mysticridge

This is a disservice and insult to history, the facts, the viewer not to mention William Bonney, who is wrongfully demonized and turned into a cartoon character cliche simpleton outlaw which he never was. Whoever wrote this piece of crap didn't spend a second researching the much more interesting and shocking true story and showed a total disregard for the truth. The truth is so trampled I don't know where to begin correcting all the outrageous lies portrayed in this laughably horrible excuse for a Western. Neither Garrett nor Chisum were in the Regulators nor with the posse of lawmen who killed Morton and Baker reportedly when they tried to escape-nor was Billy the only one firing on those two killers. Tunstall wasn't an old man and wasn't killed alone in a carriage by two deputies accusing him of stealing cattle. Murphy wasn't there at the Battle of Lincoln; he was dying of cancer. Jimmy Dolan (nit even portrayed in this stupid film), Murphy's psycho killer young partner, was the one hounding Tunstall and his associates. The Santa Fe Ring (not ever mentioned or implicated), of which Murphy and Dolan were a part, were the evil men directing the war on Tunstall and his business enterprise, and they included the officials appointed by the White House to run the Territory of New Mexico. Sheriff Brady wasn't killed by the Kid on horseback but by unknown members of the Regulators hiding in ambush as Brady and Deputy Hindman walked down Lincoln's one and only street. Brady - holding the Winchester '73 rifle he'd stoken from the Kid - had blood on his hands as did deputy Hindmann, also killed in that ambush (Hindman's killing ignored by the film). Brady sealed his fate by ordering the posse that killed Tunstall (a fact not shown in the film) and other abuses of power, including the illegal torturing of one of the Kid's friends, respected rancher George Coe, the event that directly sparked Brady's execution. Top Territory officials were later removed from office by President Hayes, for their heinous roles in the so called Lincoln County War (of which Tunstall's murder was a small part), including too federal prosecutor Tom Catron and Gov. Axtell, both members of the Santa Fe Ring -- an inconvenient truth totally ignored by this piece of crap movie. And on and on... Sadly- if truth be told - though there have been many movies about "The Kid," not one is worth a damn. Perhaps it's too dangerous even now to tell the truth about those days, when the bad guys were the men in office.

Shame on you Bill! I don't know where to start in pointing out all the mistakes, fictions, lies and omissions in the telling of the Kid's story by O'Reilly's slap-dash faulty documentary machine. Here's just a partial list of the outrageous misinformation, disinformation, and outright fabrications here: #1: They show a character as the Kid saying quotes they claim are "real." They quote the source as a William V. Morrison interview. William V. Morrison never met the Kid. He conducted an interview in 1948 (long after the Kid was dead) with an impostor, "Brushy Bill." Yet O'Reilly presents quotes from Morrison's interview with Brushy Bill as if they're genuine Kid quotes. That's a lie. #2: They show Gov. Wallace meeting with Pat Garrett and urging him to capture the Kid dead or alive. This meeting never took place. #3: They completely misrepresent what happened the night of July 14, 1881, when the Kid was allegedly killed by Garrett. They show a kid backing into Maxwell's bedroom saying "Peter, who are those men outside?" and then getting shot twice in the back by Garrett. The line is fabricated by O'Reilly's crew. Plus, the person shot that night was shot once in the front, the second shot going wild. They show someone with an oil lamp lighting up the face of the dead man. Never happened. One of Garrett's deputies, Poe, had to beg Maxwell to get someone to find a candle to light up the body, which took some time and the room was so dark it wasn't clear who was dead (Garrett had long left the room by that time). Poe, in O'Reilly's fictional recreation, also acts as if he knew the Kid, saying, "I don't think that's him, Pat" (NOT what Poe really said that night; why didn't they get the quote right?). Poe never met the Kid. He didn't know what the Kid looked like. Then O'Reilly's fiction team shows Garrett going outside and shooting it out with someone else. This never happened. And it goes on and on. #4: Scenes are highly falsified. Lincoln is shown as having wooden structures and a hideously gaudy two-story white building replete with arches. The town did not look anything like this. You only have to travel there today. It looks much the same. There were adobe structures and the only ostentatious two-story building was "The House," where Murphy and Dolan's gang ran their operation, which, again, was an adobe structure (without arches). In one scene, the Kid and Tunstall are shown on the range, with huge cacti of the type that only grows in Arizona. There are no such plants in New Mexico. That scene was shot in Arizona!!! The McSween house is shown as a two-story white prairie-style wooden structure. It was, in fact, a one-story adobe. And so on. #5: They call the Kid a "lowlife scoundrel." Actually, he was the most popular man in New Mexico - even well-liked by the opposition. He was well-educated, well-respected, well- spoken, bookish, brilliant even and well-raised. He attempted to go straight a number of times but turned lawman/vigilante in the face of abuses by powerful men not even mentioned by this O'Reilly fiasco. He let the real scoundrels off the hook!!! #6: This ridiculous line, for example, said by the amateurishly monotone narrator: "In the late 19th Century, thousands journeyed West, lured by the dream of quick riches in the silver mines and the gambling halls. Joining the rush is 17-year-old William Bonney.." First of all, no one was lured by gambling halls. Second, Billy was not lured to New Mexico by anything. He was brought there, at the age of about 11 or 12, by his mother and stepfather. His mother, a TB victim, was hoping for a cure, his step-father was lured by the mining opportunities. #7: This blatant mistake: "The first verified record of him shows up in Silver City, NM, in 1868 when he's 9 years old." The Antrims did not show up in Silver city until 1873, when the Kid was likely 11 or 12. The narrator then says Billy was 10 when his mother died (not so - more like 13 or 14) and, "Henry and his brother bury her in a simple grave." That's a blatant fabrication. #8: O'Reilly's fiction factory then claims the Kid and his brother were "split between distant relatives." There were no relatives anywhere nearby. They were, in truth, temporarily taken in by kindly neighbors. #9: The narrator goes on, "Separated from his brother (in Silver City) and with few resources and fewer options, Billy resorts to crime, adopting the alias William "Billy" Bonney." NO! The Kid left his brother behind in Silver City to try to reconnect with his step-father in Arizona. He did not resort to crime; he hoped his step-father would support him. He then sought legal work. And he never ever called himself "Bonney" in Arizona. He was known as "Kid Antrim" - by his step-father's name! #10: After the Kid leaves Arizona, the narrator drones: "Billy leaves to the familiar surroundings of Fort Sumner, New Mexico. Here, he has many friends, and feels at home in the Hispanic community." Truth? Billy had not ever been to Fort Sumner before this. It wasn't "familiar." He had no "friends" there. #11: Once Billy arrives in Fort Sumner, the narrator claims, "his arrogance sparks a not-so- friendly rivalry with saloonkeeper and future sheriff of Lincoln County, Pat Garrett." First of all, the Kid was not arrogant. He was charming and the most liked guy in New Mexico. In fact, Garrett and the Kid became great pals. They then show a scene where the Kid violently - showing a pistol - intrudes on Pat Garrett and takes the woman Garrett's dancing with. This never ever happened! Shame on you, Bill!!!

I won't repeat my criticisms mentioned in other reviews of this series here but they pertain...what I will say is that, again, you have a cleansed and shallow presentation of the life of a complex man whose status as a hero is a highly controversial stand to take - especially given his anti-Indian campaigns. O'Reilly and crew, for instance, apologize for Carson's inhumane siege against the Navajos at Canyon De Chelley by quoting historians saying Carson "had to" do what he did. (One even claims the siege was done in "the most humane" way possible. Not a single Navajo was interviewed for their side of the story! Doesn't O'Reilly claim to be "fair" and "balanced"? Not so here.) Shallow, to say the least. The perpetuation of lies at worst. Sanitized history. Another inconvenient truth: Carson's involvement in the Civil War was not successful nor proud. In fact, he was so ineffective and his loyalties to the Union cause so suspect that he was relieved of duties shortly after being pressed into duty in the Union Army in New Mexico. None of this was presented here. To the contrary, O'Reilly and crew seem totally unaware of Carson's suspicious war record while claiming he served admirably and successfully. Dig into this yourself. It's not hard to discover the truth - although it was not presented here. Why? Carson and his family were said to be cursed, in fact, by Carson's questionable deeds as an Indian fighter. Most died tragically and while fairly young. None of this was brought out. Why? This is something considered so important that it was presented at the Kit Carson home museum in Taos, New Mexico. Any researcher should have gone there and gotten up to speed. Not so here, apparently. Duty first? Duty to who? O'Reilly has chosen a strange man to make a hero. Carson, to be kind, had a checkered past - as the Taos museum admits. In addition, I don't believe one should tackle a subject like Carson if one is not serious about doing the proper amount of research and the intent to present the unvarnished truth, from all sides of the story.