VividSimon Simply Perfect

SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

ShangLuda Admirable film.

atlasmb In this version of James Fennimore Cooper's "The Last of the Mohicans" the central character, Hawkeye, is played by Randolph Scott. He's a scout for the English, who are at war with the French and their Indian allies, notably the Hurons.Hawkeye works with his two friends, Chingachgook and Uncas, who are the last living Mohicans. They would prefer to avoid the conflict and take care of their own business, but they are dragged into the intrigue by threats to the settlers in the area and, perhaps, by their interest in a couple of young women. The Huron, Magua, is an excellent villain, thanks to actor Bruce Cabot. And the ladies, Binnie Barnes and Heather Angel, are believable as the women who are the objects of much of the action. Randolph Scott plays Hawkeye as an affable fellow and exudes a certain charm.The title might be misleading for anyone not familiar with Cooper's thrilling tale, but it adds a sorrowful air. It also intimates the historic decimation of native Americans.Further adding to the enjoyability is the fact that most of the background story is historically accurate. The story is a classic.Personally, I prefer the 1992 version with Daniel Day-Lewis, primarily due to its greater feeling of urgency, mostly due to Mr. Day-Lewis. But this earlier version is excellent and, no doubt, served to inflame the emotions of many young viewers in its day.

Robert J. Maxwell This is kind of enjoyable in an old-fashioned way. I've never read the novel so I don't know how closely the film follows it, but the film gets by in its own right.The story is a complicated one involving conflicts of various sorts during what we called The French and Indian Wars and what Europe called The Seven Years War. The principal oppositions are between the colonials, led by Scott, and the British leaders, led by Henry Wilcoxin. The two men are also at odds over a young lady, Binnie Barnes. Then there is the battle between the British soldiers and the French under Montcalm, with both sides oozing honor and virtue from every pore. There are the Huron Indians, who side with the French but are basically against the palefaces. And there are definite vibes between Uncas, the next-to-last of the Mohicans, and Heather Angel, as a British general's daughter. This affinity cannot stand in 1936 -- whether or not it stood in 1826, when James Fenimore Cooper published the book. Both Uncas and his blond cutie die proudly, his hand over hers.The movie is almost as rough-hewn as the story and it doesn't spare the killing of horses, the bloody scalpings, or the altruistic suicides. That's not to say that the Indians are all stereotyped, although there are some scenes that are exceptions. The iconography is all Eastern Woodlands and looks correct as far as elementary stuff goes. The round-topped communal housing is traditional for the area that is now New York state. The torture was real enough. Uncas wears a puka-shell bracelet from Hawaii but, okay.Some of the location shooting was done around Crescent City on California's northwest coast and some extras from the Hupa and Yurok tribes were hired. They were an interesting group in themselves. The Yurok had the equivalent of a Protestant Ethic, as Max Weber described it. They used the shells of razor clams for currency, called "tsik", and went around THINKING of tsik, believing that would bring them more of it. Well, I don't want to get into it.Randy Scott, as Hawkeye, wears a coonskin hat and a tailored buckskin outfit. He comes across as a likable guy and gets the job done. The British are portrayed as mostly proud, if not arrogant, but dumb about how to manage the colonies. Hawkeye and the Indians know how to creep around in the woods, and they do a lot of it in the near absence of horses. The British troops march in easily targeted columns wearing red coats that stand out like bulls eyes in the forest.Historically, the French and Indian Wars cost the British an awesome amount of money and lives but it saved the colonies for the settlers and for the British who governed them. In an attempt to get the colonials to pay back some of that expense, the British imposed a stamp tax, which turned out to be a bad idea.There's nothing particularly special about the film. Nice action sequences but not a whole lot of gun play and no galloping steeds. It's not a Western. The stern British army manages to come to terms with Scott's woodsman and vice versa, but there's no message to speak of, except maybe that codes of honor, while necessary for the smooth functioning of societies, should sometimes be bent to allow for unusual circumstances. Nothing wrong with that. As a novelist, to the extent that I understand it, Cooper was popular but not a literary giant. If he'd been French, he might have written "The Three Musketeers."

dinky-4 Two movies about early-frontier America were released in the autumn of 1936: "The Last of the Mohicans" with Randolph Scott and "Daniel Boone" with George O'Brien. Both were set in the years just prior to the American Revolution, both had Heather Angel in the cast, and both featured a romantic triangle involving a coonskin-capped frontiersman and a powdered-wigged dandy in love with the same woman. Though well over 65 years old, both movies still play well today for any audience that doesn't instantly recoil at the sight of, ugh!, black-and-white cinematography.Curiously, both movies have a scene in which the leading man is tied to a stake in an Indian village so that he can be burned alive. There are several similarities in these scenes -- both men appear bare-chested, for example -- but it's the differences in the scenes which are intriguing.Basically, the burning-at-the-stake scene in "Daniel Boone" is a masculine scene whereas that in "Mohicans" is a feminine scene. In "Daniel Boone," George O'Brien has a tough, virile look with scrappy hair and a tanned, sweaty torso. He wears his pants low enough to show off his navel. He doesn't go to the stake willingly and when the fire is lit, he struggles and kicks and squirms to avoid the flames.Randolph Scott, on the other hand, has a pale look to his skin and he never seems to sweat. He wears his pants high enough to cover his navel and his hair has been styled with marcel waves. He goes to the stake as a willing sacrifice and he never struggles against his bonds. Close-up shots of his face show him with the resigned, masochistic expression of a martyr in a medieval icon.Which scene is better? Probably that in "Daniel Boone" but it's largely a matter of taste. In both scenes, by the way, the leading man displays his manly torso but is allowed to keep his pants on. Apparently those Indians were big on agonizing tortures so long as they were conducted with proper modesty.Finally, note the rawhide straps which cross Randolph Scott's chest in "Mohicans." When first seen, they're positioned below his nipples but during the course of his ordeal they somehow manage to creep up his torso.(For the record, this scene of "Hawkeye" being tortured does not occur in James Fenimore's Cooper novel.)

bux Arguably the best version of the Cooper Classic. Great production values, a fine cast and fast paced direction move this tale of Colonial America along to a breath-taking climax. This one's been done many times, but never done better than this.