Custer of the West

1968 "From the fury and chaos of the Civil War to the glory days of the 7th Cavalry ...to the final earth-shaking charge at Little Big Horn!"
5.8| 2h20m| G| en| More Info
Released: 24 January 1968 Released
Producted By: Security Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Biopic of General George Armstrong Custer from his rise to prominence in the Civil War through to his "last stand" at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Security Pictures

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever
Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.
Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
JohnHowardReid Director Robert Siodmak keeps this excellent Cinerama attraction moving so well that the running time of 148 minutes passes as rapidly as the waters of the timber chute.On the other hand, the film bears signs of having been made with a watchful eye on the budget. None of the sets are very extensive (at least indoors), Custer's address to Congress is shown entirely through a shot of Custer superimposed on a model of the Capitol buildings with voices of dissent off, some of the model work (particularly of the train) is very obvious, and the editor repeats shots, particularly during the action sequences.Admittedly, Robert Shaw gives us an arresting impersonation of Custer and demonstrates his versatility with a singing take-off as well. Unfortunately, the rest of the players are no more than mediocre. Robert Ryan's scenes are allowed to run too long, while Jeffrey Hunter and Kieron Moore are stuck with the stock roles of idealistic young officer and and noble savage, respectively.
bkoganbing 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.
mayk1947 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.
keesha45 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