Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Art Vandelay Broken Arrow is a bit of a precursor to Dances With Wolves and I don't mean that as a compliment. You've got your Indians being portrayed as human beings rather than savages. You've got whites portrayed as clueless bumblers and interlopers. You've got a pathetically painted white woman portraying the Indian love interest. You've got bad dialogue stiffly delivered. You've got narration for half-wits who can't follow the story. And you've got beautiful photography and exciting action sequences. Jimmy Stewart delivers his lines so indignantly and earnestly the words come across as a first-semester term paper from a co-ed at Arizona State University majoring in Southwest American studies. The love angle is cringe-worthy. I almost barfed when they kissed. If you want to learn about Arizona native tribes visit the Heard Museum in Phoenix. If you want to get an eyeful of Sonoma, go visit it in person because it's even more beautiful in real life than on film.

JohnHowardReid Although generally regarded as a trail-blazer in treating Indians sympathetically, "Broken Arrow" was far from the first. That honor belongs to Kit Carson (1903). Similar sympathetic studies include Pioneer Days (1907), The Call of the Wild (1908), The Justice of the Redskin (1908), The Redman and the Child (1908), The Red Man (1909), A Red Man's Love (1909), The Redman's View (1909).We could continue, year by year, but it is sufficient to say that "Broken Arrow" was the 411th Hollywood film to depict Indians as major screen characters. It's not even true to state that before "Broken Arrow" most westerns treated Indians unsympathetically. A minority did regard Indians solely as bloodthirsty savages, but I stress these films were in the minority. They were, however, much more influential than their representation because they were generally big-budget attractions like Red River (1948), Unconquered (1947), They Died With Boots On (1942), Kit Carson (1940), Northwest Passage (1940), Geronimo (1940), Drums Along the Mohawk (1939), Union Pacific (1939), Stagecoach (1939), Allegheny Uprising (1939), Wells Fargo (1937), The Plainsman (1936). What we can say is that "Broken Arrow" was the first of the postwar "A" westerns to cast Indians in a more tolerant and understanding light, to present them as emotional human beings with cultural and religious identities. As such, the movie stands up remarkably well. Of course we are still burdened by the twin conventions of white actors impersonating Indians and all speaking beautiful English (though James Stewart's off-camera commentary at least makes an attempt to explain this latter problem away). All the same, Chandler does bring a charisma and a dignity to his role, whilst Debra Paget — forsaking all her usual mannerisms — is astonishingly convincing. Stewart of course is his usual capable self. And he is backed up by a solid support cast. "Broken Arrow" is less sentimental and has far more action than I remembered. Both action and dialogue scenes are staged with great competence by Delmer Daves. When all's said and done though, it's the marvelous locations, superbly captured in great Technicolor images, that stay in the memory.

sddavis63 What a refreshing western! I'm not generally enamoured of the genre, but what really struck me in "Broken Arrow" was the portrayal of the Apache people. If you sit down to watch a western, you expect a pretty clear-cut black and white divide with no grey areas: the Americans are good and the "Indians" are bad. End of story. And yet, back in 1950, this movie was made in which the Apache are portrayed as an honourable people. The story pulls no punches - it doesn't shy away from noting that most of the problems between natives and settlers was caused by "the white man" and the Apache (and especially their leader Cochise) are quite willing to sit down and talk peace if they can find a white man they trust to do so with. That white man turns out to be Tom Jeffords, played by James Stewart.Stewart was very good in this role. Jeffords is not an innocent. As he makes clear he's been involved in battles with the Apache in the past, but somehow he comes to realize that there has to be a better way, and he sets out to arrange a small gesture that would show that peace was possible - he meets the great Apache chief Cochise (played by Jeff Chandler) and he convinces Cochise not to end the war, but just to let the US Mail through. That's all. Just a gesture. Cochise agrees, and as the movie portrays, the Apache adhere to the agreement scrupulously. Military convoys are still attacked, but mail carriers are allowed through unmolested. In the midst of it all, Jeffords meets a young Apache woman names Sonseeahray (Debra Paget) and falls in love with her, eventually marrying her - an inter-racial marriage that would have been difficult in 1870 when the movie was set, and probably would have still caused angst among some in 1950 when it was made!Stewart and Chandler were both very good in their roles. Obviously, Chandler was not an Apache but he somehow captured the essence of the character of Cochise and was believable in the role. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Paget. Frankly, she just came across to me as a white actress whose skin had been bronzed in a weak attempt to make her look like an Apache. But the movie as a whole was very interesting. The producers made a real effort to portray Apache customs and rituals, and the choice to have everyone speak in normal English rather than having the Apache speak in broken English was welcome to me. The point was made near the beginning of the movie that in scenes involving the Apache, the language being spoken was really theirs, but it would be in English for the viewers. I thought this was a very good movie, quite progressive for its time in its portrayal of the Apache and their customs. (7/10)

calvinnme ...but this was a very fine Western, and I don't even like the Western genre particularly well.James Stewart plays Tom Jeffords, an ex-army soldier, scout, and now someone who is panning for gold in Apache country. He comes across a wounded Apache child and heals him, but he doesn't leave Apache country before he comes upon a war party. When they learn he isn't somebody who takes Apache scalps and that he helped one of their own, they let him go but warn him not to return. This teaches him that the Apache can play fair. He decides to learn their ways and language from an Apache in town, and sets out on the dangerous mission to meet Cochise, leader of the Apaches, and to try to slowly build peace between the Apache and the Americans, who are trying to settle Arizona after the Civil War - that is if he survives his first encounter with an Apache scouting party, who just might kill him for the sake of the Apache and Americans being at war.I don't know how accurate this film is historically, but there is some fine acting, action, suspense, and even a touching Anglo-Apache romance. Although the idea of Jeff Chandler as Cochise, who usually played beefcake roles over at Universal, seemed somewhat laughable to me at first, his performance rings true. So true, in fact, there was a kind of sequel where Chandler again played Cochise and Jay Silverheels again played Geronimo.Maybe this film had Jeffords as a kind of "loyal American loner" to speak to issues larger than just that of the history of which this film deals. As a loner Jeffords could see the problem more objectively than somebody with a large extended family and network of friends that could influence him against the reasoning of his own mind. With the Cold War in full swing and the civil rights era just beginning in America at the time it was made, maybe this film was trying to speak for the equality of all people and against the mentality of the mob. I think that's why so many Westerns were made in the 50's and 60's. There was the interesting story on the surface, but there was also the dealing with tricky social issues just under that surface that society wasn't quite ready to face in a direct manner yet.