Buffalo Soldiers

"Buffalo Soldiers' is an average western/adventure entry that tell a story about a troop in the U.S. Army after the Civil War exclusively for black soldiers. Based on this historical point, the movie is concerned with some crucial aspects of these arrangements: the bad treatment that was given to the black soldiers by some of the white officials, the evident absurdity of serve in the U.S Army, die for the country and not receive an equal treatment and some other minor stuffs. 'Buffalo Soldiers' tries to do that without lose the sense of adventure and action along the way. Here, the success is just mild. Sometimes, you feel that the dialogs are a bit too dialectical, too political, to be really natural. And the ending is a bit too unreal, maybe, especially when one considers the shape of conscience of the sergeant-major, played by Danny Golver. All considered, that is not a bad movie. But its commitment to discuss aspects like freedom, self-conscience, compassion and respect for the Apache culture, weighed the movie a bit too heavy. Good performances all around, especially Carl Lumbly as the scout named Horse.

All the usual whiners about "political correctness" are, of course, missing the point. Buffalo Soldiers doesn't suffer for showing the truth about racial disparity. It suffers for only showing some of that truth while at the same time being dramatically weak.

For instance, it's obvious the Whites are for the most part either outright hostile to the Black and Native Americans -- which is historically accurate -- or else treating them as invisible -- which is also historically accurate. The whiners may not like that, but maybe they need to take that up with their culture.

Where the story falls down is in not fully examining the combined racism toward the Native Americans. Now, it's historically true that there was less animosity among the minorities toward each other in the old west, including the Black, Asian, and Native Americans stuck there. That doesn't mean there was universal peace, but minorities were allowed to marry one another, for instance, while they were shunned or forbidden to marry someone who was not a minority. But this film, in focusing on the racial tensions between the Whites and Blacks, generally overlooks their combined hostility toward the Native Americans.

The other problem is the script is wildly uneven, lacking much dramatic weight. Oh, yes, there are some tense scenes, but they're also frequently undermined by melodramatic dialogue that reminds you you're watching a TV movie. The pacing is not like a film but more like a few episodes of a TV series hastily patched together.

As with a lot of film and television of the past 40 or so years, more attention is paid to the technical aspects than the artistic ones. So, for instance, they get the uniforms and weapons basically right. They film on location. If as much time and effort were spent on polishing the script and editing the finished product, it might have been much better.

The story line offered with the movie, "Buffalo Soldiers," starring Danny Glover, describes the film as fact based. With the apparent noble intention of illustrating and informing their audience of the important contributions made by African American soldiers in the invasion, occupation and settlement of the southwestern United States, writers Jonathan Klein and Frank Military weave a tale of Company H, Tenth Cavalry and its attempt to capture an "Apache warrior named Vittorio" who slaughters settlers in New Mexico. Directed by Charles Haid, the film further promises to reveal "the truth about the Indian invaders." "Buffalo Soldiers" is a major disappointment. The great cinematography delivers misinformation at best and definitely sets back the education of the public with its false narrative.

In 1997, I saw this movie and shook my head. Because a number of people have mentioned it to me this year (2012) with praise, I saw it again last week. This time, I was appalled.

Black cavalrymen and infantrymen of Buffalo Soldier fame were well respected by their Indian adversaries. They earned grudging recognition from fellow white soldiers and genuine praise from their white officers. And, they certainly did not commit the repugnant crime purported near the end of the movie. Civil War hero Colonel Grierson was not the wimp portrayed in the movie, nor was he wounded by Indians during his twenty plus years as the commander of the Tenth Cavalry.

Chihenne Chief Victorio (not "Vittorio") is known to scholars as well as buffs. Between 1970 and 1991, authors Eve Ball and Dan Thrapp wrote scholarly and complete volumes about Chief Victorio and why he led his Mimbres Apaches (sometimes called Warm Springs Apaches or Eastern Chiricahua Apaches) in a fourteen month war against the United States. Called America's greatest guerrilla fighter, Victorio was certainly not a Mescalero Apache as he was called in the movie, though a few Mescalero warriors joined his band.

At Rattlesnake Springs in West Texas, the movie makers missed a chance to depict the actual dramatic showdown. It was Grierson versus Victorio. The two generals deployed their troops expertly and with aplomb. That day, Grierson used his Companies A, B, C, G, and H – each a company of Buffalo Soldiers. Find the factual and exciting outcome in readable story form here along with a recommended bibliography for your reading pleasure. https://bobrogers.biz/Page_per_Book/First_Dark.html "Buffalo Soldiers," in addition to being an instrument of misinformation, is a teaching opportunity squandered.

"Buffalo Soldiers" is a very frustrating film. It's about a seldom talked about group of black cavalry soldiers who helped tame and protect the west during the late 19th century and it's nice to see them get their due. Unfortunately, late in the film, the writers are very fast and loose with history and give us an ending that is just wrong and never happened.

The story shows the men and how they often were mistreated and mischaracterized by the white officers who sometimes hated them for their skin color. Not all the white officers in the film seemed to feel this way...but the General does and this makes it tough for these brave men. And, as they try to find and locate a renegade group of the Mescalero Apache tribe, he often gives them lousy assingments and seemed to look for reasons to blame their failure on their skin. And the ending....well, this simply never happened which is a problem since the story is set during the so-called 'Victorio's Wars'...and the Victorio in the film and his real life and fate are at complete odds with each other. Worth seeing but seriously flawed.

Can't understand why so many dislike and are genuinely appalled at this incredible movie. It's not meant to be 100%factual. Its meant to show the spirit of these incredible men back then,their relentless courage, bravery and some of the moral dilemmas they no doubt faced. Great cast,well directed,,a must see,in my humble opinion.