how I really feel!
-
sam-wise — 16 years ago(August 24, 2009 12:58 PM)
Two years later!
Consider the period when this movie was made. People were really emotional about Vietnam and the whole question of pacifism vs. war. We may disagree about the kid's actions at the end of the movie. But look at it this way (maybe from the filmmaker's point of view): "Real men" sacrificed themselves so the "pacifists" wouldn't have to. Then the "pacifists" turned around and rejected the sacrifice. This says a lot about what happened to both soldiers and pacifists during the Vietnam era. The whole exercise was pointless. Maybe the cowboys were satisfied by doing their duty, but the holy rollers certainly didn't appreciate it. And maybe the pacifists were satisfied because they didn't taint themselves with violence, but other men still died so they could remain alive. My sympathies are all with the Culpepper boys. Others might disagree. -
david_r_fry — 16 years ago(February 13, 2010 09:24 AM)
I'm no expert on cowboys and the old west, but I'm fairly certain, based on what I do know, that this movie isn't even remotely an accurate depiction of life in general, cattle drives, guns, or violence during the time and place of this movie. Nearly 50% of all cowboys, particularly those in the south west were of Mexican/Indian or black ancestry. Most cowboys, if they could even afford a weapon at all, would probably have used a rifle, and if they carried a side arm at all it would not have been so they could use it in gunfights in saloons in towns. I'm not saying that none of them carried guns, but it was probably just organizers of the drive and few of their immediate assistants. Except for very early on all of the long drives were along set trail{ex Chilsom Trail) and there weren't any ad hoc battles about where the cattle could go and graze. Since the kid knew about cowboys and cattle drives obviously the time of the movie wasn't early on. The likelihood that there would be even one gun battle on a trail drive was remote, much less a heated gun battle every day or so like there was in this movie. Also, they were supposedly going to Fort Lewis Colorado, and there wasn't any trail or railroad at Fort Lewis during that time period. Plus the pacifist vs warrior dichotomy this movie tries to portray is just as stupid as the rest of the movie. This movie was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, who makes great entertainment, but not much else.
-
david_r_fry — 16 years ago(February 13, 2010 11:05 AM)
What exactly do you think in my post is incorrect? Most I know for certain is correct. This movie is absurdly inaccurate. If you point something out in my post as as being inaccurate give me a reference for your information or I'm going to assume you're just being ignorant.
-
david_r_fry — 16 years ago(February 19, 2010 12:01 PM)
You should read the posts you're commenting on a little more closely before you create your own post. I didn't say I didn't know much about the cowboys and the old west, I just said I wasn't an expert on the subject. I didn't say most of the cowboys were Mexican/Indian or African American I said nearly 50% were, particularly those in the south west(west texas, new mexico, and arizona). Most of my Mother's family were from S.W. Missouri and had originally settled there in the late 1830s and 1840s in and around Springfield and north to Kansas City. Early on they started running log drives down the Arkansas and Red Rivers to New Oreans because of the large amounts of good lumber created when they cleared their land. It's there that they learned about the lucrative cattle drive business, which at that time was mainly to New Orleans. Many of the next generation moved to central Texas and were among the earliest organizers of the cattle drives. Almost every branch of my ancestry on my mothers side had at least one member move to Texas. These families included the Wilsons, Weirs, Scroggs, Morrills, McCoys, Mitchells, Hoods, and Houstons(differant branch). All these families were involved in one aspect or other of the cattle business, including organizing cattle drives. Those families all considered themselves Southerners, fought in the Civil War for the South and had slaves. They used their slaves to drive their cattle to N.O. then connected backup up with relatives in S.W. Missouri just before the Civil War and drove their cattle there. Then after the Civil War they continued to use mainly freed slaves to do the day-to-day dirty work for another generation. So basically you don't know what your talking about. I think your relatives are the revisionists.
-
phillipsdan83 — 6 months ago(October 01, 2025 04:04 AM)
The Gary Grimes character just simply isn't cut out to be a gunfighter. He flunks the basic manhood test for the 19th Century by leaving Culpepper's cattle drive in the first place…you finished what you started. And he'd already seen and participated in enough violence to realize he had no taste for it, so he should have realized that there was nothing HE could do to help the squatters. The other four trailhands were professional gunfighters who'd been made to swallow their pride by the rancher, so they may or may not have come to their aid even without the boy. The Grimes character only truly grows up when the squatters decide to move on without burying the dead first.