Geronimo 1993

iamwhatiseem

Diamond Member
Aug 19, 2010
42,076
26,527
2,605
On a hill
Watched this last night. I avoided it for years, perhaps unfairly, due to how bad Dances with Wolves was and it's monstrous inaccuracies.
Geronimo the movie isn't a true story, but has no problem with the audience thinking it is. It's portrayal of events is infinitely better than Dances with Wolves, but still pretty far from reality. I expected the movie to provide a sympathetic view of the man, and they did, but I also expected them to trash the U.S. Army. They did not. They showed both of them as both good and bad. Which was refreshing.
It is a decent movie, good story, great cast, As a movie I would give it good props. As a historical movie, it fails.
Geronimo was not a good guy. A mass murderer often using draconian ways of committing murder. Torturing people for hours on end while his group would essentially party around them. The movie portrays him as an honest, noble warrior who just wanted to protect his people and their land. In part that is certainly true. But he also did more of his own fair share of treachery in America and Mexico.
Geronimo is without argument the most violent chief in Apache known history. His only interest was to raid anyone and everyone he could. Attacking other tribes at will and stealing their provisions, horses and often women.
Also he never spoke English. It was required for captured Indians to speak English. He never did. Also, only briefly mentioned in the movie was Mexico's part in the annihilation of the Apache Nation. The Mexican government went on slave runs to use in mining. The Mexicans used Indians for slaves for 200 years before Americans made their way west. Also greatly understated, was the role Indians played in capturing other Indians. It only showed the Indians as scouts, when in reality often Indian soldiers outnumbered the white soldiers when attacking war parties. Indeed, without Indian American soldiers - America wouldn't have won. Afterall, it took 1/4 of America's entire army to capture Geronimo...which was actually one of the smallest groups of Indians there was.
 
I like that movie. I always thought Jason Patrick (Lt. Charles B. Gatewood) should have received more acclaim for his role.

BTW.....Gatewood was born about 20 miles away from me in Woodstock, Virginia in 1853 and died at Ft. Meyer, Virginia (next to Arlington National Cemetery) in 1896 of stomach cancer.....He was only 43.....He's buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

210f91c859c0699d54dc86c835d01310.jpg
 
Watched this last night. I avoided it for years, perhaps unfairly, due to how bad Dances with Wolves was and it's monstrous inaccuracies.
Geronimo the movie isn't a true story, but has no problem with the audience thinking it is. It's portrayal of events is infinitely better than Dances with Wolves, but still pretty far from reality. I expected the movie to provide a sympathetic view of the man, and they did, but I also expected them to trash the U.S. Army. They did not. They showed both of them as both good and bad. Which was refreshing.
It is a decent movie, good story, great cast, As a movie I would give it good props. As a historical movie, it fails.
Geronimo was not a good guy. A mass murderer often using draconian ways of committing murder. Torturing people for hours on end while his group would essentially party around them. The movie portrays him as an honest, noble warrior who just wanted to protect his people and their land. In part that is certainly true. But he also did more of his own fair share of treachery in America and Mexico.
Geronimo is without argument the most violent chief in Apache known history. His only interest was to raid anyone and everyone he could. Attacking other tribes at will and stealing their provisions, horses and often women.
Also he never spoke English. It was required for captured Indians to speak English. He never did. Also, only briefly mentioned in the movie was Mexico's part in the annihilation of the Apache Nation. The Mexican government went on slave runs to use in mining. The Mexicans used Indians for slaves for 200 years before Americans made their way west. Also greatly understated, was the role Indians played in capturing other Indians. It only showed the Indians as scouts, when in reality often Indian soldiers outnumbered the white soldiers when attacking war parties. Indeed, without Indian American soldiers - America wouldn't have won. Afterall, it took 1/4 of America's entire army to capture Geronimo...which was actually one of the smallest groups of Indians there was.
Practicing horrific torture techniques was commonplace by nearly all Native American tribes. As bad as the Europeans and Americans were at the time, they couldn’t hold a candle to the torture committed by Indians.

The Comanche were worse than the Apache, according to some historians. The Apache were deathly afraid of the Comanche and did all they could to avoid them.
 
The biggest mistake in our history was in not turning the southern border over to the apache.
 
Practicing horrific torture techniques was commonplace by nearly all Native American tribes. As bad as the Europeans and Americans were at the time, they couldn’t hold a candle to the torture committed by Indians.

The Comanche were worse than the Apache, according to some historians. The Apache were deathly afraid of the Comanche and did all they could to avoid them.
The torture of William Crawford by the Wyandotte took hours. This child like view of natives as peaceful people cruelly used is so much pig bath.
 
Watched this last night. I avoided it for years, perhaps unfairly, due to how bad Dances with Wolves was and it's monstrous inaccuracies.
Geronimo the movie isn't a true story, but has no problem with the audience thinking it is. It's portrayal of events is infinitely better than Dances with Wolves, but still pretty far from reality. I expected the movie to provide a sympathetic view of the man, and they did, but I also expected them to trash the U.S. Army. They did not. They showed both of them as both good and bad. Which was refreshing.
It is a decent movie, good story, great cast, As a movie I would give it good props. As a historical movie, it fails.
Geronimo was not a good guy. A mass murderer often using draconian ways of committing murder. Torturing people for hours on end while his group would essentially party around them. The movie portrays him as an honest, noble warrior who just wanted to protect his people and their land. In part that is certainly true. But he also did more of his own fair share of treachery in America and Mexico.
Geronimo is without argument the most violent chief in Apache known history. His only interest was to raid anyone and everyone he could. Attacking other tribes at will and stealing their provisions, horses and often women.
Also he never spoke English. It was required for captured Indians to speak English. He never did. Also, only briefly mentioned in the movie was Mexico's part in the annihilation of the Apache Nation. The Mexican government went on slave runs to use in mining. The Mexicans used Indians for slaves for 200 years before Americans made their way west. Also greatly understated, was the role Indians played in capturing other Indians. It only showed the Indians as scouts, when in reality often Indian soldiers outnumbered the white soldiers when attacking war parties. Indeed, without Indian American soldiers - America wouldn't have won. Afterall, it took 1/4 of America's entire army to capture Geronimo...which was actually one of the smallest groups of Indians there was.
Saw this some years ago. Recently I tried it again and I'm glad I didn't pay real money to see.. I don't know what Water Hill was trying to do with this movie but it didn't work. Geronimo was rather bland and the fine cast didn't help much. What was good about the movie was the cinematography, gorgeous vistas and fine fight scenes. Other than that, there wasn't much to recommend it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top