Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

dialog_create I enjoyed the movie, it's good entertainment. I have to compare the movie to older westerns rather than newer movies that try to be super realistic. If you compare this with movies made up through the 1970's then it's good. Somewhere along the line people started demanding more accurate historical movies, and I do appreciate authenticity and accuracy. This movie at least gets me asking questions to find out the real story... isn't that what movies do well in the first place? Those reviewers who criticize the movie as "propaganda" are looking for realism. They are also looking for "propaganda" so they can get upset about "left-wing Hollywood", and forget that movies are first entertainment. This movie is dark and brooding at times and takes you along with it. The only complaint I have is definitely the ending where they have "Victoria" surrounded and he surrendered, his soldiers were kneeling with the rifles above their heads in surrender. All the buffalo soldiers had to do was disarm them and the climactic scene following at the end would never had happened. It made no sense, not because it was "propaganda", it just was a silly ending. But Hollywood is full of silly endings that have no political bent...sorry, I just don't get that twist. Sure the movie makes you think and tries to put you in the shoes and times of the Buffalo soldier and it can go over board, but so do most movies especially military movies where they try to make "heroes" and "villains" out of regular people...just to drive the story. That's what happens here.

buiger For TV standards this was a good, well made film.Basically, the makers of this motion picture lost an excellent opportunity to make a great film, which would not have required too much more, The camera was very good, the sound also (allbeit the soundtrack is a little overly melodramatic). The acting was also very good, especially for television standards, and overall the film gives a very realistic impression. Unfortunately it could have been much better. Just the ending alone destroys most of the good impressions made during the movie. Why on earth did they want to depart from the historical facts in order to engage in creating a situation so absurd that not even a 5 year old kid would believe it. All for the sake of political correctness? But this is ridiculous! How stupid do they think the viewers are? If you only do as much as look up the Indian wars in Wikipedia, you will find that "Encounters with the Indians usually resulted in skirmishes; however the 10th engaged in major confrontations at Tinaja de las Palmas (a water hole south of Sierra Blanca) and at Rattlesnake Springs (north of Van Horn). These two engagements halted Victorio and forced him to retreat to Mexico. Although Victorio and his band were not captured, the campaign conducted by the 10th successfully prevented them from reaching New Mexico", not that they sat down with the Indians, had coffee, talked about it and then let them go! It just doesn't make sense. Why destroy a perfectly good movie with nonsense like this?In other, the character development is far too simple, too one-sided for this to be an "important" movie. All in all, good made for TV fare, but unfortunately nothing more.

gazineo-1 "Buffalo Soldiers' is an average western/adventure entry that tell a story about a troop in the U.S. Army after the Civil War exclusively for black soldiers. Based on this historical point, the movie is concerned with some crucial aspects of these arrangements: the bad treatment that was given to the black soldiers by some of the white officials, the evident absurdity of serve in the U.S Army, die for the country and not receive an equal treatment and some other minor stuffs. 'Buffalo Soldiers' tries to do that without lose the sense of adventure and action along the way. Here, the success is just mild. Sometimes, you feel that the dialogs are a bit too dialectical, too political, to be really natural. And the ending is a bit too unreal, maybe, especially when one considers the shape of conscience of the sergeant-major, played by Danny Golver. All considered, that is not a bad movie. But its commitment to discuss aspects like freedom, self-conscience, compassion and respect for the Apache culture, weighed the movie a bit too heavy. Good performances all around, especially Carl Lumbly as the scout named Horse.

parky-2 An interesting tale of the Indian Wars. Glover carries the movie as the taciturn n.c.o. still on the receiving end of racism from so called fellow officers .An Indian renegade is on the loose and the US cavalry need to hunt him down and capture or kill him to make the west a safer place The film is a pleasant way to spend an evening not too challenging or provocative, but compelling and compassionate. The rapport between the troops is perhaps too nineties but in essence it is amusing.An interesting counterpoint to the movie Geronimo where the Indians were less one dimensional