- Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland star in this rip-roaring account of General George Custer directed by Raoul Walsh and highlighted by a strong supporting cast that includes Arthur Kennedy and Anthony Quinn. Year: 1942Running Time: 140 min. Format: DVD MOVIE Genre: DRAMA Rating: NR Age: 012569518025 UPC: 012569518025 Manufacturer No: 65180
THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON (DVD/ENG-FR-SP SUB)Bert Glennon, who shot Stagecoach and seven other John Ford classics, has given this Raoul Walsh biopic of George Armstrong Custer a burnished glow–an evocative interplay of raw sunlight and elegiac shadow like no other vintage Warner Bros. Western. Glennon’s artistry and Walsh’s trademark gusto sustain enthusiasm even as the screenplay beggars belief. The flamboyant Custer (Errol Flynn), rushed into Civil War service straight from West Point, did get promoted overnight to general and establish a spectacular record for “ride to the guns” leadership. However, Custer as defender of Indians’ rights–to the point of willing his own Last Stand so he could accuse corrupt Indian Commissioners from the grave–is historical rewrite of such sweeping chutzpah as to shame DeMille. Flynn and Olivia de Havilland make an even more appealing couple than usual, and the big supporting cast is unflaggingly energetic above and beyond the call of duty. –Richard T. Jameson
Buy “They Died With Their Boots On” For Only $7.95
Related Blogs
- Related Blogs on Boots
April 25, 2010
#1
This movie continues the ‘Custer as Hero’ myth which really should not be taken seriously when we know what a cruel, wicked racist he was. Custer and General Sheridan were interested in the fertility and mineral wealth of the region which led to massive white immigration and its encroachment on the Indian reservation. The white man started the fight with the Sioux, under Sitting Bull, for the same reason as always–money. This movie is an example of Institutional racism. Perhaps Amazon should sell DVD’s about the heroic Hitler or the heroic Milosovitch and their ‘ethnic cleansing? Why is it any different when it is Native Americans?
Don’t buy this movie and continue the lie.
April 25, 2010
#2
I love our country and the excellent military establishments that has come along way to being more disciplined than back in Custers’ days of skull-dabbery and malicious exploits!
“You can take glory with you”! Sounds like a very accurate portrayal of another false one that will cause confusion and trickery like this, Son of the Morning character seen in Gen. George A. Custer.
Good intentions are the surest road to hell and a lot of people were blinded by his deception.
April 25, 2010
#3
Who cares if this film is accurate or not! For goodness sake, it’s a film, a holywood film, with the aim to make money and amuse as best they can. You want history? Read a book, lazy bunch!
Now starts the review: I was very disappointed with this Walsh film. To me Raoul Walsh is one of the greatest, undoubtedly among the top 10 . With a filmography almost as large as Ford’s himself, and from as early a time too. Never had a chance to see this one, though, and always have been told it’s a great classic. And here in Amazon you have so many good reviews… so I finally watched it. Hard as it is for me to say this, I have to say: it’s no good. It smells too much of mothballs, it’s phony, it’s over-dramatic, it’s pedantic. It’s ridiculous. I tried, I tried to be understanding, patient, really, I tried. It reminded me of all those films of the silent age, with their aristocratic wigs, those romeos and juliets, and all that pretentious chit-chat. Yuck!.
After this dish I am off to get my head right again with some real stuff. How about John Ford’s “My darling Clementine”? or some Howard Hawks; they never fail me.
April 25, 2010
#4
I saw this thing on late night television and the first thing I did after was talk to a friend of mine, who teaches history at the collegiate level in Missouri. Watch carefully. This movie was made in 1942, a time when we were fighting a world war and losing it. Therefore, this movie is really not about Custer at all. Oh yeah, it has a guy named Custer and a bunch of bad history, and some cool actors, but the whole movie is about the Second World War. Custer is turned into the symbolic sacrifice that we all had to give (a kind of living breathing Dunkirk) to win the war, and Sitting Bull and the Sioux are our symbolic Nazis.
It’s a great war film. But the war in question is World War II, not the war with the Plains Indians. And it should be enjoyed as that, a kind of patriotic landmark, and a clever example of how Hollywood waged war.
April 25, 2010
#5
Though some liberties are taken with the historical accounts of George Armstrong Custer, this film presents a highly entertaining version of how Custer became a General. A West Point graduate, Custer was rated as one of the poorest horsemen the academy ever produced, pretty bad in an Army on horseback. But Flynn’s portrayal is timeless.