The Ballad of Davy Crockett

The dialogue was stilted and unbelievable and the plot made little logical sense from one scene to the next. The historical inaccuracies were bad enough but were largely irrelevant in the long run. It almost seemed that they added a couple of scenes and a line or two of dialogue as an afterthought in order to tie it to the actual Davey Crockett. The acting was inconsistent but no amount of skillful acting could have saved this dog of a movie. How it's gotten 6 stars is a mystery to me.

I'm an old man who remembers fondly the Disney movie from my youth. I realize now how juvenile in some ways it was; but, at least, it made sense for the intended audience. This one makes no sense for anyone with a functional brain cell. It was just horrible!

If you like sappy, uninteresting, goofy frontier movies with bad dialogue and mediocre acting, this movie is for you. I almost turned it off, but I thought I would give it a chance. I wanted to like it, but it really was that bad. And don't get me started about how historically inaccurate it was.

It's too bad, since there is plenty of historically accurate research out there about Dave's Crockett. They could have made this a much better movie. While the Disney series was pretty fluffy (made for children, so I guess it had to be), Fess Parker and Buddy Ensen made it enjoyable to watch.

(I guess certain kids might like this movie)

Crockett is an interesting figure, the second American celebrity in our history (after Franklin) and there's been no extensive serious film portrayal. A good movie on Davy is needed but this isn't the one.

The only thing this film has going for it is good production values. The plot is saccharine to the point of silliness (think Perils of Pauline,1914). Colm Meany is a solid actor but is annoying in some of the jejune scripts he has taken on (e.g., this one and Alleged, 2010).

Unless this film was targeting evangelicals I can't see why any thinking producer would have approved the script. Nothing here for any adult audience. Maybe we need another film rating category: N for niche audience.

I love a western, I can enjoy just about any one of them but this one was tough to watch. I don't care about the historical inaccuracy of it, what was so difficult to watch was the terrible acting and the meaningless and absurd scenes. Davey tames a wild horse by feeding it grass that's everywhere anyway, hops on it and rides away... oh boy.

There were so many other unrealistic scenes but the terrible acting just makes it hard to watch. Jesse Hutch was the only actor that you could say was an actor.

Someone said that all the acting was "very good", I respectfully, completely disagree.

I did like that there was no profanity or nudity which is never needed in a good western but there needs to be a good story to make it watchable.

There's no real plot or point to the movie, there are B movies, then there is this.

If you're going to make historical fiction you should at least try and make it interesting. Most of the actors are sub par and are so reserved and disjointed that they aren't even believable as real people. You took an actual interesting man's life and made it boring. I can't imagine why anyone thought this was a good product. My wife commented part way through that a few of the actors looked like they were animatronics. If you want a movie to make fun of while you watch it this is the movie to watch. If you're hoping for anything else I would save your time. The movie also seems to go for zero violence in an action movie.