving testimony in Washington, he abruptly tells Captain Benteen (Jeffrey Hunter) and Major Reno (Ty Hardin) of the three-way march against the Sioux and Cheyenne that will take place, and the Seventh Cavalry takes off. There is no captivating dialogue. The scenes are rigid, unorganized, uninteresting, with no substantive interpretation of the cavalry's movements. The death of Custer is done in a pathetic, historically inaccurate attempt at dramatics that completely backfires. The viewer is left with no sense of drama or legacy of the battle. Still, the rest of the film is interesting. It represents a good effort at capturing the real-life chemistry of Custer and the flavor of the period's conflict between whites and Indians in the Midwest/Dakotas.

**The comments below may contain spoilers**

Custer is not portrayed like the hero in "They Died with Their Boots On." Instead, the portrait of Custer in this film seems close to the truth. "Custer of the West" was made only two years before "Little Big Man," during the Vietnam War. But it is not a satirized Custer that is presented; rather, it is a straight-shooting one. Robert Shaw plays Custer the glory hound, the one who desires action, the military man who will execute his duties without regard to whether they offend one's sense of ethics in mistreatment of Indians. He is a cold, rigid, hard-ass person. He takes over his camp with a preoccupation for discipline in the face of lazy soldiers who want to feign diseases when Indian-fighting duty calls. Major Reno is put down for his well-known alcoholism, and Custer makes clear to Captain Benteen he does not care about Benteen's sense of honor toward the Indians. It is an historical fact that Benteen hated Custer and refused to aid him when Custer requested help at The Battle of the Little Bighorn ("Custer's Last Stand"). This film seems to want to explain why.

Would you really find the person described in the previous paragraph interesting? Libby Custer (Mary Ure) is worked into the movie more than incidentally, but nowhere are the inner workings of the man explored, with her or anywhere else. Shaw's Custer is an impersonal Custer, without much in emotions. Still, as he is cast, Shaw puts on a good performance, and I disagree with some of the commentators on this board who say he displays an English accent. He sounds American.

The early parts of the film have a number of scenes involving good action, with some imagination, and wide-open-space cinematography. Whites are encroaching on Indian land; they are interested in mining and railroads. Indians attack railroads and stagecoaches and, at one point, a large white settlement celebrating Independence Day. Custer has a couple of minor skirmishes with the Indians. In one, he pursues the Indians across a desert and attacks them from below the rock face they have scaled in their retreat. As for major action, Custer's Seventh Cavalry, on orders from General Phil Sheridan, attacks and destroys Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle's village in the Battle of the Washita River, in Kansas. General Sheridan had been Custer's Civil War commander and long-time patron, and he was the one who gave Custer his post in the Dakotas. He calls Benteen a "bleeding heart" for being sympathetic to the Indians. Sheridan claims he has told all his officers "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." The real-life Sheridan claimed he never said that. Regardless, it is an historical fact that he was contemptuous of the Indians, and his attitude represented the mindset of the time. In the battle, The Seventh Cavalry kills not only Black Kettle and numerous warriors, but many women and children. Director Robert Siodmark holds back nothing in presenting what occurred in Custer's only major engagement against the Indians before the Last Stand.

The most important scene of the film occurs after this battle. It, rather than the Last Stand, encapsulates the movie. A Cheyenne Indian visits Custer's HQ to ask him about his intentions, as Custer correctly perceives. Custer makes it clear he is not a moralist. He is not in a position to make the substantive decisions, he is an officer in the army, and will obey orders. If that involves trampling the Indians in violation of some ethical notion, so be it. Custer tells the Indian the problem is that the whites are more advanced than the Indians. He tells him that the Cheyenne were stronger than tribes from whom they took land, so they can expect the same from the whites who want their land. Later, the writers try to acquit Custer a little bit by 1) his remarks that the railroad being built will just lead to trouble from the Indians and complaining about what the Indians have to put up with and 2) his testimony in Washington on Indian Bureau corruption that the "Indian Problem" is the fault of the policymakers. This is historically true; according to Custer's testimony, corruption in the granting of Western post traderships and various other dishonest dealings were cheating Indians as well as the U.S. Cavalry. However, although the film presents miners intruding on Indian territory, it does not treat Custer's personal interest in gold mining.

As I previously observed, I think "Custer of the West" is worth seeing in spite of the Last Stand's being poorly done. It would be most interesting for people who know some of the history surrounding Custer's post–Civil War life and the conflicts with the Plains Indians leading up to the Last Stand.

Brings on the tears

[enthusiast · 7/10 · 12 March 2005]

This is actually a sad movie. I will not mention the end for fear of including a "spoiler", but also I cannot imagine that most American viewers would not already know how it ends.

Though I live overseas now I grew up in the United States in the 1960s (in fact, I still retain my U.S. citizenship). Some of the lines in this 1967 movie are, in fact, anachronisms (they were not in the language in the 1860s or 1870s when this movie was set). The phrase that one U.S. soldier was worth (in combat) 10 Indians was a takeoff on the phrase used at that time in the Vietnam War concerning the kill ratio. Also, the term that General Sheridan used, "Bleeding hearts" comes from the 1960s; not the 1860s. The director of this movie was obviously comparing the moral problems we felt with Vietnam with the same problems the U.S. felt during the Indian Wars a century before. I did not know, of course, any Indian War veterans, but I did know two good men who went to Vietnam and did not come back alive.

Also tearful is the real life love you detect between George and Libby Custer that is portrayed by the real life married couple of Robert Shaw and Mary Ure. Six children between them. She died about ten years later from an accidental overdose of alcohol mixed with sleeping pills. He was so heartbroken that he died a few years later literally of a broken heart.

It is still a magnificent film. The western scenes are indigenous to that part of the United States that it is actually a shock to find out they were filmed not in South Dakota, California, Nevada, Kansas,etc. but rather in Spain!!

Custer of the Waste

[tarmcgator · 1/10 · 1 February 2007]

I have not seen all of the Custer movies, but this one is certainly NOT the accurate historical portrait/epic that his story begs for. The chief culprits here are the scriptwriters, who seem to have based their scenario on earlier Custer movies instead of serious historical research. They also had to work in some made-for-Cinerama "thrill" sequences that add nothing to the story and seem to go on forever. Shaw, a pretty credible actor, seems to have realized how farcical this effort was and got into the spirit with a performance that is by turns lackadaisical and hammy. His supporting cast -- notably Lawrence Tierney as Phil Sheridan, Ty Hardin as Marcus Reno, and Jeffrey Hunter as Frederick W. Benteen -- also chew the scenery, and as Custer's wife, Mary Ure is apparently under heavy sedation most of the time. My favorite moment of this idiocy, however, comes at the very end, as the director presents the Battle of Little Big Horn as choreographed by Busby Berkeley (only without the overhead shots). Really, if you're a Custer buff, this is only for laughs.

Despite serious flaws, a movie that can be enjoyed if you go with it.

[mayk1947 · 7/10 · 27 February 2010]

Okay gang, this is a deeply flawed Custer movie. There is no getting away from that. Yet, if you have any interest at all in the Custer legend (notice I said legend - any relationship to real history and this movie is purely coincidental), and want to see a riveting performance by Robert Shaw, complete with an absurd English accent for Custer, this is a must see movie.

Besides the imaginary history, the geographical locations presented for the story exist only in the minds of the screen writer and director. Despite this, I could not get over how much I liked watching Shaw present his interpretation of Custer. For all the weaknesses in the script, Shaw was given some great speeches to make, demonstrating the tragedy of plains Indians. No matter how ugly the near genocide of them as a people and the total genocide of their culture, and there is no excuse for any of it, they were the victims of events that were pre-determined once Europeans set foot on North America. A point perfectly captured in the movie in the confrontation between Custer and an American actor posing as a representative Indian chief.

For myself, the worst part of the movie, which I was enjoying up to this point, was the Last Stand. Who cares whether it was accurate or not. When was the last time Hollywood ever made any movie about any historical event or person that was not clearly fiction in many aspects? What bothered me, was the fact it was done on the cheap. Custer had around 260 men with him, in the movie, he might have about 50. There is just no drama in watching a big action sequence that falls flat because you were not willing to hire more extras.

Still, I guess this movie is one of my guilty pleasures. If you like action movies or Robert Shaw, give it a look.

More epic than history.

[rsouza · 3/10 · 20 January 2006]

As an amateur historian and Indian Wars living history re-enactor, I have a number of problems with this film. Aside from the acting (I normally like Robert Shaw), the technical and historical failings really detract from its story. Spoilers? Can there be anyone on earth who does not know the story of the Little Bighorn? It has been pointed out that the topography of the area is completely wrong, the battle in the film is far different from what really occurred and the troops are using the wrong weapons. But even on TV, you can see the square pillows under the soldier's clothing as the arrows strike them! Really a grade B effort, and that's too bad.

Surprisingly good account of General Custer

[segstef · 6/10 · 10 June 2001]

I was hesitant to watch this movie, but found it very good. It grabbed my attention with the camera shots during many action sequences. When two miners are tied-up on a run-away wagon, I could see what they saw as the wagon aimlessly traveled along a narrow road on a cliff;again when a calvary officer was escaping along a log down a canal,and when passengers were on a run-away train. Although this movie was about General Custer, we also became familiar with many of the other characters. Jeffrey Hunter always steals a scene, even as an older man and he again portrays a socially conscious character as he did in "From Hell to Eternity". this movie not have been historically accurate, but as movies go, I thought it did a good job of portraying the events that led up to the "Battle".

Dated, Dreary, Dreadful

[btillman63 · 2/10 · 22 November 2005]

Granted, this abomination was filmed nearly 40 years ago but it lacks most of the style and energy of Flynn's 1941 Custer epic. The technical aspects alone are enough to consign "Custer of the West" to the Dust Bin of Hollywood, let alone of History.

Just a few gripes among many: The topography of the climax in no way resembles Montana. Maybe that's to be expected of filming abroad, but there must be ONE grass covered hill somewhere in Spain.

The troopers and Indians are armed with Winchester repeaters. If the 7th Cavalry had been so equipped, the battle might have gone the other way.

One suspects that the portrayal of mounted Indians riding down the soldiers is inspired by Hollywood convention. In truth, the battle was fought on foot with the Indians making use of cover and terrain to approach the cavalrymen.

SPOILER FOLLOWS The ending is just plain stupid: hundreds of Indians simultaneously halting in their tracks to spare Yellow Hair so he could be humiliated at the end of his life. That segments strains credulity to the breaking point.

This pony's leg is so broken that the only thing to do would be put it out of its misery--and the audience as well.

Very Watchable

[rjun67 · 9/10 · 18 July 2016]

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

Little Big Film

[Chase_Witherspoon · 6/10 · 23 July 2010]

Robert Shaw plays the inimitable General George Custer, portraying him here as a statesman, a man of integrity, humility and at times, sympathy. His respect for Chief Dull Knife (Moore) is evident in the manner in which he addresses his foe, but the depth of his jingoist patriotism is equally apparent as he almost laments "you are a militarily defeated people". He does this again, rebuking Robert Ryan's desperate bid for clemency after he's sentenced to death for desertion. "I've got to have new facts" he pleads. Of course Ryan has no rebuttal. Shaw delivers a complex characterisation, one that opens further each time you watch.

The accent employed by Shaw is sometimes distracting, but it's not the liability some complain. Supporting performances are played with conviction, particularly Ty Hardin as the boozing Major, who finds Custer's work ethic an unwelcome interruption to his inertia, and Jeffrey Hunter as an Injun-sympathiser, the teacher drafted into the cavalry, looking for some semblance of moral justice amid the chaos. Needless to say, he resigns to futility, as does Custer in his final stand at Little Big Horn.

Perhaps the most revealing character trait chosen by Shaw in this interpretation, is his tendency to seek advice from his wife (Ure). Often absorbed by immense self doubt and political pressure, Ure is his constant sounding board. While this edge gives Shaw's Custer an interesting new dimension to an otherwise wholly glorified character in the movies to this point, it does largely waste Ure's talents as she rocks, knits and conjures pearls of wisdom for her conflicted husband to ponder. More liberty (e.g. removing the superfluous congress speech, the log-ride scene or the bizarre musical) with the guillotine could have cut 20-30 minutes off this epic tale, which is often paralysed by lengthy passages of dialogue and irrelevant plot diversions. Overall, while it certainly improves with each viewing, it's perhaps irrevocably flawed and overlong.

OK but inaccurate movie

[JoshsDad · 5/10 · 19 January 2007]

This may not be the most historically accurate piece of film making, but it is an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. Shaw is fine as Custer and the rest of the cast hold up well too. The desert landscapes are nothing like the Dakota territories but make for an impressive back drop. What really lets the film down is the storyline. If you are going to tamper with history at least make your version more interesting (see They Died With Their Boots On). The screenplay is too episodic too fully grab your attention with far too many irrelevant sequences purely designed to show off the widescreen process Cinerama. Having said that the film is strangely watchable and I did actually enjoy it.

Curiously interesting film has only a little to offer.

[Poseidon-3 · 12 March 2003]

An unusual cast was gathered for this tribute to a western hero whose accomplishments in real life are dubious to say the least. Scholars and history buffs can argue the facts and merits of General George Armstrong Custer. This review pertains to the actual film. It begins with a very odd credits sequence in which Shaw and Ure are billed as starring, then the title comes up and then zilch. No other actors or crew are mentioned. Then four years of Civil War battles are represented by years popping up on screen as Shaw tears across what looks like the same field on horseback while cannons blast continuously. So much for establishing his war record...from this he basically outran some cannons for four years straight! He gets new orders from superior Tierney (brandishing a very contemporary accent that's just as jarring as Shaw's own British-tinged one) and is soon headed out west to rid the land of Indians. First, he is reunited with his wife (in real life as well) Ure in a series of brief, strange vignettes as they travel to his new post. Once there, he is greeted by a haggard-looking Hunter (who would be dead in real life within a year) and fit, yummy Hardin (miscast as a drunkard.) In fact, the film ties with "Ride the Wild Surf" as having the most cast members change their usual looks for their roles. Brown-haired Shaw goes blonde, blonde Ure goes auburn, Hunter's hair is longer and bushy with fake gray highlights and Hardin's blonde locks are brown and he sports a huge moustache. Ryan, as a soldier who deserts to find gold, pops in long enough to show up everyone else and display what good acting can be. The film details Shaw's struggle to solve the "Indian problem". The government wants rid of them, yet he sees, to an extent, their plight. Unfortunately, the film is so episodic and disjointed in it's scripting that it can't build very much momentum or create a memorable story. Though it is long, the audience never really gets to know the characters very well. A lot of time is spent on rather elaborate set pieces (some of which are impressive) like a wagon wreck, a ride down a log flume, an attack on a train and the final stand off. Another chunk of time is wasted in ludicrous Washington scenes which include a cheaply done speech by Shaw before Congress and a (deliberately?) horrible stage show. (Shaw wrote the lyrics of one of the songs himself!) One of the best sequences involves Shaw's attempt to show his men who is boss through a rigorous training exercise in which all but one fall down completely. One major asset is the wide-screen photography which shows off some nice scenery and a few inventive compositions. The finale, with its horde of Indian warriors, is surely best seen in the letterboxed format. It's surprising to see such an old fashioned us (Cavalry) vs them (Indians) approach in a 1968 film, four years after "Cheyenne Autumn". Aspirations to tell a complex version of the tale are done in by sketchy characterizations and poor performances by some of the supporting cast (including Moore as the primary Indian chief.) The score is distracting and often overly loud. The acting is uneven. The editing is profanely awkward. In the end, the audience has not been enlightened to any degree and has watched a two hour and twenty minute film in which Hardin didn't even take his shirt off once!

Custer of the West

[a-h-guicherit · 7/10 · 8 July 2018]

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.

Not the ultimate Custer interpretation

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 28 April 2013]

The figure of George Armstrong Custer still inspires controversy even today. Just what drove him, ambition, hubris, whatever is still being debated today. I don't think anyone has really gotten a handle on his character in any film.

This one however gives it a good try. Robert Shaw and Mary Ure play the General and his wife and she's important in the story. She outlived him by about 50 years, dying in the early Thirties. She was the custodian of the Custer legacy.

Also important in the story are General Phil Sheridan of whom Custer was a protégé of sorts. Sheridan is played here by Lawrence Tierney and he's also an interesting figure. As are Major Marcus Reno and Captain Frederick Benteen, his second and third in command played by Ty Hardin and Jeffrey Hunter. Even amateur military historians still debate about how Custer split his force in three with these other two taking significant portions of the 7th Cavalry. It was only the men who are under Custer's direct command who were annihilated at the Little Big Horn.

No one is saying that this is the ultimate Custer interpretation, but it beats Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland in They Died With Their Boots On.

What was worse? The History or the Film?

[denscul · 2/10 · 22 January 2007]

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?

Did no one read the script?

[lmbelt-50143 · 6/10 · 16 September 2018]

High production values do not come without a price. Hundreds of extras on horseback, is a rather pricey undertaking. Exotic western (it would appear) locales, represents another large expenditure. So my first question is did any of this film's producers bother to read the script before shelling out big bucks to get this turkey made?

Early on, Custer, having apparently just won a Civil War battle, casually rides over and grabs a Confederate battle flag while numerous defeated Rebs just lull about. Had this happened, Custer would have probably been awarded the Medal of Honor (he never received one). This is the beginning of a serious of historical inaccuracies.

Rather than go into each, I'll jump cut to the conclusion. If you do not know how the final battle turns out, or what happens to Custer, please stop reading.

I've been to the battlefield. I have walked among the markers on Last Stand Hill. And yes, it is a hill, not the flat ground surrounded by hills as depicted in the film. During the "last stand" atop the hill, Custer's men killed their mounts to provide them some shelter against the warrior onslaught. Here we see numerous horses just standing around. In the heat of battle, if not killed, they would have high-tailed it out of there. Crazy Horse, or Sitting Bull, or whoever that guy is at the end, would not have offered Custer a chance to walk away. Custer's men had just attacked their village (women and children), a popular tactic in such raids. His battalion's job was to ensure they and their warrior husbands/fathers did not escape. Yet during the fight, we never see a woman or a child, or even the village.

Finally, the warriors simply ride away at the end. In reality, they scalped and mutilated the bodies of the dead soldiers, the women possibly joining in. My hope is that someone, someday, will do the Battle of the Little Big Horn justice with a factual, cinematic depiction of one of the most famous military engagements in American history. R.I.P. General Custer.

A Massacre of Film and History

[warren_w_r · 1/10 · 15 July 2008]

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.

"Dead men make better legends"

[keesha45 · 6/10 · 30 April 2007]

While other commentators in this forum have found fault with the historicity of the film, including this quote from Gen. Sheridan, and the failure of the producers to faithfully envision the Montana setting with its Spanish locations, those would have been issues overlooked had the picture been better made and the hero better cast. Robert Shaw was a fine actor and he rose above this to make some really good movies (JAWS, THE STING) but he never seemed to catch the essential charm that Ronald Reagan and Errol Flynn brought to his characterization thirty years before. I'm not especially disappointed when Hollywood twists history to tell a great story as long as it's filled with action, well acted and artfully staged. But there was so much about this film that fell flat. Some action sequences were pretty good, like the log flume flight by the soldier, the railroad car's attack by Indians and subsequent fate after being uncoupled, the town being razed, the miners in the runaway wagon. These were well done and suspenseful and some I've never seen before in quite the way they were done. Unfortunately, the rest of the film doesn't make up for these best parts. The romantic scenes are a poor imitation of those done by Errol and Olivia in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON and the climactic battle is almost boring compared to the one with Flynn. Akira Kurosawa was approached about making this picture and he could have done better certainly. But with the actors he would have had and with the production budget with which he'd been hamstrung, it might have been one of the worst pictures of his career. He was wise to turn away from it. Unless you're a western aficionado like yours truly, you'd be wise to follow suit. Dale Roloff

Cheesy, Unrealistic and completely UNBELIEVABLE..!!

[dighambara · 2/10 · 27 June 2010]

I originally saw this rather boring movie years ago on TV - watching as I read a book - only to come up out of my seat - surprised to find Robert Ryan playing the extremely minor part of Sgt Mulligan...

I have to give performance credit to Robert Ryan, Jeffrey Hunter and Ty Hardin (in that order) for their attempts to raise the movie out of mediocrity... However, the movie remains forgettable except for Robert Ryan's part as Sergeant Mulligan.

I purchased the DVD only so that I could have a copy of Robert Ryan's performance.

I am puzzled by all the attention given to the very minor character of Sergeant Buckley, played by Robert Hall. A few parts of the movie were filmed around his character, but without a strong connection to other parts of the movie...

If the story had stayed closer to history, and someone more likely had played Colonel Custer (he was reduced to the Permanemt Rank of Lt Col at the end of the Civil War). For example - using the same players;Ty Hardin as Colonel Custer , with Robert Ryan as Sgt Buckley, and perhaps Jeffrey Hunter as Major Reno and Robert Shaw as Captain Benteen, then this movie might have been worthwhile...

Forget history and enjoy the action.

[FightingWesterner · 8/10 · 21 August 2009]

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.

I have been waiting for you Yellow Hair.

[hitchcockthelegend · 4/10 · 9 March 2012]

Custer of the West is directed by Robert Siodmak and written by Bernard Gordon and Julian Zimet. It stars Robert Shaw, Jeffrey Hunter, Lawrence Tierney, Ty Hardin, Mary Ure and Kieron Moore. It's a Cinerama production with music by Bernardo Segall and cinematography by Cecilio Paniagua. Film is a very loose telling of George Armstrong Custer's military life from 1861 up to his death at Little Big Horn in 1876.

It's the word disjointed that springs to mind once one has sat thru this attempt at an epic telling of George Custer's (Shaw) demise. Right thru the film nothing ever plays out right; Shaw's accent, the historical facts, Segall's score sounding like it belongs in a comedy, Cinerama scenes thrown in without due care for narrative, jumbled intentions of the makers in what they want to say, wooden prop acting (Ure falls in for mannequin duties), Spanish location for filming one of the American West's most famous battles and the final battle itself is short, weak and befits the penny pinching feel of the whole movie. Undeniably the ambition is there, with the odd moment of visual splendour, but it plods when it should be sprinting and tedious in dialogue when it should be perking up the ears. As good as Siodmak (The Killers/Criss Cross) was at directing low budget noirs of the 40s, here he is without impetus and inspiration and you have to wish that original choice to direct, Akira Kurosawa, had indeed gotten hold of the project.

Shaw at least adds intensity and part of the screenplay has honourable intentions to be sympathetic to Native Americans, but ultimately the film as a whole is a disjointed experience. 4/10

Custard of the west.

[rmax304823 · 21 March 2004]

I won't go on too long about this. It's an efficiently told, largely fictional story of Custer and his last stand, sweetened up for the Whites in the audience and for their children.

It's impossible to imagine an American Indian watching this without feeling nauseous. Kieron Moore as Dull Knife. And at the end Custer seems to be fighting the Cheyenne -- period -- whereas he fought Sioux almost entirely. There were only seven Cheyenne warriors present at the battle. Westerns seem to enjoy dealing with the Cheyenne whenever they need generic Indians. I think it may be the name of the tribe -- The Cheyenne. It's easy to pronounce, and it sounds good. (It means something like "people with red feet" in Cheyenne.) "Sioux," on the other hand, sounds like a girl's name. "Apache" and "Comanche" are euphonious generic names too, but it's hard to get them all the way up to Montana. So what are you left with -- "Paiute"?

I didn't mind Robert Shaw's accent. He's a decent playwright but, regardless of which accent he's using, he can project nothing more than grim determination. When he seems to be enjoying himself, maybe smiling, you can't help feeling that it's calculated, that he's grimly determined to smile. As written, his role doesn't tell us much about Custer. Sometimes he seems brutal and other times, without too much tiresome exposition, he sounds like a liberal. Mary Ure is really appealing, a decent actress, without being staggeringly beautiful, who died an untimely death. Ty Hardin wasn't much of an actor, and he seemed to go politically bonkers after his brief career as a handsome hunky type. Jeffrey Hunter has a small part as the voice of humanitarianism. Lawrence Tierney has a beaut of a New York accent, but it may not be too out of place. Phil Sheridan was from New Jersey, wasn't he? (I may be wrong, but I don't want to bother looking it up.) Robert Ryan is the best actor in the bunch and his part is completely unnecessary, adding nothing to the picture.

The last stand is epic in a way it probably wasn't in real life, if that matters at all. The dead cavalrymen all wind up in something like a circular pile instead of being scattered along the slope up which they retreated. The Indians leave the remains alone, too, instead of violating them as they actually did. (Custer's body was stripped but unmutilated.) Indians tend not to like this kind of movie. On the anniversary of the battle in 1988 they installed a small plaque of crude, angry cast iron commemorating the many Indians who died in the battle. Right in the shadow of the phallic needle that remembers the 7th Cavalry. As it happens, I was living with the Cheyenne as an anthropologist at the time. I have never met a more admirable people. You don't hear much about Indian resentment of White's assumed superiority because they don't shout loud enough. Jane Fonda on her return from France in 1970 found them boring and too fond of alcohol so she went on to more exciting things.