While other commentators in this forum have found fault with the historicity of the film, including this quote from Gen. Sheridan, and the failure of the producers to faithfully envision the Montana setting with its Spanish locations, those would have been issues overlooked had the picture been better made and the hero better cast. Robert Shaw was a fine actor and he rose above this to make some really good movies (JAWS, THE STING) but he never seemed to catch the essential charm that Ronald Reagan and Errol Flynn brought to his characterization thirty years before. I'm not especially disappointed when Hollywood twists history to tell a great story as long as it's filled with action, well acted and artfully staged. But there was so much about this film that fell flat. Some action sequences were pretty good, like the log flume flight by the soldier, the railroad car's attack by Indians and subsequent fate after being uncoupled, the town being razed, the miners in the runaway wagon. These were well done and suspenseful and some I've never seen before in quite the way they were done. Unfortunately, the rest of the film doesn't make up for these best parts. The romantic scenes are a poor imitation of those done by Errol and Olivia in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON and the climactic battle is almost boring compared to the one with Flynn. Akira Kurosawa was approached about making this picture and he could have done better certainly. But with the actors he would have had and with the production budget with which he'd been hamstrung, it might have been one of the worst pictures of his career. He was wise to turn away from it. Unless you're a western aficionado like yours truly, you'd be wise to follow suit. Dale Roloff
Review of Custer of the West
